- Assuming that everyone acts (or CAN act) on their beliefs is silly.

- Equating that inaction with not really holding the belief is also silly.

That I have to actually state as much, or make the distinction between abstract thought and concrete action is, like, silly *squared*. Way above the FDA recommended amount of silly.

The manners thing was enlightening. Hope everyone has a great day.

@ARKIZZLE:

I want to see if I'm *truly* understanding what you wrote before I reply to it.

What you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is one of two things; either:

- I don't honestly believe what I say I do, or

- I walk the earth constantly acting in accordance with every single opinion I hold.

In other words, you're telling me that people in this conversation find it impossible (or unnecessary) to think that things and people might be a tad more complicated than that, and therefore, its okay to reply with invective aimed at a person's character if that person holds an opinion you don't like.

Is that about the half of it? Yes/No/Maybe?

@ARKIZZLE: "it was that on a message board, you only have your comments. We are not privvy to the machinations of your thoughts, or indeed, how you act in day-to-day life."

That's what *I'm* screaming.

"We can only respond to what you type."

Were that this were truly the case. From my perspective, it does not appear to be the case.

@Takuan: "here,most especially,voice in conversation IS acting"

Wow.

So if I told you that I think the speed limit is illogical, and made a bunch of arguments about why I think its silly and unnecessary, and was passionate about those arguments... that's the same thing as speeding, to you? Really? If I were to say that, you'd have no problem believing that I break the speed limit as a matter of compulsive routine? And that there are no other reasons besides "hypocrisy" that might cause me to act in a different way?

Huh. That's something.

@Teresa: "WorLord, if you have a wife and friends, then you must have manners undreamt-of in all your philosophies."

There is sometimes a vast gulf between what I think (and voice in conversation) and how I act.

I thought that was more common than it seems to be.

@Teresa:

"If I have time, I may have a few words to say about your later comments."

I think you could have saved yourself a bushel of time if you would have read the later comments before you posted. While I appreciate your taking the time to say what you did, someone else (towards the end of the thread) already beat you to the punch and explained things in a way even I could understand. To wit:

1) When it comes to Manners, the only rule that counts is mob rule.

I've learned other things, too, but they all flow from this one apparently axiomatic and sacrosanct social law. Examples:

- Manners aren't subject to logic or reason, and don't have to be, becasue they are not created or designed to appeal or stand up to ether; they exist to preserve a positive emotional state in other people.

- On the flipside, it *is* logical and reasonable for me to employ manners, and do what other people ask no matter what I thnk about it, becasue the alternative is a good old fashioned social hangin'.

- All it takes to be branded an ill-mannered $negative_adjectvie is other people announcing it is so; past or present actions or words, either in cyberspace or in real life, seemingly have little to do with it.

And finally, this last scrap of education that you seem to have taken particular joy in pointing out to me:

- There is something *dreadfully* wrong with me (and anyone else) who may have lived long enough to express age in double-digits without having either an instinctual or aquired understanding of the above.

...which is not something I'm disagreeing with. Really. Honestly. I can only express my sorrow for ruffling feathers with my unpopular (= "wrong" + "offensive", see rule #1) views, and admit that it is entirely likely that I was not well socialized in my youth... or, at *very* least, not nearly as well-socialized as you seem to have been.

You're probably thinking that I'm being a smartass or simmering with loathe right now. Reading this over, I don't blame you; my sentiments don't seem to be translating as well in writing as I'd hoped. All I can do is *assure* you that I'm being as honest and forthcoming and free-from-snark as I can possibly be under the circumstances. All of this actually *is* something of a revalation to me, and though it does indeed seem that I am ill-mannered (thus "wrong," see #1), I think I can take what I've learned above and at least get to a point where I can maybe work on my artiface and get to a point where - like everyone else here - I can at least simulate being awesome if I can't actually *be* awesome.

Lesson learned, point taken, horse beaten. I have felt the wrath of posters and now moderators and see the error of my ways.

On the other hand, I do disagree with you on one thing:

"If you're holding out for that special someone who'll always love you just the way you are, you can kiss the fantasy goodbye. That person was your mom, and your age was still in single digits. No one else is going to do that for you."

This is flatly incorrect, and I can prove it: even *I* have friends, and a *wife* of many years. They aren't many, but they are all quality folk who are similarly good-natured (not that you'd believe it) and (apparently) as ill-mannered as I am, and who demonstrate on a daily basis that they are the sort of folk who DO love me just the way I am - even into my thirties.

So maybe instead of spending time instructing me to abandon that "fantasy," you should invest in attempting to find it yourself.

@TAKUAN: All I can do is assure you that I am very serious, and do not have malign intent. I have returned sarcasm with same, but I am earnest and serious in what I've been saying.

@Elorin:

"I've never felt that manners and politeness were unreasonable, although they are certainly arbitrary."

I don't see that the two can coexist without running at cross purposes. I've always seen Arbitrary as something about as far from Reason as it gets.

My only problem with this whole idea, really, is that people are different and hold different things to be offensive or uncomfortable. It makes the idea of figuring out what is or is not (objectively) rude an impossible game with moving goalposts.

It also makes me understand the anger trans people have a little less. If everyone knows that these rules are arbitrary and get crafted on the sly to deal with new situations, than certainly, it goes without saying that it is going to take the rest of the culture some time to catch up with a particular corner of manners.

But that's a whole bunch of junk I have to think about on my own. Thank you for taking my thoughts seriously and giving a considered and well-thought out reply (or two). It has cleared some things up.

@Noen: "your trolling here is done"

How cerebral. The old 1998-vintage "dissenting opinion = troll" trick. Just when I thought it'd been lost to the sands of time. Good to see a classic still in play.

@Elorin: "Rude vs. polite, and manners in general, are very arbitrary and depend upon our culture. When a new situation arises then the new "rules" and manners dealing with the situation will be just as arbitrary." ... "Who gets to decide when personal questions are rude? THE PEOPLE YOU ARE ASKING"

I... see.

I guess Noen gets his wish. I don't see a way I can continue discussing a point that is, apparently, inherently unreasonable and apparently arbitrarily generated by a committee I've never met.

"But now that you have been told, you probably won't thoughtlessly indulge such curiosity by asking a stranger such intimate questions in the future."

Assuming I did so in the first place, which is utterly incorrect. But whatever.

@Sophia Girl: “Wanting to go about your life without constantly being bombarded with personal, sometimes demeaning questions is *not* an unreasonable sense of entitlement.”

I think it is, _considering the circumstances_. It is a justifiable sense of entitlement - in a perfect world, I agree one should be able to go through one's life unquestioned - but I *also* see it as unreasonable because it simply isn't a realistic expectation to have in these situations. If its not a realistic expectation to have, its not a reasonable expectation to have.

“Your analogy is way off. Transsexual people made the choice because it was absolutely necessary for the sake of mental health.”

Telling me that one particular modification is done for a different reason than another does not show that the analogy is "way off".

“A more accurate analogy is to look at someone who clearly has the scars of having undergone surgery for a cleft lip.”

Great! Works for me, let's go with that.

“It would be rude to ask them personal questions about that”

Would it? Why? No one I know _with_ a cleft lip has ever said or implied such, and I'm more inclined to believe them over you.

“and it is rude to constantly prod a transsexual with personal questions.”

Fine, except I wasn't talking about "constantly prodding" anyone over anything.

“Constantly bombarding people with very-personal questions *is* treating them as less.”

Again, the discussion was not about “constantly bombarding” anyone with anything. Having said that: asking someone questions is in no way “treating them as less,” and I cannot possibly imagine the roads you took to arrive at that conclusion. People ask questions because they are *interested*.

Punching someone in the face is treating a person as “less,” and should you rail against that, I'll be right there with you.

“If you every go around asking genetic-women personal questions about their genitals”

Again, this particular line of thought simply *does not work* - not metaphorically, not realistically, not in any way at all. Schools teach about genetic-women's genitals in biology. Those aren't an anomaly; those aren't uncommon; there isn't much of a way to avoid getting this knowledge, unless you drop out of school, and even then. It simply *isn't the same situation* as someone who has a brand new set of surgically created genitals (something educational facilities usually do not generally teach *anything* about.)

“After all -- that's what manners are all about - suppressing what would otherwise be an instinctual reaction because you are aware of the fact that it's just plain rude.”

Except that I *don't* know that its “just plain rude;” in fact, I don't think it is, and I don't see that anyone here has shown it to *be* such. Repeating the assertion is not some sort of support *for* that assertion.

I think what's going on, is that some people have arbitrarily decided it is rude, despite the unrealistic nature of that decision; and further, I think these people exist in a perpetually annoyed and angry state because the rest of the known world doesn't just belly up and go along with that arbitrary decision as a somehow “obvious” conclusion. Which is, I think, a bad idea if one wants to foster an environment of understanding and growth.

@JJasper: Your third paragraph is more a reflection of how the non-TG crowd in this conversation have been treated. It it is exactly that condescending, look-down-your-nose, "STFU! RTFM! Suck it up, n00b" attitude that I am _protesting_, because it doesn't do anyone on _either side of the fence_ any good.

Yr mrtyr cmplx s nwrrntd, mndrng, nd bsd th pnt. Gt ff f yr crss. skng qstns s nt th mrk f "ttl jckss," bt trtng ths qstns (whch, gn, r rsnbl rctns t th nq) nd th ppl wh sk thm wth bttrnss, snrk, nd hlr-thn-th tttd _s_.

I agree with you in one thing: having privilege (or more privilege than some) doesn't grant one the right to be a jackass; but you know what, neither does having a hard life that leads to making unconventional decisions. Perhaps if everyone stopped treating behavior they don't immediately understand as some kind of offensive salvo, life would be better for everyone.

@Antinous:

"Worlord, How big is your dick? Are you cut or uncut? How big are your nuts? Can you post a link to pictures of your genitalia? My natural curiosity is piqued. Since you've made it perfectly clear that rude curiosity must be indulged, we're all waiting for the details."

- Btwn 6.5-7", dpndng n stt f rsl. Frly thck.
- Ct. 'm stll nnyd bt tht, bcs f gvn th chc, wldn't b.
- Hnstly? Thy'r prtty lrg. t mks byng pnts dffclt, bcs wht fts vrywhr ls strks m s... r, _cnfnd_ n th frt-bskt rgn.
- ...y knw, t dsn't strk m s bynd th rlm f pssblty tht my gntl r nln. Hwvr, wldn't knw whr lnk s.

Is there anything else you'd like to know? Unlike some, I don't completely shit the bed or create some bogus social standard of "rudeness" when faced with an inquiry. When do I get my "I can inquire" card?

(As an aside: Your analogy is poor and does not follow logically, considering that my penis is standard issue and not a new arrival. But, I've a feeling you knew that, and were just being dense and offputting.)

"@Dr. Benway: The problem here isn't curiosity. Nobody saying you aren't allowed to be curious. The problem here is entitlement. Transgendered people, just for making a very personal life choice, are not obligated to educate you or satiate your curiosity. You are not entitled to personal information about them."

I agree, in theory. In practice is where I think this falls completely apart. I don't think I'm amiss in saying that you, too, have an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

Transgendered people have indeed made a life choice, and usually for _personal reasons_. That, we agree on. But I balk at alling it a very _personal life choice_. It isn't personal; in fact, what is arguably the largest part of it is very _public_: one now goes out into the world, to interact with the public, as a member of the opposite gender. Like the analogy involving the prominent and enigmatic tattoo on the forehead (which may _also_ have been done for personal reasons), the choice itself ceases being "very personal" when it is visible, through or on top of clothing, from across the street.

Look, I'm down with anyone changing his/her gender (or getting a piercing, or new breasts, or [insert_mod_here]) in order to further his/her sense of self, or belonging, or identity or happiness, or even (and especially) for the heck of it. I won't treat anyone differently for that, and I certainly won't treat anyone who does any of those things negatively. I am vocal in my condemnation of anyone who would treat someone as less because they saw fit to modify themselves.

But I do think it needs to be said that a person who does something like this doesn't automagically have the right to expect the rest of the human race to suppress what is a near-instinctual reaction. You don't get to re-write the basic rules of human nature. It is madness to expect people to be blase about something that is, for most of them, a very visible and radical alteration. It is _going_ to raise eyebrows and inquiries. It is _going_ to grab comments from, as a poster said, "drunken frat boys".

And just because its not a reaction you, personally, welcome, doesn't give you the right to deem an expected and natural reaction as "rude" or "lacking in tact". (Excempting, of course, edge cases like frat boys.)

Not everyone is a TG; not everyone knows one, and not many people are going to spontaneously "look it up;" and honestly, I'm not sure putting the onus on everyone else is the correct path towards harmony and acceptance.

(The poster Antinous especially embodies this sense of entitlement. My only response is with reactions like that, its small wonder that people shy away or become "rude". Your post was also beside the point, because google and wikipedia are great with handling "what" and "how," but not so much with handling "why".)

I am finding the round and unanimous condemnation of the "curious" in this thread (Robert, in specific) to be somewhat unrealistic and undeserved.

Let's face facts:
- TG people *are* uncommon
- The change is a prominent and visible one
- The decision to transition is not one that is understood by a great many people
- People tend to fear (or worse, react badly towards) that which they do not understand

So, obviously, the correct course of action here is to brand the inquisitive as somehow backwards or evil, and deny them the ability to seek education from those most qualified to disperse it?

"You're curious? Tough!" is, in my opinion, completely inappropriate, unrealistic, and discourteous in its own right. It assumes that there is some kind of crime being committed by those who's curiosity is piqued by the sight or presence of the transgendered. Getting angry that other people might show some curiosity towards the appearance of such a highly-visible body modification makes little sense; it would be like a person getting angry about having to explain a prominent but enigmatic forehead tatoo.

Such attitude is, to my eyes, irrational. Certainly, I would think that the only *sane* expectation *would* be curiosity, possibly inquiry, when others are faced with such a visibly distinct body modification. For my part, I don't have to pepper the Tgs I've met with questions, because I was good friends with one long ago who has for the most part answered any questions I might have had. I was informed that with some, it can be a sensitive issue, and from that point forth I have always done my best to use the correct pronouns and treat a transgendered individual as simply another person. But before that point, I didn't know to do so, and I never once felt a flush of shame (nor do I think there is any reason to feel such) with asking questions of a person who has undergone this sort of transformation.

I once asked frankly about the sex life of a man I'd met earlier in the day who informed me that he always sat to pee (due to having a Prince Albert piercing); was that also rude? I don't think so. After all, the man brought it up.

While I understand that it can be annoying and possibly painful to have to field some questions repeatedly, I have to protest the branding of those bearing questions as somehow "rude" or lacking in "tact". Common curiosity is not a fault; keeping everyone in the dark about it is considerably more problematic.