Transgender merry go round, go round, go round, go round...

The fight against the transgender merry go round, go round, go round...
go round, where anyone can get on and off at will.
I am opposed of trans folks who practice daily life as males, retain male priveledge, male pay scale, retain their male names and refuse to adhere to HRT (hormone replacement treatment) and any form of transitioning, having legal status to use the women's restroom.
We must keep out part time cross dresser's, who live a males, out of the women's restroom.
Not for any reason and not for any particular reason, other than the emotional comfort and stability of preteen and teen age girls, for their peace and tranqulilty.
And be damned anyone who wishes to deprive me of my view points.
There is plenty of leeway across the nation for those who need to transition to female, to bring mind and body as one gender, male to female to use the women's restroom, as hundreds of thousands of transsexuals have proved in the past 40 years alone. What else needs to be proven? What else needs be? Nothing.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day...
is for Veterans, who sacrificed their lives for the country, not paid as civilians who do these things for pay and prestige and of free will or of foolishness and risk their lives. Memorial Day is for our fallen veterans. Please don't disrespect their only day with reverence to others, who are honored by their own. There's no equal to serving your country in the military.
I also want to speak for the untold who have died early in combat, without the longivity to obtain glorified credentials with awards such as Bronze Star, Silver Star, and the Navy Cross and others that are mentioned frequently. Heroism is happenstance, falling victim to the circumstances and the many are hard pressed to do the only thing left to do that others are unable to do. With no means to lessen their service, I lift up those who are not less, but without the scrambled eggs, and vain decorations. Many did not get their decorations until after they paid the dear price and that is why they are vain decorations, a cheap piece metal with a small peice of cloth which all would gladly trade to live again.
In the field soldiers are all one, share water, their last can of crackers and aid anyone they are serving next to. In the bush there are no glorified "Special Forces", Supermans, John Waynes or distinctions between soldiers, no rivalery, we are all on the front lines. We all bleed red and that fact when in combat weighs above all else that was learned stateside. The man next to you knows he can be deader than you in a instant no matter the name of his unit and without two legs that patch of insignia has little meaning. I have heared the words from those as they were loaded on a chopper and they would not please the ears of those who claim to be the staunchest patriots. But, they are the true patriots, not by word but by deeds.
I post my memorial for my high school friend, Roy Howard, who died on an evening mission two weeks incountry, as an E-3, without all the glory of decorations but not without hymns, as the angels brought him home. His decorations were awarded posthumous. Ironically I served in the same province a year later, Quang Nam.
I also post a memorial to Col. John A. Dowd, commander of 1st Battalion 7 Marines, 1st Marine Division who served in the bush with us, fought along side of us and shirked not his dutes as a Marine fighting soldier. He and his radio man at the time, myself, walked immediately behind the point man on operations which he did not have to do and many officers did not. He was a Marine's Marine and gave his life living as a soldier not as Quanset Hut commando of which he surely could have more often than not. Col Dowd is buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

Silken Butterfly

I am violated. I am, as she's been raped, my secret crevice unclothed. My nakedness revealed unto all, spread across blood lines, one unto another. They reveling in their own fantasies like birds of prey about me, picking small grains out of cow pies today, soiling their own spirit scratching in manure, dirt becomes their feet, then sitting on a wire and squawking unto one another, stories from the deep. Scurrying along in their minds picking up the filth they can dream up from their depths, of wonder, "is this his folly or is this her folly", while laughter's echo rummages through her mind, "maybe that, or is he or she, does this or that“, indulgence questions from a deep dark vat? What is it, to take intense pleasure and satisfaction in the quiet confines of the secret whispers, balancing their judgments, preparing executions? Scorn or forgiveness, love or hate or toy with her until our pleasures return to us, another date. This is when they can feel like gods, decisions on another’s fate. Cast into the never lands, beat with the staff of Moses, or shod in the chains of their love to be whipped on another day. She is as prey, jostled in and about their feeling frenzy, tossed to and fro as each takes a turn with her, pieces float to the depths. Before too long, perhaps, they will continue on, in search for more prey, while she's left to pick up her pieces, patching her bleeding soul from her breeched confines. Wounded, her spirit limps, to carry on, as she embrace another day, in search of boundary’s to pamper her wounds if she may, dressed with crepe's of fuchsia and silken bindings, until wings of silken butterflies can carry her away.

I grew a breast when I was fourteen

I grew a breast when I was (0.00 / 0)
around 14 years old, a pretty lil "B" cup after it was full grown. I didn't like it and then again, I did like it but some people gave me a hard time over it. I, for the most part, I ignored it as though it was "the way nature grew me", and by the time I got out of the military, I began to really enjoy having it once I was free from parents and "authority" so I could dress female at will. But it added to the confusion and the misunderstanding of my identity, of who I was.
Finally, when I got sober and was in rehab I decided to have it removed because I wanted to stop all my "bad habits", and I did, except I learned that dressing as a female was more a part of who I was inside than it was on the outside, i.e. my breast and hairless chest. The removal of my breast tissue did not do what the scripture helped me to do, have my breast made normal for a male. I continued to be me, a person who identified as female and I continued to dress as a female even though I cursed myself and hated myself for doing such things after which I felt I failed as a male by doing so. I always was compelled to dress and be female. So if I had had some therapy and knowledge, (the internet has been a miracle for helping me with knowledge and understanding of my personality), I probably would not have had my breast removed and now would have two breast in equal size, now, a tragedy, since my left breast won't grow because of scar tissue.
But I do believe the scripture has meaning but the proper understanding must be applied to a person, not the body, and not just to appease society, of which I was a victim. I will have my body altered to fit who I have always identified as, female, for I know that that is the person that God made when he made me, that person inside. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit and the two are completely different entities.
I will have my body altered to female which is no less than other physical corrections performed by the medical profession for the congurence and comfort of human beings. That is the purpose of the medical profession, to relieve discomfort to human beings and in following the scripture that says "physician, heal thyself", I will do just that if the Lord should will. It is only that I could not be honest with myself and others in my understanding when I was presenting as male on the outside, when in fact I began living a double life, at preteen in secrecy and once grown, I pursued it all the more and found my man, with whom I retained a relationship for 30 years. I continued to be fearful of my image should anyone find out and remained in the prison of the closet only until four years ago.

Gender Paradox

What anyone looks like...
on the outside has nothing to do with what is truely inside. I belive and think that people should be allowed and commonly accepted in society if one feels they want to wear fabric commonly and formally of different gender and as in behavior and manner. How many suffering transsexuals might be relieved of the misery I suffered living in a mental and gender paradox. Children could slowly and over time find their way to their true self-actualization without selfish pushing or prodding of others ambitions and wishes for their destiny. The conclusion of one's identity would not be hampered by the confusion and reflux of the many today who enjoy an occasional bent or reflection of something different. Let these paths not be confused but well defined lest we cause the same effect at the other extreme of the pendalum, the confusion of living in a mental and gender paradox, lest we subject children to the same that we have suffered on this extreme. Let us strive to let these be.
And thus, is what I will do...

Why I say what I say

Thats why I say what... (0.00 / 0)
I believe and what I think. If I'm "out" of the closet, I'm out of the closet.
I sometimes wish or think maybe I should have used an anonymous here at Pam's, but, right or wrong, I stand for what I am and only by meeting the enemy face to face will I truely have effect, on society and those around me. Let their vision not be blurred nor their eyes confused, lest they go away in disbelief. Let me reward evil with good that I should lend a good report.

Employment at Will

ACLU Briefing Paper Number 12When the United States became a nation more than 200 years ago, theFounders formulated a Constitution that structured the new society asa majoritarian democracy. They later added a Bill of Rights toprotect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. But in the 18thcentury, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, thegovernment was viewed as the only major threat to individual rights.The Founders could not have imagined back then that, one day,concentrations of corporate power would exist on a scale rivalling,and in some cases exceeding, governmental power.Today, most Americans are more vulnerable to having their rightsviolated by their employers than the early Americans were to havingtheir rights violated by the government. Yet because the Constitutiondoes not limit their authority, private employers are free to violatethe civil liberties of their employees. Nationwide, the AmericanCivil Liberties Union receives more complaints about abuses byemployers than about abuses by the government:* In California, a job applicant was denied a job because he refusedto answer questions about his sex life on a "psychological test." Atleast million job applicants are required to take such tests everyyear.* In Pennsylvania, an employee was fired because he pointed outserious safety defects in his employer's products At least 200,000Americans are unjustly fired every year.* In Indiana, an employee was fired because she smoked cigarettes inher own home. At least 6,000 American companies now attempt toregulate off-duty smoking and other private behavior.The ACLU believes that such abuses can only be prevented byextending, into the private workplace, the protections guaranteed inthe Bill of Rights. Certainly, we recognize that employers have everyright to expect workers to do their jobs. But employees are alsoentitled to the same freedoms on the job that they enjoy off the job.Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by thepublic about the rights of American employees.If the Constitution doesn't apply to the private workplace, whatdoes?The vast majority of American employees, of whom there are 100million in all, are governed by a doctrine called "employment atwill." This doctrine, a relic of 19th century anti-labor laws, givesemployers the unfettered right to fire workers at any time, for anyreason, whether grave or frivolous. Indeed, one can be fired for noreason at all. An estimated 200,000 employees at least, are unjustlyfired in the United States each year.It is the prevalence of the employment-at-will doctrine that empowersemployers to impose unwarranted urine tests and intrusive"personality" and "integrity" tests on their employees. The power tofire at will permits employers to suppress their employees right tofree speech.Are there any laws that protect employees' rights?There are federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination againstindividuals on the bases of race, religion, sex, national origin, ageand disability. However, these laws require only that employees betreated equally. Employers are, therefore, free to do whatever theywish to their employees as long as they do so in a non-discriminatorymanner.A few other federal and state laws provide some protection againstspecific abuses, such as urine testing, polygraph testing andretaliation against whistle blowers. But these laws are extremelylimited. The fundamental human rights of free expression, privacy anddue process are still largely unprotected in the American workplace.Does the employment-at-will doctrine apply to all employees?No. There are three broad categories of employees who are notgoverned by employment at-will:Government employees: Federal, state and local government workers areprotected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit thegovernment from depriving any person of "life, liberty or property"without due process of law. These employees are considered to have aproperty interest in their jobs, and the right to due process placessignificant restrictions on arbitrary dismissals unrelated to job performance. Some additional protection is provided by federal,state and local civil service laws.Union members: Virtually all collective bargaining agreements betweenlabor unions and employers stipulate that unionized employees can befired only for just cause, and only after a hearing before a neutralarbitrator. However, less than 20 percent of American workers belongto unions today, since union membership has been declining for years.Contract employees: Senior executives, performers, athletes and someother well-situated employees, whose numbers are so small as to beinsignificant, work under individual employment contracts thatprovide protection against unjust dismissal.What can be done about the problem of unjust dismissals?The ACLU believes that the outmoded and unfair employment-at-willdoctrine should be abolished. Over the years, the many attempts madeto challenge employment at-will in the courts have produced a fewnarrow exceptions to the rule, but these exceptions have helped veryfew of the people unjustly fired from their jobs. The ACLU and otherorganizations advocating employee rights are actively promoting instate legislatures, model statutes that encompass the following basicprinciples:* Employees can be fired only for just cause.* "Just cause" means that: the employee's offense adversely affectedhis or her job performance; the rule or standard violated by theemployee was known to the employee; and the infraction was seriousenough to warrant termination.* Every employee faced with termination is entitled to a hearing thatincludes the right to confront witnesses, the right to presentevidence, the right to have adequate representation (either an attorney or other type of counsel), and the right to an impartialdecision maker.Can employers legally search their employees' lockers, desks andurine looking for contraband?The Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of citizens from"unreasonable searches and seizures," gives some protection to publicsector employees against their employers' prying eyes. In general, agovernment employer cannot search the person or belongings of anemployee in the absence of any suspicion that the particular employeehas done something illegal. With respect to urine testing for drugs,however, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government employeescan be required to take such tests, even if the employer does notsuspect drug use, if the person's job is "safety sensitive," orinvolves carrying weapons or having access to classified information.

Private Sector employees, on the other hand, have virtually noprotection against even the most intrusive practices. In all but ahandful of states, an employee can be required to submit to a urinetest even where nothing about the employee's job performance orhistory suggests illegal drug use. If the employee refuses, he orshe can be terminated without legal recourse. Employees can besubjected to "sniff" searches by dogs and searches of their lockersdesks, purses, and even their cars if they park in the companyparking lot. Both job applicants and employees can be required toanswer extremely intrusive questions about their private lives andpersonal beliefs on "psychological," "personality" and "integrity"tests.The advent of computer technology has made possible even moresophisticated forms of spying in the workplace. More and moreemployees are being subjected to electronic surveillance throughvideo display terminals, observation by hidden cameras installed inwork areas and locker rooms, and monitored telephone calls. With fewexceptions, these increasingly widespread practices are legal.What can be done to protect the privacy rights of employees?The ACLU believes that both state and federal legislation should beenacted to extend privacy rights to private sector employeesIn recent years, some positive strides have been made. In 1988,Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which endeddecades of "lie detector" abuse in the private workplace. The Actoutlaws most random and pre-employment polygraph testing, which inpast years had led to an estimated 300,000 workers per year beingbranded liars.Several states--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, RhodeIsland and Vermont--have enacted legislation that protects employeesfrom indiscriminate urine testing. Two states -- Massachusetts andRhode Island--restrict paper and pencil "honesty" tests. Connecticutis the only state that has a law prohibiting "electronicsurveillance, including video surveillance, of any area designed forthe health and comfort of employees or for safeguarding of theirpossessions."The ACLU has developed model statutes to protect employees fromunfair urine testing and electronic surveillance and is activelylobbying for their passage in state legislatures throughout thecountry. The ACLU is also urging Congress to amend the EmployeePolygraph Protection Act to cover so-called paper and pencil"integrity" tests.Can employers discriminate on the basis of employees' lifestyles?One of the emerging issues in the American workplace is the attemptby employers to control certain private habits and proclivities oftheir employees that have no relationship to job performance. Fatpeople are victims of lifestyle discrimination and a growing numberof companies are refusing to hire smokers--even those who smoke onlyin their homes. A few employers exclude people with high cholesterollevels, or high blood pressure, and those who engage in such riskyhobbies as scuba diving and hang gliding. Others impose lifestylerestrictions: One Oregon company bars workers who fail to participatein the company's exercise program from attending company picnics; aPennsylvania company prohibits its managers from riding motorcycles!The driving force behind this trend is economics. Employers concernedabout the escalating costs of employee health insurance areattempting to cut costs by firing and/or refusing to hire peoplewhose lifestyles appear to place them at risk of illness or injury.But if reducing health care costs is accepted as a legitimate reasonfor employers to regulate the off-the job conduct of their employees,then virtually every aspect of our private lives could be subject toemployer control. This would be Big Brotherism at its worst.What can be done to prevent lifestyle discrimination?The ACLU believes that, just as legislation has been needed toprevent other violations of civil liberties in the workplace,legislation is also necessary to prevent lifestyle discrimination.Just as federal, state and local laws exist to prohibit employmentdiscrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion and, insome places, sexual orientation, new laws are needed to protectagainst discriminatory practices based on employees private lifestylepreferences and habits.At this writing, 15 states have enacted laws that restrain employersfrom prohibiting legal activities as a condition of employment. Forexample, Colorado law makes it "a discriminatory or unfair employmentpractice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employeedue to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off thepremises of the employer during nonworking hours...." Other statesare considering bills that prohibit employment discrimination basedon off-duty smoking. The ACLU supports these efforts.Should employers ever have the right to discipline their employees?Absolutely. Employers have the right to expect an honest day's workfor a day's pay. They have the right to expect that their workerswill not be drunk, drugged, or too fatigued to perform their jobs.They have the right to set performance standards, and to expect thosestandards to be met. They also have the right to discipline anddismiss employees for just cause. Even if all the protective lawsdescribed in this briefing paper were passed in every state,employers would still retain the right to discipline and dismiss anyemployee whose job performance was lacking.But wouldn't recognition of liberties in the workplace damage theAmerican economy?There is no conflict between free enterprise and civil liberties inthe workplace. Free enterprise should not be taken to mean thatevery corporation is a sovereign republic unto itself, whose only lawis the whim of the current CEO. Employers must be free to decidewhat products to make (or stop making), what factories to operate andwhere to locate those factories, what prices to charge, and how manyworkers to hire. But they can make such decisions without tramplingon their employees' rights to free speech, privacy and due process.The fact is that employers in most other Western industrializednations, as well as in Japan, are required by law to respect therights of their employees. Nonetheless, those employers' businessessurvive and prosper. Moreover, several American employers includingsome of the nation's most successful corporations, already guaranteetheir employees' civil liberties without affecting the bottom line ofprofits. Those employers believe that respecting employees rightsboosts morale and, thus, raises corporate performance.It is ironic that the United States, with its long professed respectfor individual rights, has not yet extended Bill of Rightsprotections to the largest remaining group of forgotten citizens --American workers. It is time to right that wrong.-----from The American Civil Liberties Union132 West 43rd StreetNew York, N.Y. 10036(212) 944-9800