Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!sunny From: sunny@sun.uucp Newsgroups: net.women Subject: re: transsexuals (anti-porn ordinance) Message-ID: <1915@sun.uucp> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 15:15:33 EST Article-I.D.: sun.1915 Posted: Thu Jan 3 15:15:33 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 01:57:27 EST References: <1155@druxt.UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 30 > I am sure that religious moralists did not sponsor this bill. However, > I am not sure that it was sponsored by feminists, either. > > Has anyone noticed that the bill referred, often, to transsexuals? > > It is my understanding that groups that would be called "Falwellite" > (sp?) would prefer to see transsexuals burn in hell, and from her > writings, Gloria Steinham (sp? again) considers transsexuals to be > people who have had their bodies "mutilated" as their "misguideed" > solution to sex role oppression. > > I think that men and transsexuals were covered in this ordinance to: > > 1) be "fair" and protect the other "poor exploited souls" > > or maybe > > 2) to give this ordinance the appearance of being (add your favorite > "nice" adjective here) and more palatable to the widest number of > people. Transsexuals suffer enough of their own personal internal hell without the added hassles which result from their being discriminated against by both men and women. Regardless of the worth of the so called anti-porn ordinance, transsexuals more often have their civil rights violated than either men or women do. Both men and women tend to reject, avoid, ignore, and disapprove of transsexuals, but by far it is men who hassle, harrass, and attack TSs. Sunny... a male-to-female transsexual -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny