+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 01:47 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.725 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/23/2006 04:53 AM ID: 52410 Permalink   

Convicted Drug Dealer Avoids Harsher Punishment


SINGAPORE - A convicted drug dealer that underwent a sex change operation avoided the punishment of caning because Singapore law does not allow women to be caned. However, the convict will still spend six years in prison.

Mongkon Pusuwan, a Thai prostitute, was convicted of drug trafficking. However, due to the amount of cocaine and ketamine she possessed, she does not qualify for Singapore's death penalty. Pusuwan had surgery to become a woman ten years earlier.

When arrested in December, Mongkon's passport identified her as a man. Due to medical report findings, the court declared her a female, allowing her to be spared the beating which male convicts commonly receive in such cases.

    WebReporter: Reporter © Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  I wholeheartedly disagree  
In reality, "she" is an "it" and should enjoy the same good old fashioned ass whoopin as it's male counterparts since it was born a male and essentially still is. The only difference is that a surgeon lopped it's penis off, dug out a glory hole and injected it full of hormones. It has no reproductive organs. Never did, never will.
  by: Reporter ©     01/23/2006 05:13 AM     
SHE avoided punishment because SHE is a woman. Do some research. You're prejudiced and ignorant. If you knew ANYTHING about transsexualism, you wouldn't be saying these things.
  by: kolman36     01/23/2006 06:21 AM     
  Most obviously, Reporter  
...your comment is wrong because she obviously DID have reproductive organs once, just not FEMALE organs. I'm not sure how I'm going to rate this article. The title is technically correct, because a transsexual is a transsexual pre-and-post op by the definition of transsexual. I checked three dictionaries, and the source uses the term similarly. However, it does imply that the transexuality was a move to avoid harsher sentencing, not something culminating in an operation 10 years prior.

I think the definition of transsexual has simply not caught up. Post-op, a person today is regarded as being whichever sex they've become, not as an "it," a pronoun which dehumanizes them. Since the person IS regarded as being that sex now, to say they are still a transsexual (one who identifies with the OPPOSITE sex) would be incorrect. I find a particular flaw in your logic very revealing - you insist this person is not a female but an "it," yet in the same sentence you say that she's still male and should thusly be beaten. So, which is it - or do you just want "it" beaten?

Finally, the laws in Singapore seem to be objectionable in all sorts of ways, so I do not even know where to begin - with the biased sentencing? With the Draconian laws? What I find funny is that the angle of your summary seems to be placing blame on the convicted, who had nothing to do with the sentencing.
  by: momentofclarity     01/23/2006 07:19 AM     
  According to the law  
the person in question is indeed a woman and so should be punished in accordance to the laws involving women. I agree that the article at first led me to believe that the person had a sex change simply to avoid the punishment which is obviously not true.

However, in regards to what was said by Kolman36, it really depends on your personal beliefs and opinions on whether this person is or is not a woman. I don't believe it's simply fact. Tha law of course says that the person is now a woman which is fair enough, but I personally believe someone can become the opposite sex simply through what are man made and mostly cosmetic changes. Nature did not make this person a woman, it produced a man whichever way you look at it. Man, no matter how good a surgeon cannot simply turn a male into a female 100%
  by: jameswaring2000   01/23/2006 08:29 AM     
  That is  
supposed to be

"but I personally DO NOT believe someone can become the opposite sex simply through what are man made and mostly cosmetic changes."
  by: jameswaring2000   01/23/2006 08:30 AM     
  @ momentofclarity  
As usual, you're one of the few that make any sense. You're right, the title isn't misleading. As for my opinion on the lashings with a cane. My opinion is it was born a man, is not in reality a female, just a butchered up male left somewhere in between and thus should get the caning.
  by: Reporter ©     01/23/2006 10:04 AM     
  Why should women get out of a beating?  
I'm not for corpral punishment, but why does the law discriminate against men like that.

On a side note, I wonder which would have hurt more, the surgery or the caning?
  by: CrisW   01/23/2006 02:13 PM     
  How did South Park put it?  
"So I'm not a woman at all... just a guy with a mutilated penis"

Anyway, in the eyes of the law once a bloke has had the snip he has legally become a she...
  by: koultunami     01/23/2006 02:15 PM     
arent women the ones that always go on about equal rights etc, where they want certain jobs in the army for example (GI Jane) so should they not get treated equally for other things too. even if it is punishment!!!
  by: hixthebeast   01/23/2006 02:45 PM     
  @ CrisW  
From what I've read, caning is pretty damned painful.
  by: Reporter ©     01/23/2006 04:14 PM     
Has got to rank up there with having your balls loped off and having your penis mutilated though.
  by: CrisW   01/23/2006 05:52 PM     
  @Reporter, Koult.  
So the thrust of your message is that the punishment, whatever it may be, ought to be equal. With that I cannot disagree, though I find this particular punishment harsh given my opposition to drug laws in general. Singapore seems to be in a unique position here - progressive in terms of gender recognition, yet regressive in terms of gender equality.

And thanks, Koult, for the SP quote. Mr. Garrison said it better than most for summing up this situation. I say this, though, with complete respect for persons who have such an operation done. No one can deny that such a person is going to be less a woman physically that one born as such. I believe the mental orientation (gender) is what is really at the heart of the matter, unless you're talking about athletics, perhaps. The operation is more about aligning the two, and I think it a matter of respecting your fellow (wo)man to treat such people as they would like to be treated. It does us no harm to do so, and in many cases it's much more convenient if you just accept it.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2006 06:26 PM     
Well, you have to give Singapore credit for being progressive in that they respect your post-op gender in the penal system..erm I mean the courts.
  by: ezanto   01/23/2006 06:45 PM     
"maybe one extra lashing for getting such an obscene surgery."

Right, and what business is that of yours, or the state? I would venture to say...none.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2006 07:10 PM     
  @ reporter, anyone else  
Actually, when a physical man becomes a physical woman, she IS a woman. The medical procedures are very advanced and nobody can tell the difference between a "real" vagina and a "manufactured" vagina.

The transsexual, in this case male to female, IS a woman mentally her entire life. The only thing keeping her from becoming society's definition of a woman is that she is, physically, a man. Once this is changed, she is a woman through and through.

I realize that prejudice and ignorance is out there, especially for transsexuals, and I can only imagine what they go through every day. But, Reporter is a classic example of it. Read books, become informed, read scientific studies and you will see what you are dealing with. The fact that these things are being said about her here, by people that are supposed to be intelligent, is saddening.

In regards to my rating, I'm going to put it up again and I want it kept there. The title IS misleading. She avoided a harsher punishment because she's a WOMAN. The title leads one to believe that she became a woman so that she can avoid a harsher punishment, which is clearly not the case. If anyone has a problem with that, take it up with lurker or lois. They'll tell you the same thing.
  by: kolman36     01/23/2006 08:08 PM     
Philosophically speaking, if a person of one sex has a largely cosmetic procedure done to change themselves to the opposite sex and the state lawfully recognizes the change, can a person elect to change species and have the state recognize them not as a human but as another species? Consider the British man who had leopard spots tatooed all over his body and had his teeth filed down to more accurately resemble feline teeth.
  by: tomblik     01/23/2006 08:24 PM     
So far your comments have been pretty harsh. Granted its all opinion, yadda yadda, but for anyones sake, how about growing up and forming a 'real' opinion.

And now to play the ass for a change:

Anyone else find something kinda comical about the person being a hooker with a last name of "Pusuwan" (READ: Pu U want?)
  by: jediman3     01/23/2006 08:34 PM     
  @Kolman, Tomblik  
"Actually, when a physical man becomes a physical woman, she IS a woman. The medical procedures are very advanced and nobody can tell the difference between a "real" vagina and a "manufactured" vagina."

It really does depend on how you look at it, Kolman. An ex of an ex of mine used to be a man, but this was before I knew her. I cannot imagine her as anything but a woman - she simply is as far as I am concerned. The reason I say that respecting their wishes as such is not only proper but convenient is because the only reason people have these ridiculous conflicts and have to make up separate distinctions is because of this need to label people and not simply accept them. Could I think whenever I see the aforementioned person, "That's a she, but she was a man and she now has a vagina (a NON-FUNCTIONING vagina), so he's not a she, she's an it. Now how do I refer to her to others...etc?" No, I just say she - everyone is happy, and it's much less work. However, it's not innacurate to state that she's NOT really a woman, because different people have different definitions of what makes a woman. I think you'd really have to be very anal to take that position, but that's my opinion.

Tomblik, I suppose my question would be, does the person in question really consider themselves to be that creature? Are they of sound mental capacity to make that decision? My guess is that you'll not find anyone of whom you can answer yes to both of those questions, which one must be able to do if one is to get a sex change.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2006 09:40 PM     
Apart from cosmetic procedures, you can't change your assigned species. Not even in the distant future could I imagine a procedure that could convert your genetic makeup so far as to change your species. On the other hand, changing gender will always have different shades of gray. As it was mentioned, some are born women, with male genitalia, and some are not, and need to take hormones to supplement their conversion. Can some fundamental gender differences, such as differing areas of the brain being active for the same activity, really be changed through hormones(or whatever method)?

  by: ezanto   01/23/2006 10:38 PM     
  Moment of clarity ... and anyone else ...  
Does anyone here have even a high school diploma? I think not. SDo your homework.

Just because surgery and law make the person a "legal" woman, does not make her a "biological" woman. Nor will she ever be a biological woman regardless of procedure, hormones, desire, or whatever label you put on it... It is simple biology 101. Why?

Any objective DNA test will, would, and always will find a male. End of story. If you think hormone treatment will change DNA, you are sadly mistaken. A lot of males take estrogen for various reasons, and while they may develop breasts due to it, they will always test as male in their DNA.

You talk as if you "know" but really you are just talking about your own beliefs and feelings on the subject and that is without one bit of "fact." This does not mean that the person should not be treated as per their desired gender. It just means that they are not biologically anything other than what their genetic code made them; Which in this case is MALE.

"She" will always be a male on the cellular level. Nothing else is possible anymore than it is possible to make a goat a sheep via surgury .. or any other means for that matter.

Again, do your homework, or go back to school. Preferably both.

Also, I am pretty sure any knowing man can tell a constructed vagina from a natural one. Even in the dark. How? In the same way a constructed penis is differentiated from a natural one.

  by: SmutleyQ   01/23/2006 11:06 PM     
  Ooh, that was clever, burner...  
...did you think that up all by yourself? With wit like that, you'll be able to sit at the grown up table in no time. Until then, please be quiet while the big people talk, unless you would care to tell me what business the surgeries of another are of yours or the state.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2006 11:12 PM     
  Is *sshole contagious today?  
Smutley, I believe I already stated that she is not a complete, 100% woman. How about you go back and read my comments before you try to insult my intelligence?

"This does not mean that the person should not be treated as per their desired gender."

Yes, this is the issue, and my point - duh (this would a term I learned back in school around the time I learned to READ). Speaking of opinions, it is also opinion that DNA is the end-all, be-all argument. That is one of many determining factors used both legally and socially. This was also a point I covered above. Perhaps you'll sit down with some crow, a piece of humble pie, and read it over.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2006 11:28 PM     
You insulted your own intelligence by your first paragraph of the post in question where you state:

"Actually, when a physical man becomes a physical woman, she IS a woman."

Sorry, not so. And your vagina statement is downright foolish as well. I read your posts a lot because you post a lot. You like to spout your opinions as if they are actaul facts. While sometimes they are, most of the time they are nothing more than your view.

You are wrong wrong wrong this time so eat it!

Also, my post was addressed to others as well not just you. But if the shoe fits...

And no, no humble pie is required from me or anyone else. You stated an OPINION as FACT and you are, and will always be wrong on that statement. Period.

It is you who should learn to enjoy the taste of crow my friend.
  by: SmutleyQ   01/23/2006 11:50 PM     
Whats harsh about what I said? Why should a person get off on a lighter sentence based solely on thier gender?

Aren't all people (race, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation, religion) equal in front of the law?
  by: CrisW   01/24/2006 12:06 AM     
  @Smutley, burner  
You must be very proud of yourself, is this the first time you've actually had something you thought to be of merit to say to me? I am almost sorry to burst your bubble. That quote you attribute to me? READING the thread, one can see that this was the first line of KOLMAN'S comment, subject "@ report , anyone else" and posted 01/23/2006 08:08 PM. I suppose I'm simply wrong about that, though...since that is the assertion I've been arguing AGAINST this whole time, I must have been arguing against myself. What I said was,

"No one can deny that such a person is going to be less a woman physically that one born as such." That was today at 6:26.

I'll eat nothing - you've been mistakenly attributing quotes to me, and I corrected you. Your response makes it clear you've still not had the simple intelligence to go back and check with whom you're arguing. Yes, you sure showed me. Axe-grinding trumps thought any day!

And burner, it's called "multitasking," and that is the last information I plan to waste on you unless you decide to discuss the issue, rather than exchange schoolyard insults.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/24/2006 12:21 AM     
  About transexuals  
If I am not mistaken(and its been awhile since genetics), even on the chromosomal level she, it, or he whatever you prefer may be a women regardless of how she was born. I read the summary and skimmed through the comments but I was not sure if any of you or the source article may have mentioned this.

As rare as it is some babies are born hermaphroditic and doctors used to make the choice themselves and allow development regardless of chromosomal identity.

Now a days they wait until later developmental stages(or test?) and then make the final cut.

So I dont know what the fuss is about since it does not seem that it was analyzed anywhere beyond the physical level by the authorities. Ten years ago when the operation was done may be a different story.

So call it(no pun intended) whatever you want but it's not as simple as it may seem.

Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere :-/
  by: luc1dDr3am     01/24/2006 12:51 AM     
"The transsexual, in this case male to female, IS a woman mentally her entire life. The only thing keeping her from becoming society's definition of a woman is that she is, physically, a man."

It is not simply a case of this IS a woman and this IS a man in terms of transexuality. That is simple opinion and is not written in stone anywhere. Although I totally respect people's wishes to have gender changing operations at their own free will, I refuse to believe that these totally change their gender. The fact that they think they are a woman in their own mind does not make them a woman, it simply means that they're mental state is not in line with most of the rest of mankind.

It may sound totally rediculous (and I know this is trans-species) but think of it like this. I saw a documentary on a woman who was absolutely certain she was a cat. She'd had surgery and everything to make her facial features as much like those of a feline as medically possibly. Does that then mean that, due to her mental state she IS a cat. Should the law treat her as a cat simply because she believes she is.

I know that was a little far-fetched but I'm just trying to explain that it's not all as black and white as 'this is a man, this is a woman'. It's more about personal belief as to what is different in this person. Do they actually have the brain of a woman and body of a man or is it just a mental abnormality making them believe so.
  by: jameswaring2000   01/24/2006 12:55 AM     
  Ah to conclude!  
To conclude with the known information above.

Even if she has been a male for so long it is a possiblity that the female chromosomes are still there especially in the case of the hermaphroditity.

This is all from memory so dont be too harsh ;-).
  by: luc1dDr3am     01/24/2006 12:55 AM     
"The medical procedures are very advanced and nobody can tell the difference between a "real" vagina and a "manufactured" vagina."

This is really here no there is it. Just because someone has made something look like something else, it doesn't take on any more of its properties in terms of actually becoming it. Just like I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter is not actually butter, just because it is very much alike
  by: jameswaring2000   01/24/2006 12:59 AM     
That is true but think of how many of the transexuals pre-op and post-op in the world were born Hermaphrodites? My guess if you compared birth rate statistics with transexual population would be a very small number indeed
  by: jameswaring2000   01/24/2006 01:06 AM     
I intentionally did not mention that since I do not see it as relevant. Of course there are 'drag queens' that eventually decided to fully transcend gender. Whether this is the case or not, I don't know. I just figured give her the benefit of the doubt since in my mind its irrelevant what the punishment is as long as there is one.

I posted because I think a lot of people are assuming that this is someone that made a decision based on personal preference when it may have been a medical correction.

My personal opinion on the subject is that this surgery is something that should only be done in those rare cases where something needs to be set right or for those that have had PLENTY of time to get informed and maybe even a long time as a post op female. I can just imagine a potential candidate that was raised all his life as a male having huge difficulty after an operation becoming a female. The implications of this problem could be huge in the lawsuit crazy world today.
  by: luc1dDr3am     01/24/2006 01:30 AM     
  correction : time as a preop  
  by: luc1dDr3am     01/24/2006 01:31 AM     
  a technical correction  
Smutley, you are technically incorrect.

While it is considered that those with XY chromosomes are male and those with XX are female, not all humans are born with such pairings. In fact upto 1% of people are intersex. Some have multiple X chromosomes and are still male. eg. XXY

has more details.

Interestingly it has a reference to high-school biology classes. (not everything you learn in highschool is corrct! shock and horror!)

"Though high school biology teaches that men have XY and women XX chromosomes, in fact there are quite a few other possible combinations"
  by: jendres     01/24/2006 01:43 AM     
  on the other hand...  
there is a significant number of transexuals in thailand. (the doctors are the best in the world.)

This may be due to a genetic disorder that is common in the community or it could be that the men are inclined to undergo the surgery to get into prostitution to make a living. (It's a poor country and that is a major industry... Never under estimate a person's desire to survive)
  by: jendres     01/24/2006 01:51 AM     
  @SmutleyQ , others  
"Any objective DNA test will, would, and always will find a male. End of story"


I would throw your "do your homework, or go back to school. Preferably both."

right back in your face.

Look up "XY Female" sometime. Other keywords:

"SRY Mutation"
"CAIS" (Congenital Insensativity to Androgen Syndrom)
"Testicular Feminization"

or look up the reverse conditions:

"XX Male"
"SRY negative"
"CAS" (Congenital Androgenital Syndrom)
"Pseudovaginal perinoscrotal hypospadisas"

or even just Adrenal Hyperplasia

There are an entire host of disroders that lead to genetic males developing as females, and vice versa.

Now I want you all to think on the following:

Given: Men and women's brains are fundamentally different. They develop different, they process information differently. These differences are both biological and environmental in nature.

Given: Relativly simple mutations can lead to entire gender switches (XX males and XY females).

Postulate: Less severe mutations in sex hormone production, recpetion, or regulation genes lead to trans-gendered or bi-gendered brains. These mutations do not lead to compelte biological gender switching but rather afflcited individuals end up with brain development such that they express interest in same-sex pairings and/or identify with the opposite biological sex.

  by: Dedolito     01/24/2006 02:01 AM     
  Title is no longer "misleading"  
I removed the rating for the final time.
  by: lurker     01/24/2006 02:25 AM     
  @ jendres  
Good theory.
  by: Reporter ©     01/24/2006 02:40 AM     
If that is the case, I pity the poor guy/girl. That they are born into a situation were they would consider such drastic surgery just to make money is horrible.
  by: jendres     01/24/2006 02:47 AM     
  @ jendres  
Then again, if they are that financially strapped, how could they afford the butchering? I'm sure it doesn't come cheap. I tend to lean toward the opinion that they simply are suffering from homosexuality or some related mental defect.
  by: Reporter ©     01/24/2006 02:52 AM     
I hope you're not putting too much weight into that - you'll fall. Being a homosexual and being a transsexual, transvestite or any such thing are completely different (nor are they defects, for that matter). Being gay means you're attracted to members of the same sex, not that you want to be a woman. It's a common misconception you seem to have, that there's three categories - straight men, straight women, and others. These others are NOT all the same.
  by: momentofclarity     01/24/2006 04:33 AM     
Transexuals post or preop are facing rejection in the gay and lesbian communities also.

I googled an interesting sight I'm sure with some effort there is alot to learn.
  by: luc1dDr3am     01/24/2006 05:34 AM     
  Call he/she/it an  
Call He/She/it an EUNUCH and be done with it. >For those less inclinded to look up the word for the def. <
Eunuch. N. 1 A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

So cane the Eunuch or deal out what ever punishment eunuch's get for said crime.. >A smart DA would have figured that one out.<
  by: CaveHermit   01/24/2006 06:30 AM     
  I'd just like to  
point out something which Reporter said, which was the word 'defect' in relation to homosexuality. Obviously in society you can't go around referring to homosexuals as 'defects' as I'm certain it would cause offence. However, is it right or wrong to refer to it as a defect? After all a species contains male and female members as a fundamental neccesity to survival through reproduction. Would it then be fair to state that a member of that species whom is not naturally attracted tot he opposite sex, and therefore highly unlikely to reproduce 'defective'?

I'm not forming an opinion there just wondering what other think on the subject.
  by: jameswaring2000   01/24/2006 07:52 AM     
Well, Reporter referred to a "mental defect." Homosexuality is not regarded as such by mental health professionals, and it has been decades since it was declassified as a disorder. Mental disorders are detrimental to those afflicted with them, significantly impairing various aspects of the afflicted's life. Homosexuality does not do this, so it was declassified.

Are they "defective?" I suppose that depends on if you reduce human life, civilization, and existence itself to simple reproduction. If you do, then you'll have to address a much wider group of "defective" people than just homosexuals. Since we can never KNOW what the criteria are for being EFFECTIVE, we can never know if one unit or another is DEFECTIVE. It will always be a matter of pure opinion.
  by: momentofclarity     01/24/2006 08:26 AM     
  @ jameswaring2000  
The purpose of life is to reproduce. Otherwise, humans and animals alike would eventually die off if we didn't. The only thing gays contribute to society is disease, AIDS in particular.
  by: Reporter ©     01/24/2006 12:58 PM     
While I respect your right to express your opinion, I cannot agree that homosexuals' only contribution to society is AIDS. Many famous contributers to art, literature, politics etc. have been gay.
  by: jameswaring2000   01/24/2006 02:05 PM     
is not a societal contribution by homosexuals. AIDS is believed to have been first contracted by people killing apes for their pelts, meat, and other parts of economic interest. The newly infected humans went home and had largely conventional sex with their partner/s and the disease was then passed from human to human. It is a fallacy to blame that on homosexuals. The erronious position that blames AIDS on homosexuals is based on the fact that homosexuals sometimes participate in sexual practices that make them more vulnerable to the disease than straight people. Saying homosexuals are to blame for AIDS just because they are a higher risk population is like saying children are responsible for Chicken Pox.

Earlier, I postulated a philosophical question. Only a few people went where I thought the debate would turn. DNA. There are genetic markers that only exist in female DNA. It is rather easy to tell the difference between male and female DNA. Despite chromosonal outliers, a cosmetic surgury does not change your genetic makeup. If a man has a surgury to look like a woman, feels like a woman, and acts like a woman, no matter how good his doctor was his DNA remains unaffected by the surgury. Just as, no matter how much a person undergoes to change species, they will always be human. There are simply some things that you can't change about yourself. My entire point of introducing this facet of the debate was that Singaporean law is a bit archaic and not just the whole caning thing, but also their views on women. Their lieniency towards women indicates that they do not view women and men equally. Since this trans-gendered individual has the skeletal and muscular makeup of a man, his/her body is fully capable of withstanding the punishment and should be treated as a man. That being said, caning is a cruel and unusual punishment and a possible human rights issue.
  by: tomblik     01/24/2006 02:35 PM     
  @Reporter ©  
Life doesn't have to have a purpose. Reproducing is just another one of the many things that living things do. There really isn't a lot getting in the way of gay people reproducing.
  by: CrisW   01/24/2006 02:35 PM     
  A lot of comments  
My first thought upon reading the article was a sense that it was unfair that a punishment such as this was not applied equally to men and women. Women, after all, possess a bottom and so there should not be much of a reason why they should not be caned just like a man.

Within a few seconds of analysis though I realized that logic has little place when it comes to this kind of religious inspired retribution and torture of a human being. Frankly, if women get lucky and avoid this brutal punishment it's probably a good thing. After all in such societies women get their ass kicked in so many other ways thanks to religious subjugation and discrimination it seems only fair that on the odd occasion they get lucky by being female.

I then started to read the comments and became quite disgusted with much of what I read. The usual brigade of right wing extremist bigots were out in force with their black and white view of the world.

I think the woman in this article has gone through quite enough pain in her life as it is, without being caned. He was born a man but in his mind felt he was a women. He went through the devastating surgery to transform physically into a women. She then no doubt got to put up with the enormous bigotry and discrimination (like that displayed in this forum). Clearly her life didn’t go that well, since she ended up as a drug taking prostitute. She is then convicted of possession and must now suffer six years in a horrific Singapore prison.

To claim that avoiding a caning is somehow getting off lightly is hardly a sensible point of view. It is a pity people don’t have more compassion for others, as opposed to extremist hate speak that has become such commonplace around here.
  by: ZCT     01/24/2006 03:50 PM     
First off, thanks Tomblik for adeptly fielding the "AIDS is a gay disease" argument. Of course, gay people spread no more diseases than anyone else.

Reporter, here is an alphabetized list of gay or bisexual people who have contributed nothing to society:


* Louise Abbéma, French painter. [1]
* Berenice Abbott, American photographer. [2]
* Roberta Achtenberg, American politician. [3]
* Jean Acker, American actress. [4]
* Peter Ackroyd, English author.[5]
* Sir Harold Acton, British art writer, aesthete.[6]
* Jane Addams, American social reformer. [7]
* Alvin Ailey+, American dancer and choreographer. [8]
* Edward Albee+, American Playwright (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). [9]
* Francesco Algarotti, Italian academic. [10]
* Michael Alig, American club icon and murderer. [citation needed]
* Chad Allen+, American actor.
* Peter Allen, Australian entertainer. [11]
* Ted Allen, American food and wine guru on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. [12]
* Waheed Alli, Baron Alli+, British TV industry executive and life member of the House of Lords
* Marc Almond+, British singer, formerly of Soft Cell. [13]
* Pedro Almodóvar Spanish director, Oscar winner. [14]
* Scott Amedure+, American victim in the "Jenny Jones Murder".
* Alejandro Amenábar, Spanish director, Oscar winner. [15]
* Hans Christian Andersen, Danish author of fairy tales. [16]
* Enza Anderson, Canadian drag queen and political gadfly. [citation needed]
* Jerzy Andrzejewski, Polish writer. [17]
* Kenneth Anger, American filmmaker.[18]
* Steve Antin, American actor. [citation needed]
* Antinous, lover of powerful Roman military commander and emperor Hadrian. (anachronistic) [19]
* Gloria E. Anzaldúa+, American writer
* Marshall Applewhite+, American cult leader.
* Aleksey Apukhtin+, Russian poet. [20]
* Louis Aragon+, French poet, bisexual. Documented in Ruth Brandon's "Surreal Lives".
* Gregg Araki+, American director of The Doom Generation and The Living End
* Reinaldo Arenas+, Cuban poet, author of Before Night Falls (Antes que anochezca)
* Neil Armfield, Australian theatre director. [citation needed]
* Billie Joe Armstrong+, lead singer and guitarist of American punk band "Green Day," bisexual.
* Alexis Arquette+, American actor
* Dorothy Arzner+, American film director in classic Hollywood (The Bride Wore Red, Christopher Strong)
* John Ashbery, American poet. [21]
* Sir Frederick Ashton, British choreographer. [22]
* Othniel Askew+, American assassin
* Kutlug Ataman+, Turkish artist
* Kevyn Aucoin+, American celebrity makeup artist
* W. H. Auden+, British poet
* Kevin Aviance, American dance music singer. [23]


* David Bacon+, American film actor.
* Francis Bacon+, British painter
* Joan Baez, American singer, bisexual. [24]
* Paul Bailey, British author. [25]
* Josephine Baker, American singer, actress, French resistance member during WWII, bisexual. [citation needed]
* Long John Baldry, British singer, musician, bisexual. [citation needed]
* James Baldwin+, American author
* Tammy Baldwin+, member of the United States House of Representatives (D - Wisconsin)
* Alan Ball+, American writer (American Beauty, Six Feet Under)
* Baltimora, Northern Irish pop singer. [citation needed]
* Brent Bambury, Canadian journalist for CBC. [citation needed]
* Tallulah Bankhead, American actress. [26]
* Samuel Barber, American composer. [27]
* Jillian Barberie+, American tv hostess, actress, bisexual
* Alexander Bard, Swedish musician, bisexual (Army of Lovers, Vacuum). [28]
* Clive Barker+, British/American author, director, artist, known primarily for his work in the horror genre.
* Djuna Barnes+, American novelist, bisexual.
* Fred Barnes+, British music hall singer.
* Tim Barnett+, New Zealand member of parliament.
* Nathalie Barney+, American poet.
* Jurgen Bartsch, German serial killer. [29]
* Jean Barraqué, French composer. [30]
* John Barrowman+, American actor.
* Michael Barrymore+, British comedian
* Roland Barthes+, French literary theorist
* Paul Bartel, American filmaker. [31]
* Jean-Michel Basquiat, American artist
* Katharine Lee Bates, American writer of America the Beautiful [32]
* Terry Baum, American playwright and congressional candidate
* Billy Bean+, American former major league baseball player
* Amanda Bearse, American actress (Married... with Children), director [33]
* Cecil Beaton, British photographer, Tony Award-winning set designer and Academy Award-winning costume designer [34]
* Maria Beatty, American filmmaker
* Simone de Beauvoir+, French philosopher and novelist, bisex
  by: momentofclarity     01/24/2006 04:51 PM     
  @Reporter ©  
Out of interest were you raised an asshole, or did you become one after years of practice? Why don't you take your homophobic hate speak elsewhere? Sure, anyone can have an opinion, but just spouting ignorant hatred is really not about free speech.

I am also always suspicious about those who openly and repeatedly attack homosexuals. Reminds me of the SN reported minister recently arrested for soliciting a male prostitute.
  by: ZCT     01/24/2006 07:06 PM     
Let's not make this about Reporter, that only detracts from the issues being discussed. There's a difference between holding beliefs that offend and actually BEING an -sshole. I really do not think that Reporter has been an -sshole, and I think he's actually been a good addition to the site. While he does make some off-color remarks I disagree with, he seems to state his views honestly and is not abrasive when challenged on them - a breath of fresh air in my opinion.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/24/2006 07:32 PM     
To some extent I agree, but his comments were as absurd as saying, "All black people do is contribute to the crime rate, they are of no benefit to society."

I fully support free speech, but nonsense hate speak is just offensive and in this case patently absurd. If he were making an intelligent point about disliking homosexuals or black people I would not mind a bit. But making irrational hate filled statements are of no real benefit to anyone.
  by: ZCT     01/24/2006 08:11 PM     
  @ZCT, Smutley  
ZCT: I'm not sure Reporter is hateful so much as just misinformed. To use your example, there is a difference between a Klansman and someone who is just racist because that's what they know.

Smutley, where have you gone? Is your silence evidence that you figured out to check who said what, but that you lack the integrity to own up to the mistake? Or, did you choke on the crow?
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/24/2006 08:53 PM     
"Being a homosexual and being a transsexual, transvestite or any such thing are completely different (nor are they defects, for that matter)."

From a genetic standpoint, I disagree. Assuming that there is a genetic basis for differential brain development (which I believe there is), any deviation from the wild-type norm is a mutation. A mutation that lowers the biological success of an organism (survivability and ability to reproduce) is a defect.

Strictly speaking, homosexuality and transgenderism both negatively effect an individual's biological success, and thus have defective mutations.

But then I don't put a negative connotation to the word "defect" as many would because I realize that we're ALL defective in one manner or another. You have to wear glasses? You're defective. You have high blood pressure? Defective. You have arthritis? Defective. Ugly? Overweight? Small d*ck? Small breasts? Defective, defective, defective, defective.

People don't like thinking about themselves in these terms, but if you turn it around and instead make the object of the description an animal, there would be no argument. A short-plumed, obese peacock with stiff joints and bad eye-sight would be considered a defective mutant. Any one of those disorders would be a defect that negatively impacts its biological success. But apply the same disorders to a human and now he’s “unique” or “special.”

*shrug* Homosexuality and transgenderism is no more and no less defective than any one of the myriad of disorders that exist in our gene pool. T’is no big deal to me, but then I would guess not many think the way I do.

  by: Dedolito     01/24/2006 09:02 PM     
Well, I work in mental health, and Reporter referred to a "mental defect," so I equated the term with "mental disorder" and my comments referred only to the criteria for that. You work in genetics and addressed it from that standpoint, and I would not argue the point you made - what you say is also true. We're just interpretting Reporter's comment from different fields.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/24/2006 09:18 PM     
  @tomblik and Dedilto  
I'm pretty much in agreement with your position. You summed it up nicely. However there are also environmental factors to consider, (ie economic, social, physical, etc..) which would impact upon brain development.

Did you read those links i provided? Or Dedilito's comments? They showed that there sometimes is difficulty defining male and female by DNA. You are generalising.
  by: jendres     01/24/2006 10:24 PM     
  I forgot who said it  
but there was a philosopher I think who called homosexuality one of the naturally occuring population controls.

If you consider it that way homosexuality does serve a vital function. A species that grows unchecked quickly runs out of resources.
  by: jaded fox     01/25/2006 02:19 PM     
erm you should probably have left Michael Barrymore off that list mate...
  by: koultunami     01/25/2006 02:52 PM     
See the source, it's Wikipedia's list (one of countless out there). I don't even know who that is. If he's a person of ill-repute, I hardly think that matters - I know nothing of Barrymore, but I do know that John Wayne Gacy is also on the list. It's simply a list of famous people, for better or worse. If he's not actually gay, well, Wiki's known to have its mistakes, too.
  by: momentofclarity     01/25/2006 04:34 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: