Deborah wrote:
"As you may or may not know my wife told my 33 year old daughter that I was a crossdresser. Did she need to know? Should I have told her myself?"
Perhaps Deborah's spouse just needed to confide in someone that she trusted about a matter that she herself was not handling well on her own. My spouse is rather just the opposite and is always saying, "that's none of their business" etc. Her personal life, medical history etc., are her business only, she has always been "private oriented" all the time I have know her (35 years).
Mother-daughter relationships often go deeper than father-son, since women (GG) are more emotionally sharing than men are known or thought to be. This provides the "hunter and the gather" relationship that we have all known about for the past xxxthousand years.
I would consider her responce as a "normal" reaction even if there is more behind her disclosing this information to her daughter than thought. Some harbor discontent and anger over finding out about being married to someone as a CD personality.
Hugs
Danielle
Normal vs. Abnormal
Moderators: KimberlyS, CathyAnn
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
-
Shannon
- Founding Member
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:42 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Damn, Alexandra... that was one of the most intelligent and insightful statements I have seen in a LONG time.....Alexandra wrote:How about this: The normal one is a person that sees no differences among humans. The abnormal one is the one that needs to identify and classify differences among humans and draw lines in the sand.
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
[The main thrust of my argument is that the development of certain medical technologies made the advent of transsexualism possible; an essential corollary argument is that these technologies also made possible the contemporary use of the word "gender." As endocrinology and plastic surgery developed, doctors could be more active in their treatment of intersexual subjects; clinicians could intervene at the level of anatomy and physiology to enable their patients to simulate one or the other sex. This ability presented an ethical problem to attending physicians: if medical science had the power to enable an intersexual person to become a male or female person, what factors should the physician take into account in deciding which sex the subject should become? Increasingly, physicians depended upon the patient's sense of him or herself as a sex. As I will show, the idea of a psychosocial. identity in sex was codified in the 1950s as "gender" and that term subsequently developed the signification so powerfully expanded and enriched by feminists of the second wave.
The different entries for "gender" in the two editions of the Oxford English Dictionary suggest these developments. In the first edition, published in 1933, there is no entry for "gender" that encompasses this sense of the psychosocial articulation of, or counterpart to, "natural sex." The closest entry is " 3. transf . Sex. Now only jocular." 30 The examples included for this definition range from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, and all use "gender" as a direct substitute for "sex." In the second edition of the OED , however, there is a "b" section appended to the main entry: "In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes. Freq. attrib." 31 The examples used to demonstrate this usage include examples from feminist scholarship, as well as the clinical literature on gender role/identity that develops from the intersex research in the 1950s (see chapter 3).
The point here is very simple: something happened after 1933 and before 1989 to introduce into the English language a new way of using the word "gender" to refer to sex. I have marked its emergence in the mid-1950s. "Gender" was first articulated (in this particular sense) as part of a medical lexicon that had as its object the treatment of a specific (and small) set of patients -those born with sexually indeterminate genitalia and/or reproductive organs. 32 "Gender," however, has not remained within the medical context in which it was first uttered; nor did its inaugurators intend it to. Part of the appeal of gender identity theory is its contention that all of us have a gender identity and that it is somehow detachable from our sex. "Normal development" is defined as congruent sexual anatomy and gender identity. To be gendered in opposition to one's sex is therefore a problem, despite the fact that sex and gender are, in the context of this theory, analytically distinct.
Cultural feminists portray transsexual behavior (adherence to socially defined gender roles and insistence on surgical and hormonal "sex change" as necessary to live "as a woman or man") as buying into society's gender norms instead of rebelling against them. Implicit in this analysis is the assumption that transsexuals should take their cues from feminists, who, in Raymond's words, have "at least demonstrated that women can break the bonds of 'core' gender identity with the recognition that 'the personal is indeed political.' " 43 Transsexuals, in this analysis, do not acknowledge the social dimension of their oppression and need to look to feminists, who as women overcame the cultural coding of their situation as "personal" to achieve liberation as a group. 44
Yudkin follows Raymond in considering female-to-male transsexuals as tokens. For both authors, the essential reality of the transsexual phenomenon is represented in male-to-female transsexualism. The medical institution, as Raymond describes it, operates on women who wish to become men only in order to make it seem as if the syndrome affects men and women equally. In reality, these theorists believe, transsexualism is about men producing women that more adequately fit male stereotypes of femininity. Transsexualism in this sense represents a backlash against feminism, and female-to-male transsexuals are tolerated because they provide a smokescreen for the truth of the transsexual phenomenon. 45
These feminists also criticize the medical institution for endorsing a medicaltherapeutic model of healing that simply perpetuates rigid gender codes and therefore, the phenomenon of transsexualism. 46 Raymond presents the most extensive critique of the medical institution's role in the "transsexual empire." She writes that "transsexualism has become a favorite child of the medical psychiatric specialists." 47 In her view, clinicians discourage transsexuals from considering their situation politically, and as possible to remedy on grounds other than medical."] end of quote.
A quote from the book, "Changing Sex: Transsexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender", by Bernice L. Hausman; Duke University Press, 1995.
This research book, a study for a completed thesis, did not receive the fair treatment that it should have now that we have advanced this far in our knowledge of gender studies. I find this quoted area of the first chapter worth considering now more than ever.
Hugs
Dr. Danielle Marie La Belle, Ph.D.
[/img]
The different entries for "gender" in the two editions of the Oxford English Dictionary suggest these developments. In the first edition, published in 1933, there is no entry for "gender" that encompasses this sense of the psychosocial articulation of, or counterpart to, "natural sex." The closest entry is " 3. transf . Sex. Now only jocular." 30 The examples included for this definition range from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, and all use "gender" as a direct substitute for "sex." In the second edition of the OED , however, there is a "b" section appended to the main entry: "In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes. Freq. attrib." 31 The examples used to demonstrate this usage include examples from feminist scholarship, as well as the clinical literature on gender role/identity that develops from the intersex research in the 1950s (see chapter 3).
The point here is very simple: something happened after 1933 and before 1989 to introduce into the English language a new way of using the word "gender" to refer to sex. I have marked its emergence in the mid-1950s. "Gender" was first articulated (in this particular sense) as part of a medical lexicon that had as its object the treatment of a specific (and small) set of patients -those born with sexually indeterminate genitalia and/or reproductive organs. 32 "Gender," however, has not remained within the medical context in which it was first uttered; nor did its inaugurators intend it to. Part of the appeal of gender identity theory is its contention that all of us have a gender identity and that it is somehow detachable from our sex. "Normal development" is defined as congruent sexual anatomy and gender identity. To be gendered in opposition to one's sex is therefore a problem, despite the fact that sex and gender are, in the context of this theory, analytically distinct.
Cultural feminists portray transsexual behavior (adherence to socially defined gender roles and insistence on surgical and hormonal "sex change" as necessary to live "as a woman or man") as buying into society's gender norms instead of rebelling against them. Implicit in this analysis is the assumption that transsexuals should take their cues from feminists, who, in Raymond's words, have "at least demonstrated that women can break the bonds of 'core' gender identity with the recognition that 'the personal is indeed political.' " 43 Transsexuals, in this analysis, do not acknowledge the social dimension of their oppression and need to look to feminists, who as women overcame the cultural coding of their situation as "personal" to achieve liberation as a group. 44
Yudkin follows Raymond in considering female-to-male transsexuals as tokens. For both authors, the essential reality of the transsexual phenomenon is represented in male-to-female transsexualism. The medical institution, as Raymond describes it, operates on women who wish to become men only in order to make it seem as if the syndrome affects men and women equally. In reality, these theorists believe, transsexualism is about men producing women that more adequately fit male stereotypes of femininity. Transsexualism in this sense represents a backlash against feminism, and female-to-male transsexuals are tolerated because they provide a smokescreen for the truth of the transsexual phenomenon. 45
These feminists also criticize the medical institution for endorsing a medicaltherapeutic model of healing that simply perpetuates rigid gender codes and therefore, the phenomenon of transsexualism. 46 Raymond presents the most extensive critique of the medical institution's role in the "transsexual empire." She writes that "transsexualism has become a favorite child of the medical psychiatric specialists." 47 In her view, clinicians discourage transsexuals from considering their situation politically, and as possible to remedy on grounds other than medical."] end of quote.
A quote from the book, "Changing Sex: Transsexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender", by Bernice L. Hausman; Duke University Press, 1995.
This research book, a study for a completed thesis, did not receive the fair treatment that it should have now that we have advanced this far in our knowledge of gender studies. I find this quoted area of the first chapter worth considering now more than ever.
Hugs
Dr. Danielle Marie La Belle, Ph.D.
[/img]
Make the most of every day!
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
N O R M A L
Main Entry:1nor£mal
Pronunciation:*n*r-m*l
Function: adjective
Etymology:Latin normalis, from norma
Date:circa 1696
1 : PERPENDICULAR; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally *normal immunity*
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : SANE
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen *normal silver phosphate* c : not associated *normal molecules* d : having a straight-chain structure *normal pentane* *normal butyl alcohol*
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution *normal approximation to the binomial distribution*
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix
synonyms see REGULAR
–nor£mal£i£ty \n*r-*ma-l*-t*\ noun
–nor£mal£ly \*n*r-m*-l*\ adverb
Hello Girls:
We have been down this road before in this thread. But, as usual, I take a fresh approach to such topics that can and have been of great concern to our community and the people that observe us on a day-to-day basis. After all……we all want to be treated as being …..N O R M A L!
There are those that will clearly oppose this idea. Those that will say, “Normal is a setting on my iron.” And of course there is, “what is normal.” After reading the above entry from Webster’s 11th Dictionary update, entry number 4 seems to be the one that we all take to task.
Still, all that anyone really wants is to be accepted as they are. As they present themselves in any given moment. But, for the sake of consideration, let’s take that to task.
Can I just change my manner of dress and presentation and expect what I know to be the majority, to just accept this without question? No! Absolutely not! People are “wired” to question change around them. This natural response to change is what has kept our ancestors from being killed or eaten by other, stronger individuals and animals as well.
One cannot simply go around with a lamp shade on their head and not expect people to point, laugh, question, and wonder about this person that does not appear to be …..Least I say it……N O R M A L!
That just would not be normal for most folks. I know, I tried this experiment and not just some but everyone that made the observation fit this category. A child age 1 ½ up to adult smiled or laughed and asked, “What’s with the lamp shade on your head.”
I imagine I would have gotten the same response that “Mini Pearl” often got with her logo hat and price tag in her many Country Music appearances. It was designed to elicit such a response from the audience. Everyone liked Ms. Pearl and her stage presence such as it was.
But Ms. Pearl was not changing her gender presentation. No, she was only changing slightly, the normal way that a bonnet might be worn by a woman (gg). Notice that I carefully slipped in the word “N O R M A L,” just now. Some may not have even noticed this slight embellishment. It can be a slippery word….that…..N O R M A L.
So, what is normal? Let me step out on a limb just large enough for some with handy chainsaws to cut it off. N O R M A L as defined is…..for humans, one that conforms to a regular pattern of appearance for the give social structure in which one lives. Nudity in a nudist camp. A great example. One would not knowingly go to such a place and not expect to disrobe and blend in with the other residents. Why would we go there and then refuse to undress when that is the very nature of the community. Perhaps we are just the plumber or electrician come to service the equipment. That would be reasonable and an “exception.” Oooops…there I go again… an exception to the currently established stead fast rule…no clothing in the community.
So there are times then that one could say they are normal but are an exception to the community that they are in. Okay! Well, yes and no. People would understand the exception rule for the maintenance personnel in the name of safety at the nudist camp. But, will people accept us as an “exception” to the majority that rule. Hmmm!
So in conclusion then, we are normal for a personality type, but, at the same time, we are not within the expected normal for the social type. The majority of us live in a culture that does not accept directly or indirectly for the most part, cross-dressing of male-to-female or female-to-male for the specific purpose of presenting one’s self as that sex in all matters legal and otherwise.
I carefully use the word “sex,” because we all have argued the point of sex vs. gender being separate. Perhaps what we should debate is the separation between our biological self as presented at birth and the manner in which we prefer to be seen by others.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
[If you draw your sword, be prepared to use it]! Eyeya…on guard!
Main Entry:1nor£mal
Pronunciation:*n*r-m*l
Function: adjective
Etymology:Latin normalis, from norma
Date:circa 1696
1 : PERPENDICULAR; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally *normal immunity*
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : SANE
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen *normal silver phosphate* c : not associated *normal molecules* d : having a straight-chain structure *normal pentane* *normal butyl alcohol*
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution *normal approximation to the binomial distribution*
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix
synonyms see REGULAR
–nor£mal£i£ty \n*r-*ma-l*-t*\ noun
–nor£mal£ly \*n*r-m*-l*\ adverb
Hello Girls:
We have been down this road before in this thread. But, as usual, I take a fresh approach to such topics that can and have been of great concern to our community and the people that observe us on a day-to-day basis. After all……we all want to be treated as being …..N O R M A L!
There are those that will clearly oppose this idea. Those that will say, “Normal is a setting on my iron.” And of course there is, “what is normal.” After reading the above entry from Webster’s 11th Dictionary update, entry number 4 seems to be the one that we all take to task.
Still, all that anyone really wants is to be accepted as they are. As they present themselves in any given moment. But, for the sake of consideration, let’s take that to task.
Can I just change my manner of dress and presentation and expect what I know to be the majority, to just accept this without question? No! Absolutely not! People are “wired” to question change around them. This natural response to change is what has kept our ancestors from being killed or eaten by other, stronger individuals and animals as well.
One cannot simply go around with a lamp shade on their head and not expect people to point, laugh, question, and wonder about this person that does not appear to be …..Least I say it……N O R M A L!
That just would not be normal for most folks. I know, I tried this experiment and not just some but everyone that made the observation fit this category. A child age 1 ½ up to adult smiled or laughed and asked, “What’s with the lamp shade on your head.”
I imagine I would have gotten the same response that “Mini Pearl” often got with her logo hat and price tag in her many Country Music appearances. It was designed to elicit such a response from the audience. Everyone liked Ms. Pearl and her stage presence such as it was.
But Ms. Pearl was not changing her gender presentation. No, she was only changing slightly, the normal way that a bonnet might be worn by a woman (gg). Notice that I carefully slipped in the word “N O R M A L,” just now. Some may not have even noticed this slight embellishment. It can be a slippery word….that…..N O R M A L.
So, what is normal? Let me step out on a limb just large enough for some with handy chainsaws to cut it off. N O R M A L as defined is…..for humans, one that conforms to a regular pattern of appearance for the give social structure in which one lives. Nudity in a nudist camp. A great example. One would not knowingly go to such a place and not expect to disrobe and blend in with the other residents. Why would we go there and then refuse to undress when that is the very nature of the community. Perhaps we are just the plumber or electrician come to service the equipment. That would be reasonable and an “exception.” Oooops…there I go again… an exception to the currently established stead fast rule…no clothing in the community.
So there are times then that one could say they are normal but are an exception to the community that they are in. Okay! Well, yes and no. People would understand the exception rule for the maintenance personnel in the name of safety at the nudist camp. But, will people accept us as an “exception” to the majority that rule. Hmmm!
So in conclusion then, we are normal for a personality type, but, at the same time, we are not within the expected normal for the social type. The majority of us live in a culture that does not accept directly or indirectly for the most part, cross-dressing of male-to-female or female-to-male for the specific purpose of presenting one’s self as that sex in all matters legal and otherwise.
I carefully use the word “sex,” because we all have argued the point of sex vs. gender being separate. Perhaps what we should debate is the separation between our biological self as presented at birth and the manner in which we prefer to be seen by others.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
[If you draw your sword, be prepared to use it]! Eyeya…on guard!
Make the most of every day!
-
Virginia
- Goddess of the Universe
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: Strange Magic Hill
Is it not that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" If you go to the very basic component = homo sapien. Then go anywhere on this "veil of tears" and seek out either/or male or female of this species, all things being equal, you find they all ALL have certain components that set them aside from any other life form on this "third rock from the sun." A head, two arms with attached hands, two legs with attached feet, ten fingers, ten toes, two eyes in the head, two ears one on either side of the head, a nose (usually) above the mouth, both of which are also located in the head, found at the top of the torso. Now, what is normal for a female in physical characteristics begins the variation as well as what is normal for the male in physical characteristics. Of course, you have to throw in skin color, height and weight, then eye color, hair color, but the final product is still what would (in most circles) be considered a normal human/homo sapian and only distinguishable by whether "it" is male or female. This equals "a normal" = acceptable presentation of a human = homo sapien.
Now what then becomes "abnormal" is in the eye of the beholder. They are female/male; they are taller/shorter;they have more/less hair; they have a different skin color; different eye color! Grouping and categorizing by simple physical traits within the very race we admit to being a part of - has been done since we started walking upright I guess.
Dare I ask
what was God's purpose in making us different in physical presentation? Did not God say we are to "love our neighbor as ourselves!" 
I don't remember reading anything about loving or hating those who are 6' tall or are bald or have a set of 44-D's, there was no mention of loving or hating those with a different (abnormal) physical characteristic from "us."
Why can we not crossbreed with other species? I mean, who would not want a "romp in the hay with a 1400 pound polar bear!" and see what that offspring would be???
I am saying that, yes, the human race is advancing both physically and mentally, but some of our race are lagging well behind the curve and it has and probably will always be that way. We = us = CD's; TG's; TS's' T-girls who are BLESSED WITH THE GIFT are on the cutting edge of human development and, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, are the next phase in human evolution.
We are also the pioneers, and you know what happens to the pioneers, be it on the plains of the old west or the throttle jockeys that ride the space shuttle - it's a human characteristic to "go where (sic) no man has gone before" - someone has got to step up and take the arrows.
We're it ladies!!!!! Elizabeth, Steffie, Karen, CJ, Sally, Anita, Melyssa Anne, Jaye, needless to say Danielle and all the rest!!!!
Are we normal? To each other, a resounding YES!
Go forth woman and BE!!!
Just one normal Virginia!
Love you all!
Virginia
Now what then becomes "abnormal" is in the eye of the beholder. They are female/male; they are taller/shorter;they have more/less hair; they have a different skin color; different eye color! Grouping and categorizing by simple physical traits within the very race we admit to being a part of - has been done since we started walking upright I guess.
Dare I ask
what was God's purpose in making us different in physical presentation? Did not God say we are to "love our neighbor as ourselves!" I don't remember reading anything about loving or hating those who are 6' tall or are bald or have a set of 44-D's, there was no mention of loving or hating those with a different (abnormal) physical characteristic from "us."Why can we not crossbreed with other species? I mean, who would not want a "romp in the hay with a 1400 pound polar bear!" and see what that offspring would be???
I am saying that, yes, the human race is advancing both physically and mentally, but some of our race are lagging well behind the curve and it has and probably will always be that way. We = us = CD's; TG's; TS's' T-girls who are BLESSED WITH THE GIFT are on the cutting edge of human development and, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, are the next phase in human evolution.
We are also the pioneers, and you know what happens to the pioneers, be it on the plains of the old west or the throttle jockeys that ride the space shuttle - it's a human characteristic to "go where (sic) no man has gone before" - someone has got to step up and take the arrows.We're it ladies!!!!! Elizabeth, Steffie, Karen, CJ, Sally, Anita, Melyssa Anne, Jaye, needless to say Danielle and all the rest!!!!
Are we normal? To each other, a resounding YES!
Go forth woman and BE!!!
Just one normal Virginia!
Love you all!
Virginia
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!
-
Jennifer M
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Upstate New York
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
Danielle,
En garde!
Seriously, I just want to point out that, if we follow your thinking, you're really discussing the 7th definition of "normal," not the fourth... i.e., "relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution." This is what you're referring to, Danielle, when you say that being normal means to conform "to a regular pattern of appearance for the given social structure in which one lives."
You also (quite rightly) state that it's possible to be both normal and "abnormal" simultaneously when you say that "we are normal for a personality type, but, at the same time, we are not within the expected normal for the social type." In discussions I've had with my father (who made it his job to deal with normality and abnormality), he puts forth a good point when he mentions context. The example he gives is as follows: usually, a 7'2" tall human being would be considered abnormally tall, given the average height of human males. But if we only consider the subset of human males that play pro basketball, a man who's "only" 5'10" tall would be considered abnormally short.
Male-to-female crossdressers aren't normal (according to dear ol' Dad) only in the sense that most males don't dress in the clothing of the opposite sex for sexual or psychological gratification. Those that do so aren't part of a "regular distribution," behaviourally speaking. My father is quick to point out, however, that saying so is not the same as making a moral statement about the status of crossdressing in our culture. Every single person on this forum, for instance, can agree that crossdressing is not "normal" (in the first sense) but we'll find a tremendous range of views as to the normality of crossdressing in the moral sense.
Food for thought.
Love,
CJ
Danielle,
En garde!
Seriously, I just want to point out that, if we follow your thinking, you're really discussing the 7th definition of "normal," not the fourth... i.e., "relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution." This is what you're referring to, Danielle, when you say that being normal means to conform "to a regular pattern of appearance for the given social structure in which one lives."
You also (quite rightly) state that it's possible to be both normal and "abnormal" simultaneously when you say that "we are normal for a personality type, but, at the same time, we are not within the expected normal for the social type." In discussions I've had with my father (who made it his job to deal with normality and abnormality), he puts forth a good point when he mentions context. The example he gives is as follows: usually, a 7'2" tall human being would be considered abnormally tall, given the average height of human males. But if we only consider the subset of human males that play pro basketball, a man who's "only" 5'10" tall would be considered abnormally short.
Male-to-female crossdressers aren't normal (according to dear ol' Dad) only in the sense that most males don't dress in the clothing of the opposite sex for sexual or psychological gratification. Those that do so aren't part of a "regular distribution," behaviourally speaking. My father is quick to point out, however, that saying so is not the same as making a moral statement about the status of crossdressing in our culture. Every single person on this forum, for instance, can agree that crossdressing is not "normal" (in the first sense) but we'll find a tremendous range of views as to the normality of crossdressing in the moral sense.
Food for thought.
Love,
CJ
-
Lydia
- We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:43 am
- Location: Sarasota, Florida
Hi Danielle and CJ,
IMHO, the notion of “normal” has been made unnecessarily complex, indeed, obfuscated. I see two basic definitions of the word: statistical and semantic.
Statistically, the normal equals average, wherein any aspect or characteristic is given a numerical value. The set of numerical values is summed and divided by the number of measurements. Lo ! Here is your normal (=average).
Semantically, the definition becomes much less precise, indeed, blurred. “Normal” becomes whatever the user of the word decides is most usual, appropriate, desirable, or currently acceptable. The additional difficulty is that the listener or reader may define the word differently from that intended by the speaker or writer. Ideally, there should be a prior understanding between the sender and receiver, but, unfortunately, that rarely happens.
I hereby suggest, that the use of the terms “normal” and “average” be restricted to the statistical definition. For anything else, how about that nice average word: “mediocre”.
Hugs,
Lydia
IMHO, the notion of “normal” has been made unnecessarily complex, indeed, obfuscated. I see two basic definitions of the word: statistical and semantic.
Statistically, the normal equals average, wherein any aspect or characteristic is given a numerical value. The set of numerical values is summed and divided by the number of measurements. Lo ! Here is your normal (=average).
Semantically, the definition becomes much less precise, indeed, blurred. “Normal” becomes whatever the user of the word decides is most usual, appropriate, desirable, or currently acceptable. The additional difficulty is that the listener or reader may define the word differently from that intended by the speaker or writer. Ideally, there should be a prior understanding between the sender and receiver, but, unfortunately, that rarely happens.
I hereby suggest, that the use of the terms “normal” and “average” be restricted to the statistical definition. For anything else, how about that nice average word: “mediocre”.
Hugs,
Lydia
"There comes a time ... when you must grasp the bull by the tail and face the situation."
-
Jennifer M
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Upstate New York
My last post on this subject didnt say alot. I had to absorb it all, it really has me thinking, I guess thats a good thing. As I see it everything appears different relative to the comparison being made. Someone 5 feet ten inches is short for a basketball player, but tall compared to one who is only four feet 5 inches.
I come to the conclusion that I must accept what is normal for me. It is normal for me to enjoy cars and be a crossdresser. Therefore to deny part of what is normal for me should then be abnormal. As far as averages or what others consider normal I will try not to spend too much time worrying about it. This life as a bi-gendered person is really tough enough.
I realize it is important to consider other peoples feelings, and to be safe. I am learning that I need to take care of myself. Isnt that what everyone is trying to do. Maybe that is whats normal.
I come to the conclusion that I must accept what is normal for me. It is normal for me to enjoy cars and be a crossdresser. Therefore to deny part of what is normal for me should then be abnormal. As far as averages or what others consider normal I will try not to spend too much time worrying about it. This life as a bi-gendered person is really tough enough.
I realize it is important to consider other peoples feelings, and to be safe. I am learning that I need to take care of myself. Isnt that what everyone is trying to do. Maybe that is whats normal.
Understand the voice within
-
Stephanie W
- Miss Golden Goddess
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:57 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Normal..... .....that which does not arouse suspicion. .....that which does not conform.
I prefer to see normal as being 'in the eye of the beholder', not necessarily something that can be quantified. As long as every individual sees the world through their own psychological filters, normal (and abnormal) will forever remain a moving target.
I'm happy being normal and happy being me. If others choose to disagree, then I challenge them to prove their own normality.
Stephanie
.....that which does not arouse suspicion. .....that which does not conform. I prefer to see normal as being 'in the eye of the beholder', not necessarily something that can be quantified. As long as every individual sees the world through their own psychological filters, normal (and abnormal) will forever remain a moving target.
I'm happy being normal and happy being me. If others choose to disagree, then I challenge them to prove their own normality.
Stephanie
-
Sally
- We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:33 am
- Location: N.S.W. Australia
normal v abnormal
I saw this answer once to the question of what makes a person normal, and it cuts it for me.
“Statistically it would be someone who meets all the standards of society according to the most common happenings, BUT, finding someone who fits ALL those standards would be so rare that it would make them abnormal.”
As far as I’m concerned what I do is quite normal for me because it’s what I do every day and how I live my life makes me a happy person, how I choose to dress and portray myself is what helps maks me the happy person I am. Those years of my life where I was ‘forced by society attitudes’ to live a life which was abnormal for me personally, were the unhappiest and worst years of my life.
Evolution has been going on for 4.5 billion years and each couple of generations noticeable changes take place. Much of society is still living by the ‘rules’ which were laid down generations ago by those political and religious leaders who set themselves up as ‘the standard to live by’ and if you lived outside those rules then you were labeled as living an abnormal life. I have no doubts that these rules and standards were set at the time by those leaders with the intention of people living better lives in a controlled environment, and presumably living better lives, but times change, people change as evolution continues on. Times are changing to where more and more people refuse to live ‘in the darkened closet’ and referring to the mix of people who make up this forum, well what we do is normal for us because it’s simply what we normally ( read.. usually do on a day to day regular basis) do and how we live our lives
With most adjectives, you can play around with their meanings endlessly and go round and round in circles and end up where you began ( normal = usual and usual = normal etc). If we’re going to get into the taxonomy of classification of groups then it becomes a no win situation because in biology each group is sensitive and typical to that particular group, and what is normal, common, usual or typical for that group is not necessarily NORMAL for the next group. Live and let live. See what I mean? So I don’t dwell on things which are insignificant to my day to day life. Life’s way too short and was meant to be enjoyed and the clock keeps ticking. It’s normal for me to wear a dress and walk around as a female and as long as I’m not hurting anyone then so what, it’s not an ignominy, we should be proud of who we are because that’s how it is for us. Dare I say it? yes I do, we usually do what we do because it’s normal for us. ...now getting back to the meaning of Normal, well.............
Kind Regards,
Sally.
“Statistically it would be someone who meets all the standards of society according to the most common happenings, BUT, finding someone who fits ALL those standards would be so rare that it would make them abnormal.”
As far as I’m concerned what I do is quite normal for me because it’s what I do every day and how I live my life makes me a happy person, how I choose to dress and portray myself is what helps maks me the happy person I am. Those years of my life where I was ‘forced by society attitudes’ to live a life which was abnormal for me personally, were the unhappiest and worst years of my life.
Evolution has been going on for 4.5 billion years and each couple of generations noticeable changes take place. Much of society is still living by the ‘rules’ which were laid down generations ago by those political and religious leaders who set themselves up as ‘the standard to live by’ and if you lived outside those rules then you were labeled as living an abnormal life. I have no doubts that these rules and standards were set at the time by those leaders with the intention of people living better lives in a controlled environment, and presumably living better lives, but times change, people change as evolution continues on. Times are changing to where more and more people refuse to live ‘in the darkened closet’ and referring to the mix of people who make up this forum, well what we do is normal for us because it’s simply what we normally ( read.. usually do on a day to day regular basis) do and how we live our lives
With most adjectives, you can play around with their meanings endlessly and go round and round in circles and end up where you began ( normal = usual and usual = normal etc). If we’re going to get into the taxonomy of classification of groups then it becomes a no win situation because in biology each group is sensitive and typical to that particular group, and what is normal, common, usual or typical for that group is not necessarily NORMAL for the next group. Live and let live. See what I mean? So I don’t dwell on things which are insignificant to my day to day life. Life’s way too short and was meant to be enjoyed and the clock keeps ticking. It’s normal for me to wear a dress and walk around as a female and as long as I’m not hurting anyone then so what, it’s not an ignominy, we should be proud of who we are because that’s how it is for us. Dare I say it? yes I do, we usually do what we do because it’s normal for us. ...now getting back to the meaning of Normal, well.............
Kind Regards,
Sally.
Watch nature, because it’s our greatest teacher, it moves and flows and moves on again. We can never be free until we disengage, so allow life to flow as you find it. The way it is, is the way it is.
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
Hi Girls:
I learn a great deal from those that take the time to reply to a thread that I have an interest in.
A recent report on a business study came to the conclusion that one person, by themselves, brainstorming for new ideas, cannot be nearly as effective if you have 4 – 6 people working on the same solution.
Even if the majority of ideas are thrown out, typically, one or two remain viable and are often adopted and implemented by the solutions team. One of my observations here is that we did not solve the complex issue that can be best demonstrated in this next sentence.
What is a woman (gg) to think when she discovers (you) in the next stall? Will “she” rely on what “she” thinks is “normal and not so normal?” And if so, then, is she not going to be reliant on the “majority thought,” when described as “normal?” My point is that we often define “normal,” within the context of “legal.” What is legal is then considered “normal.” What is not legal is considered aberrant behavior for example. Not normal or within the confines of the law, acceptable.
We have defined normal in our own terms as a justification for our behavior. That is well and good. But, that is not the judicial system that most of us live in day-to-day. That system takes what we consider normal and declares it an aberration in nature or at best, aberrant behavior on a social level. Perhaps not something that by itself can be used to convict and incarcerate but certainly, something that can be used to a degree to discriminate against.
My how a six (6) letter word such as “normal,” can be manipulated and directed successfully to attest to our own “normalcy.” Unfortunately, words turn into actions bear me out. History so far has not been too kind or accepting of our nature. Natural or otherwise.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
I learn a great deal from those that take the time to reply to a thread that I have an interest in.
A recent report on a business study came to the conclusion that one person, by themselves, brainstorming for new ideas, cannot be nearly as effective if you have 4 – 6 people working on the same solution.
Even if the majority of ideas are thrown out, typically, one or two remain viable and are often adopted and implemented by the solutions team. One of my observations here is that we did not solve the complex issue that can be best demonstrated in this next sentence.
What is a woman (gg) to think when she discovers (you) in the next stall? Will “she” rely on what “she” thinks is “normal and not so normal?” And if so, then, is she not going to be reliant on the “majority thought,” when described as “normal?” My point is that we often define “normal,” within the context of “legal.” What is legal is then considered “normal.” What is not legal is considered aberrant behavior for example. Not normal or within the confines of the law, acceptable.
We have defined normal in our own terms as a justification for our behavior. That is well and good. But, that is not the judicial system that most of us live in day-to-day. That system takes what we consider normal and declares it an aberration in nature or at best, aberrant behavior on a social level. Perhaps not something that by itself can be used to convict and incarcerate but certainly, something that can be used to a degree to discriminate against.
My how a six (6) letter word such as “normal,” can be manipulated and directed successfully to attest to our own “normalcy.” Unfortunately, words turn into actions bear me out. History so far has not been too kind or accepting of our nature. Natural or otherwise.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
-
Virginia
- Goddess of the Universe
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: Strange Magic Hill
This sort of continues the thought process..............CNN was doing a program tonight with Paula Zahn about when or how someone knows that they are gay or lesbian. The PhD from California said it "appears" the operative word being appears that most know from birth so that would lead science to believe that (my words - we/they are born that way). The counter came from a Dr. at (I believe Univ of Neb.) who said "there is no gay gene!" I was screaming at the TV "and you know that because??????????" That is what we are up against. One side, the "normal side" is saying, the "results are not in......" it is still being studied, while the other side, the "abnormal" side if you will, has already passed judgement that "it is a choice, after birth." and (sic) the wrong choice.
One of the good things about this "debate" although it was limited to gays and lesbians, it points out that first, science does not know, but it is questioning the whys and wherefores, thus (and we all know that within the TG/TS/CD arena we do exist), that if, IF science does find the elusive "gay gene" then surely there must be at TS/TG/CD gene, something that makes us the way we are. ------------- THE NEXT PHASE IN HUMAN EVOLUTION!!!
Any debate, especially on current issues on live TV that addresses anything (in keeping with this thread although taking certain poetic liberties) "Normal vs. Abnormal" can only help our cause. So that when we dress and go out to either blend in or confront the "great unwashed" that more and more of the "abnormal" folk know that we do exist and that we are part of their world like it or not and although they may not like it or still don't accept us there is less chance that they will confront us! I can handle "them" looking and just shaking there head in either disbelief or disapproval. It is when their ignorance physically conflicts with my normality that trouble arises.
Keep the faith ladies we be the normal ones --------- they be in for an education!
Love ya,
Virginia
One of the good things about this "debate" although it was limited to gays and lesbians, it points out that first, science does not know, but it is questioning the whys and wherefores, thus (and we all know that within the TG/TS/CD arena we do exist), that if, IF science does find the elusive "gay gene" then surely there must be at TS/TG/CD gene, something that makes us the way we are. ------------- THE NEXT PHASE IN HUMAN EVOLUTION!!!
Any debate, especially on current issues on live TV that addresses anything (in keeping with this thread although taking certain poetic liberties) "Normal vs. Abnormal" can only help our cause. So that when we dress and go out to either blend in or confront the "great unwashed" that more and more of the "abnormal" folk know that we do exist and that we are part of their world like it or not and although they may not like it or still don't accept us there is less chance that they will confront us! I can handle "them" looking and just shaking there head in either disbelief or disapproval. It is when their ignorance physically conflicts with my normality that trouble arises.
Keep the faith ladies we be the normal ones --------- they be in for an education!
Love ya,
Virginia
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
A B E R R A T I O N
Main Entry:ab£er£ra£tion
Pronunciation:*a-b*-*r*-sh*n
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin aberrare
Date:1594
1 : the fact or an instance of being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state
2 : failure of a mirror, refracting surface, or lens to produce exact point-to-point correspondence between an object and its image
3 : unsoundness or disorder of the mind
4 : a small periodic change of apparent position in celestial bodies due to the combined effect of the motion of light and the motion of the observer
5 : an aberrant individual
–ab£er£ra£tion£al \-shn*l, -sh*-n*l\ adjective
Hi Virginia:
I abhor using this word because of the connotation that one might get from the no. 1 entry for this word. “moral standard or normal state.” Not to even mention no. 3…”unsoundness or disorder of the mind.”
But, in general, we do use this word to describe those characteristics of a human that are not found directly in the majority. When we wish to point out various discrepancies that at first light may not be so obvious, a chosen word such as aberration is applied.
Homosexual and heterosexual men are only different typically in their personal preferences with regard to social attention. Outside of that, they appear and act for the most part rather similar. Unlike the stereotyped individual that we see in the movies or television, people are just people.
If I use the word “different,” then I am describing someone that differs from another. A specific alteration of their being…i.e., I have a third eye in my forehead, I am different than the majority.
I could say that this is an aberration from the majority or an exception from the majority. In any case, within the human genome, this would be considered quite rare indeed. But, as we see how words can be used and are used to describe a condition, we too use words with some deliberate meaning to discriminate, punctuate, and punish those that we do not deem fit to be included in the description of “normal” for the human race.
I have been fond of using the word, “aberration,” and now, having looked the word up in Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary (CD-PC-Windows), I am sorry that I used it in such a manner. I always thought of it as a positive alternative to other words.
We are all different. What do teenagers do. They try to be different while being the same. We say that they are trying to “find themselves.” Someone that does not know of our culture might not understand that statement. So, words and their meanings can become a greater threat than the concept.
There is no “gay gene.” There never was. What there is, for the most part, is mild differences that appear every so often in the construct of humanity. My spouse has what she calls, “twin toes.” Two toes joined at the base about half way up. That is a genetic trait passed onto her from her father’s side of the family. That is in genetic code.
No one wants to use the word “aberration,” as it implies an error. A defect if you will. Gay people simple have a “difference” about them that is constructed in the mind. It is not genetic. It cannot be passed on down in a family. That is why in most studies, people find that those of this persuasion are random. Just as people in the TG family are random.
Genetic properties where successfully described by “Friar Mendel’s pea plants which focused on 7 specific traits.” Mendel referred to traits as “atoms,” (what we now call genes). Dominant genes and recessive genes could be passed on to its progeny and appear somewhere down the line of succession.
This is traceable. This can be documented in a family tree. Typically being gay is not traceable down through the family tree. This is where that word, “aberration,” comes in to play and has been used with much intention to malign those individuals that are gay or TG for that matter. Well meaning people use the word as I have in the past to mildly infer that someone is different, not bad.
A really simple example here. Tomatoes by their natural construction, when they fall from the vine, an enzyme is released immediately inside the tomato to start the process of decay inside out. This permits the skin to act as a sealant and the seeds are protected until such time that the tomato collapses on the ground under it's own weight. The liquid has had time to soften the soil so the seeds can implant themselves and a new vine grows.
Scientists have figured out a way to stop the enzyme process in tomatoes so that with this minor genetic alteration, they last long in the store. It in no way alters the food chemistry. Only the starting of the rot process. This same process has been accomplished with strawberries allowing them to be shipped all over the Country and still be good for human consumption for the next few days after arrival in the store.
That is genetic traits and characteristics in a nut shell.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
Main Entry:ab£er£ra£tion
Pronunciation:*a-b*-*r*-sh*n
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin aberrare
Date:1594
1 : the fact or an instance of being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state
2 : failure of a mirror, refracting surface, or lens to produce exact point-to-point correspondence between an object and its image
3 : unsoundness or disorder of the mind
4 : a small periodic change of apparent position in celestial bodies due to the combined effect of the motion of light and the motion of the observer
5 : an aberrant individual
–ab£er£ra£tion£al \-shn*l, -sh*-n*l\ adjective
Hi Virginia:
I abhor using this word because of the connotation that one might get from the no. 1 entry for this word. “moral standard or normal state.” Not to even mention no. 3…”unsoundness or disorder of the mind.”
But, in general, we do use this word to describe those characteristics of a human that are not found directly in the majority. When we wish to point out various discrepancies that at first light may not be so obvious, a chosen word such as aberration is applied.
Homosexual and heterosexual men are only different typically in their personal preferences with regard to social attention. Outside of that, they appear and act for the most part rather similar. Unlike the stereotyped individual that we see in the movies or television, people are just people.
If I use the word “different,” then I am describing someone that differs from another. A specific alteration of their being…i.e., I have a third eye in my forehead, I am different than the majority.
I could say that this is an aberration from the majority or an exception from the majority. In any case, within the human genome, this would be considered quite rare indeed. But, as we see how words can be used and are used to describe a condition, we too use words with some deliberate meaning to discriminate, punctuate, and punish those that we do not deem fit to be included in the description of “normal” for the human race.
I have been fond of using the word, “aberration,” and now, having looked the word up in Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary (CD-PC-Windows), I am sorry that I used it in such a manner. I always thought of it as a positive alternative to other words.
We are all different. What do teenagers do. They try to be different while being the same. We say that they are trying to “find themselves.” Someone that does not know of our culture might not understand that statement. So, words and their meanings can become a greater threat than the concept.
There is no “gay gene.” There never was. What there is, for the most part, is mild differences that appear every so often in the construct of humanity. My spouse has what she calls, “twin toes.” Two toes joined at the base about half way up. That is a genetic trait passed onto her from her father’s side of the family. That is in genetic code.
No one wants to use the word “aberration,” as it implies an error. A defect if you will. Gay people simple have a “difference” about them that is constructed in the mind. It is not genetic. It cannot be passed on down in a family. That is why in most studies, people find that those of this persuasion are random. Just as people in the TG family are random.
Genetic properties where successfully described by “Friar Mendel’s pea plants which focused on 7 specific traits.” Mendel referred to traits as “atoms,” (what we now call genes). Dominant genes and recessive genes could be passed on to its progeny and appear somewhere down the line of succession.
This is traceable. This can be documented in a family tree. Typically being gay is not traceable down through the family tree. This is where that word, “aberration,” comes in to play and has been used with much intention to malign those individuals that are gay or TG for that matter. Well meaning people use the word as I have in the past to mildly infer that someone is different, not bad.
A really simple example here. Tomatoes by their natural construction, when they fall from the vine, an enzyme is released immediately inside the tomato to start the process of decay inside out. This permits the skin to act as a sealant and the seeds are protected until such time that the tomato collapses on the ground under it's own weight. The liquid has had time to soften the soil so the seeds can implant themselves and a new vine grows.
Scientists have figured out a way to stop the enzyme process in tomatoes so that with this minor genetic alteration, they last long in the store. It in no way alters the food chemistry. Only the starting of the rot process. This same process has been accomplished with strawberries allowing them to be shipped all over the Country and still be good for human consumption for the next few days after arrival in the store.
That is genetic traits and characteristics in a nut shell.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
Make the most of every day!
-
Virginia
- Goddess of the Universe
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: Strange Magic Hill
Well Hon, I like you have been using the word aberration in much the same sense as you, a kinder, gentler version if you will and may continue to do so - we will see!!!!
Second, thanks for taking the time to delve into the "theory" of genetic traits and characteristics and yes I am aware of Mendelson's research and even that of Huxley and the continued research being done on the Galapagos Islands.
Where we part company is I am NOT a pea nor am I a tomato, I think that I am just a bit more complicated than a common vegetable, although I have been accused of having about the same IQ as a common house plant, but I digress.
I am have read and reread your treatise and perhaps I do not know you quite as well I felt I did. I did not see, feel or sense any humor in what you posted which (and I may be wrong) but I sense that you actually feel that perhaps science has progressed to the place of being able to actually identify ALL the intricacies of the human genome and alone with that have actually found that as you profess "there is no gay gene!"
Well something and what is one of the theories, " the hormone wash" that makes us = CD, TG,TS = us. Perhaps for the religious right we and the entire GLBT community we are just some "sick" joke that God is playing on the rest of humanity??? I wish I could quote the scene from the "Devil's Advocate" where Satan is explaining God - where he calls GOD an "absentee landlord" and a sick comedian "look, but don't touch!" "touch, but don't taste!" "taste, but don't swallow!" that God is sitting "up there" laughing HER backside off at us trying to figure "ALL THIS OUT!"
I guess the use of deductive reasoning takes me past all the theories, studies, beliefs, to the only fact that I, Virginia can really put her finger on.
That is I am and that is not the quote from the Bible. Assuming that my Magical Mystery Tour is not a dream or even if it is, I seem to have some control over where I want it to go, I am enjoying it and I am too far along in life to begin a course of scientific investigation to disprove ME!!!!!
NO offense to any of my sisters that may read this, but I am on a different plane than the majority of you. I won't explain it, I don't even know if I could explain it and other than possibly be the lynch pin for someone to start a petition to have me locked up in a rubber room, I feel no necessity to give you any further insight into my Magical Mystery Tour.
Danielle, I love you, I love your desire to participate on this forum and I know you are one of the major reasons that this forum garners the success that it does. But, you and I will now agree to disagree on the hows and wherefores of our "lot in life," and we can remain friends and both continue to wonder at "our own trip around the sun!"
Love you, dear!
Virginia
Second, thanks for taking the time to delve into the "theory" of genetic traits and characteristics and yes I am aware of Mendelson's research and even that of Huxley and the continued research being done on the Galapagos Islands.
Where we part company is I am NOT a pea nor am I a tomato, I think that I am just a bit more complicated than a common vegetable, although I have been accused of having about the same IQ as a common house plant, but I digress.
I am have read and reread your treatise and perhaps I do not know you quite as well I felt I did. I did not see, feel or sense any humor in what you posted which (and I may be wrong) but I sense that you actually feel that perhaps science has progressed to the place of being able to actually identify ALL the intricacies of the human genome and alone with that have actually found that as you profess "there is no gay gene!"
Well something and what is one of the theories, " the hormone wash" that makes us = CD, TG,TS = us. Perhaps for the religious right we and the entire GLBT community we are just some "sick" joke that God is playing on the rest of humanity??? I wish I could quote the scene from the "Devil's Advocate" where Satan is explaining God - where he calls GOD an "absentee landlord" and a sick comedian "look, but don't touch!" "touch, but don't taste!" "taste, but don't swallow!" that God is sitting "up there" laughing HER backside off at us trying to figure "ALL THIS OUT!"
I guess the use of deductive reasoning takes me past all the theories, studies, beliefs, to the only fact that I, Virginia can really put her finger on.
That is I am and that is not the quote from the Bible. Assuming that my Magical Mystery Tour is not a dream or even if it is, I seem to have some control over where I want it to go, I am enjoying it and I am too far along in life to begin a course of scientific investigation to disprove ME!!!!!
NO offense to any of my sisters that may read this, but I am on a different plane than the majority of you. I won't explain it, I don't even know if I could explain it and other than possibly be the lynch pin for someone to start a petition to have me locked up in a rubber room, I feel no necessity to give you any further insight into my Magical Mystery Tour.
Danielle, I love you, I love your desire to participate on this forum and I know you are one of the major reasons that this forum garners the success that it does. But, you and I will now agree to disagree on the hows and wherefores of our "lot in life," and we can remain friends and both continue to wonder at "our own trip around the sun!"
Love you, dear!
Virginia
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!