[Bionca]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem with what Puck writes begins with the two words in this sentence that I have highlighted in boldface: "If a guy sees a person with a skirt, nice looks, long hair, he's going to ASSUME that that person is a woman with the appropriate anatomy."

Puck's premise is that the absence of this "appropriate anatomy" is the root of a "deception" -- a word based on an active verb, deceit. And what is the action? It is the willful effort to convince someone to believe that which is not true.

I contend that Puck's entire premise is wrong. Let's make this more concrete and abstract -- and please excuse me, Bionca, for including you in this exercise but since you have posted so eloquently I am hopeful it will be okay. Here goes: Do you, Puck, contend that Bionca (for example) is not truly a woman? Do you contend that when she self-identifies as a woman she is untruthful? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then I ask what gives Puck (or anyone, for that matter) the right to make that determination for Bionca. Who are any of us to decide for any transgendered person what is the "appropriate anatomy"?

A premise such as Puck's is not only wrong, but it contributes to the violence in a rather insidious (or perhaps not so subtle) way. Not only does it dehumanize the victim (by creating a category that seems other than "normal" -- in this case, missing the "appropriate anatomy"), but it is a rationalization of the violence itself. Since words can be as violent as fists, as a rationalization it becomes a form of the violence.

Until we stop giving any aid and comfort to the attackers of transgendered people, even in the form of explanations such as the one Puck offers, we are complicit. Rationalizing an attacker's behavior -- even if we ourselves would never throw the punch -- must stop!

SMC - absolutely correct