In response to the overwhelming judgments of transgendered people by “normal,” aka “cis” people, I do believe that these judgments are a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be transgendered.
I am writing this as a cis female who has known few transgendered people and has educated myself on the deeper stories of who they are. One very notable commonality I have found is that the parents of these folks will tell you that their children have always identified as the opposite sex since they were toddlers.
Now this is not the case 100 percent of the time, as I understand it, but it is a very common trait in transgendered people. They shun the clothing and hairdos and toys of their birth sex, and only seem happy when engaged in activities the opposite sex would enjoy, and when they look in the mirror and can see the girl that they feel they are to the core, even though they were born male. Or vice versa.
This deeply affected me when I learned that this starts for people when they are very young, at their first sense of awareness of self. And just to be clear, I do not think this invalidates people who realize they identify as the opposite sex later in adolescence. I think it takes a long time to know yourself and find your own path sometimes.
And I don’t believe anyone would choose to be transgendered just to be contrary to society. It looks to me like one of the hardest roads a person could walk, and all the hatred and misunderstanding certainly doesn’t help.
Maybe we as a society could open our hearts to these people as being our fellow human beings, regardless of gender identity.
— Lauren Loiacono
17 thoughts on “Letter writer: Judgments of transgendered reflect misunderstanding”
Yup! I have a holy rolling aquatince who’s said; “I have a 6 y/o son! I don’t want a transgender molesting him in a public restroom.”
U can thank religion for all of this ignorance!
The left practices the religion of secularism and it has plenty of ignorance and hypocrisy to compete with whatever “religion” you seem to personally hate.
There are plenty of religious people on the political left, just as there are many non-believers on the right. Ayn Rand and her fellow atheist followers, for example.
Trying to frame all opposition to HB2 as some anti-religious argument is simply wrong.
Huh, someone seems to dislike the idea of the separation of church and state.
Delta is ready when you are, and there’s a ticket to Iran/Saudi Arabia waiting for you at the Asheville Airport terminal.
I hope coach class is ok for you?
Please enlighten us on secularisms plenty of hypocrisy and ignorance…
Should civil rights laws be established at the municipal level?
Civil rights should never be voted on…. The religious shouldn’t be allowed to vote against people’s civil rights… Freedom of religion; is to include freedom from religion.
I take that as a “NO”
Your question is irrelevant “Should civil rights laws be established at the municipal level?”
The issue here is that we have a governor who enacting government over reach; while calling foul on the FEDS for doing the exact same… We have a gov “who knew it was wrong to sign legislation that wouldn’t allow citizens to sue the state for discrimination, but signed it anyway bc he felt rushed.” He hung himself; and secured Coopers win.
If you can’t answer a simple question, perhaps you should stop talking.
“we have a governor who enacting government over reach”
The claim that the NCGA, or “gov,” as you put it, enacted any kind of overreach is false. They did precisely their job; as I explain here:
And so has the federal government…. And so will the Supreme Court…
I see you’re still talking. I feel a warm glow inside.
Sadly we’re seeing your limits of a civilized debate; or in this case a “schooling”.
If he was doing what he was legally allowed to do; why do U suppose the states being sued by the FEDS…, but please spare us your angry white man rant about a Obama-Commi government takeover…
“angry white man rant “?! Where did THAT come from?
Don’t let your emptiness keep you from going on and on.
I don’t understand what the fuss is about. A manly-looking person with a beard and wearing a suit (in transit from female to male) obviously should be using the ladies’ room. And a womanish-looking person with breasts and wearing a dress (in transit from male to female) just as obviously should be using the men’s room. These requirements, if strictly enforced, would not offend anyone’s dignity, place anyone in particular danger, or provoke uncomfortable reactions of any kind. How could they? They simply preserve society’s common sense of what is normal.
Isn’t this what we’ve all come to expect our children to see in a public restroom? Why can’t these extremists show some respect for our traditional values and our way of life?
For those more interested in knowledge than sparkling banter, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-transgender-issues/2016/05/13/eca17dbc-177e-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory.