Wachowski Brother- Director of ''Matrix Reloaded' [Not the Married One] In Process of Changing Sex

The Hot Button ^ | Week of May 30-June 6 2003 | David Poland

[ewing]

I have been chewing over a very personal story about a very private person who is involved in a very public business and a very successful movie franchise.

To paraphrase a person who is better than I, these are the mometns that define us.

Unforunately these are the momnets that define the entertainment business overall.

Every indication I have that is Larry Wachowski is changing his sex.

Dressing in public as a woman, taking femal hormones and yes having a sex change operation.

[Woahhs]

It proves that a person with XY can still be a woman.

That was never at issue, or even questioned, and you know it. You are simply dissembling now as it must have finally seeped into you mind that Jamie Lee Curtis example does more to DISPROVE your contention than support it. Even though she's genetically male, she still functions as a woman. Exactly opposite your original contentions.

So what am I suppose to refute about the URL you posted?

[Paul C. Jesup]

That was never at issue, or even questioned, and you know it. You are simply dissembling now as it must have finally seeped into you mind that Jamie Lee Curtis example does more to DISPROVE your contention than support it. Even though she's genetically male, she still functions as a woman. Exactly opposite your original contentions.

That statement above makes absolutely NO sense. It is complete double-talk/word salad.

So what am I suppose to refute about the URL you posted?

Go to the website, read it and point out what you disagree with it.

[Woahhs]

That statement above makes absolutely NO sense. It is complete double-talk/word salad.

It makes perfect sense. You just lack the intellectual integrity to admit it, or the intellectual capacity to follow it.

You are saying, in effect, Jonathan Pollard bears no responsibility for betraying the United States by virute of the fact he is genetically more like the average Israeli than the average American.

It doesn't work that way.

If he wants to become an Israeli, all well and good, but he was born, raised, and aculturated as an American. There was no genetic imperative for him to act in the best interests of the Israeli government instead of the American: he just wanted to.

Similarly, Jamie Lee Curtis was born, raised, and aculturated as a female. Why? Because she's female!

The only reason the genetic argument appeals to you is it allows you to dismiss critics by challenging them to chase down an esoteric rabbit trail, the broader implications of which you don't even understand.

[Paul C. Jesup]

What the hell does politics has to do with this. You're just nuts. I'm no long going to waste my time repling to your's ravings.

[Woahhs]

Gee? Why does that not surprise me? Refering to that bit on O'Reilly as proof is as laughable as refering to his interview with the guy that swears the media is conservative.

It's all about choices...obviously you don't like people being responsible for their choices, prefering some pseudo-scientific hocus pocus to the manifestly obvious.

I'd still like to know how you think the URL you posted supports your contentions. I read it, and it gives you no support what so ever.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I finally got a response from you.

Good.

Gee? Why does that not surprise me? Refering to that bit on O'Reilly as proof is as laughable as refering to his interview with the guy that swears the media is conservative.

Perhaps he was commenting on Rush, Fox News in general and Free Republic. :p

O'Reilly is as arrogant as they come, but his sources and guests (barring the socialists) are usually top-notch.

If you actually watch O'Reilly you would know this.

It's all about choices...obviously you don't like people being responsible for their choices, prefering some pseudo-scientific hocus pocus to the manifestly obvious.

I love it when someone is responsible for their actions. But there are reasons and motivations to someone's actions. That is something you don't seem to understand.

You talk like what Larry Wachowski is doing is a crime.

What I think is all Larry is doing is taking care of a problem in Larry's life.

I'd still like to know how you think the URL you posted supports your contentions. I read it, and it gives you no support what so ever.

If you had ACTUALLY read my statement (post 59 of this thread), you would have noted the link I pointed out to you supports PART of my statement, the part dealing with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

Here is the part of my statement I am talking about.

And sometimes hormones completely ignore the chromosomes and someone who's chromosomes are XX can be completely physically and mentally male. While someone who's chromosomes are XY can be completely physically and mentally female.

You fuss, fuss, fuss about wanting something that supports my post, and I point a link and point out a interview on O'Reilly that supports parts of my post and you fuss even MORE.

At this rate, if I posted links to support all of my statement to you, you would become a flaming troll.

So here some advice. Get a life and stop worring about other people's lives.

[Woahhs]

Ya know, the really tiresome thing about carrying on this discussion with you is you lack the acumen to critically evaluate your own opinions. My initial post to YOU was neither harsh, nor adversarial. I mearly pointed out your explaination was conjectural...to which you threw down the gaunlet in challenge.

If the findings were anywhere near as cut and dried as you presented them the story would be getting more air than Laci Peterson. Like an eye-witness at an emotionally charged crime-scene, you're allowing your mind to fill in the gaps of what actually occurred until it makes a nice, smooth, philosophically pleasing version of how this phenomenon should be understood.

I finally got a response from you. Good.

You've been getting responses from me all night. That you couldn't answer them is another matter.

O'Reilly is as arrogant as they come, but his sources and guests (barring the socialists) are usually top-notch. If you actually watch O'Reilly you would know this.

I do watch O'Reilly on a VERY consistent basis. The author I was refering to was Eric Alterman, and he was there to shill his book "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News." As with just about every guest Mr. O has on his program, Alterman was there to provide controversy.

I hate to break this to you, but O'R's stock-in-trade is controversy. He calls it the "No Spin Zone" for a reason...obviously he provides the audience with examples of "Spin" for him to stop.

The point is, showing up on O'Reilly is no more guarantee of objective validity than showing up on a game show is a guarantee of winning.

But there are reasons and motivations to someone's actions. That is something you don't seem to understand....What I think is all Larry is doing is taking care of a problem in Larry's life.

No one questions the existence of "reasons and motivations." The question is "are they good and valid ones?" You obviously think they are, and that's fine. My objection is to your specious reasoning as to why they are good and valid.

You hypothesize some exotic genetic rationale that is only tangentially related to the biology you cite. While Jamie Lee Curtis is living proof that if it walks like a girl, talks like a girl, and swims like a girl: it's a girl. Your rationale is like saying a bicycle is a differently developed motorcycle. While the two share some conceptual similarities, they are as different as a pencil and a copy machine. Larry needs to spend less effort trying to become a girl, and more on trying to figure out WHY he's not satisfied with being a man. He's obviously outfitted with a "man suit." Compulsive hand-washers need to find out what they're so affraid of, not cut their hands off to keep them from getting dirty.

Which brings me to another point. Why is your "brain" hypothesis more compelling than an actual "body?" Answer: it's not, you just like it better. It gives you the ability to avoid conflict with some really twisted people.

If you had ACTUALLY read my statement (post 59 of this thread), you would have noted the link I pointed out to you supports PART of my statement

I did read it. And while the subjects ARE conceptually,and tangentially related as I said earlier, that is not proof of causality. Pollard's betrayal was an act of volition, not the result of some hidden genetic imperative bubbling to the surface. Just like Larry.

someone who's chromosomes are XX can be completely physically and mentally male. While someone who's chromosomes are XY can be completely physically and mentally female.

Ya, that really supports your statements. You seem to have some weird "balance of the Universe" concept that allows you to believe that once in a while, a clock comes from the factory, not only broken, but broken in such a way that it runs BACKWARDS. That notion may appeal to your sense of balance, but it never happens due to the nature of why clocks run.

You fuss, fuss, fuss about wanting something that supports my post, and I point a link and point out a interview on O'Reilly that supports parts of my post and you fuss even MORE.

I always do that when offered wooden nickles. You pointed things out alright, they just didn't support what you claim, and you're to dull to realize it.

Well maybe not THAT dull. You have started weaseling out of your original dogmatism by sneaking qualifiers like "some" and "parts" into your prattlings.

So here some advice. Get a life and stop worring about other people's lives.

Ya know, I'll do that...just as soon as you quit expounding on the practical applications of the concept of yin and yang on genetics out or your copy of "The Idiot's Guide to Zen."

Quit trying to stereotype me pal; you're not smart enough.

[Zavien Doombringer]

So, can you argue this to all the non-Christian freepers out there, or will you simply fall back on the "even if you don't believe it, the Bible says so!" argument favored by Islamic radicals (only substituting "Koran" for "Bible")?

I do not argue the Word of God. Fall back on what? The fact that there is a God whether anyone BELIEVES it or not? You can BELIEVE the Sky is pink with yellow clouds for as long as you want, still doesn't change the fact that it is blue with white clouds. Believing in something for 30 years doesn't make it truth. As any Red Sox and Tiger fans...

NO, I do not argue, I know scripture to be fact. Historically, spiritually and verbally!

(Dons on Flame retardant suit) End of discussion.

[Zavien Doombringer]

The deformities could certainly be considered mistakes.

To us, they would be. But the reality of it is, imperfection, not a mistake. Man created these imperfections, through sin. Once sin entered the world, we became corrupt. As sad as it seems to us, those born with deformities(what we see as abnormal) is "normal" to them. The children grow with the ability to survive with thier condition. They never knew our "normal". Instead of making them comform to our world thinking, we must conform to those. The deformities were even in Jesus's time.

[Question_Assumptions]

I personally don't think that God meddles in the minutia of existence by default. As such, I think the question is whether God is cruel because he allows deformed children to be born, not whether God creates deformed children. And I think that deformities and other misfortune are part of the milieu that makes us what we are. The thought experiment of imagining a world that knows for certain that God exists and what He wants or the thought experiment of imagining a perfect world with no misfortune or deformities suggests that these sorts of worlds would not be a preferable alternatives, much in the way that "nobody ever makes a mistake and everybody always wins" would render most competitions, sports, and games unbearably boring and pointless. It is no mistake that it is the bored and affluent like bin Laden, who would normally have few risks or challenges in his life, seek out danger and trouble. And I also think the mistake that many Christians make is that they don't seem to imagine that God could take the hand you are dealt into account when judging how you are doing or how you did.

But my point remains. These children are not "mistakes" in the sense that they are any less valuable or worthy of life than any other child.

[Question_Assumptions]

Note that I wasn't specifically commenting on all sex change operations. I have mixed feelings on the subject and I can certaily see where people with ambiguous sexual characteristics might want to shift one way or the other, for example. But in this case, we are also dealing with rumors of a dominatrix, divorce, and a lot of money which suggests that this might not be so simple.

[MediaMole]

So, a handicapped child is a mistake. Should they have been aborted? Improvement of the species and all that.

I'd like to see you tell a group of handicapped children they are God's Mistakes.

[Under the Radar]

Actually, Mr. Jesup, trotting out Jamie Lee Curtis "proves" nothing. If one wanted to wage an anecdote war with you, one would then cite Pat Califia, former lesbian activist, now gay male therapist. Califa is a perfect example of someone with extreme psychological problems, who has used gender re-assignment to remain socially deviant, now that being simply gay is blase. “He” is certainly one who has managed to conquer any natural inclinations in the desire to serve intellectual and social pursuits. One could then, using this example, argue that it would be as easy for others to subsume their innate desires for a social purpose.

The theory you cited above is interesting, and, as I understand it, the leading explanation for the transgender phenomena. However, it is still just a theory, and, since it is in an area of high controversy, proper skepticism is necessary. This is still an emerging area of science, and nothing is known definitively.

[TheAngryClam]

Well, while that may satisfy you, it certainly won't convince many other people.

To each their own, however.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Well, while that may satisfy you, it certainly won't convince many other people.

It isn't my job to convince, but to just tell. It's up to the individual what to believe and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

To each their own, however.

Yes, we can leave it at that. (Extends hand for handshake)

[Paul C. Jesup]

OKAY FOR THE LAST TIME!! I DID NOT SAY THAT!!

I was repling to someone who claimed God was perfect.

Stop sending knee-jerk replies to me and take the time to read the posts on this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Actually, Mr. Jesup, trotting out Jamie Lee Curtis "proves" nothing.

Don't put words in my mouth. And take the time to actually read the posts on this thread.

I think you need to talk too SauronOfMordor, he is the one who posted info on Jamie Lee Curtis.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You’re the one here who posts only conjecture. Your posts have had no substance in them, just attack, attack, attack.

Go crawl back under your rock troll.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Hmmm ... was that him impersonating Miss France last night ?

HAHHA! You saw that too! YIKES man, that was terrible.

I had the same thought. Miss France looked like a man.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Man is the one that brings deformities and sickness into the world. That is the way he likes it.

Man is not responsible for the Creation. Man is responsible for enough things, though, without having to blame the Creation on him.