Cory1848

Exactly -- I have Blue Cross also and it works just great in Thailand, and pays some private Thai hospitals directly after preapproving the procedure. There’s a 15 percent copay, and on most outpatient visits I pay cash and then get reimbursed by Blue Cross after submitting paperwork. If the procedure were so pricey that the 15 percent might make a real difference, and Medicare Part A would pick up a lot of it (in tandem with Blue Cross) in the US, I would consider flying back and doing it there, but that hasn’t happened yet ... Medicare Part B seems unnecessary at this point.

You’re completely wrong. Transgenderism is largely accepted in Thailand; I see transgender people every day, working in a variety of jobs. You’re simply blind to it, based on your own preconceived bias. And of course some monks and others (like yourself) will have a reactionary attitude, but that’s to be expected. I have not heard of the “special programs” you mention intended to “teach young ones how to be men again,” but if such places exist (I have no clue who your source is), they sound much like the “conversion therapy” programs that used to operate in the US, intended to force gay men into being straight. Such programs, whether for gay people or trans people, mostly just lead to chronic depression and often suicide. Not only does it not work; the whole idea is preposterous. How can you change someone’s nature, and why would you even want to? As for your statement about trans women that “their role is mainly to entertain others. They can be stylists, make up artists, dancers in one of the cabarets,” this reminds me of similar stereotyping of other groups, for instance that one group in particular is only good at “singing and dancing.” This is simply disgusting.

“Woke” has got to be the laziest word in the English language: all it means is, “advocating anything one personally dislikes.” As a result, little of what you write has any meaning in reality. The “voluntary police state” you complain about doesn’t exist; it’s a bogeyman. As long as you’re not infringing on any libel laws, you can say anything you want. In your post, you call transgender people “mentally afflicted fairies in dresses” and “perverts,” and you obliquely compare them to pedophiles. That’s fine -- you can say those things! However, I have just as much freedom to then call you boorish, insensitive, heartless, and ignorant; that you’re just pi$$ing in the wind. If that bothers you, then who’s the “snowflake” (another lazy word). I use the word “ignorant” with respect to your lack of knowledge about transgender people. You yourself admitted to that ignorance by saying you “couldn’t be bothered” to read about it. As a result, everything you write about the topic is just plain wrong. You write about your “gut feeling”: I’m sorry, that’s just not good enough. If you have no interest in learning about transgenderism, that’s fine! There are only so many hours in the day. If that’s the case, however, then please don’t post garbage that reflects nothing but your own lack of knowledge. In fact, why are you even posting in this thread at all, if you have no interest? I might just as well find an online forum for brain surgeons posting about their techniques, and offer my own “opinions” about that.

Sometimes, anger indeed arises from knowledge -- of injustice, for instance. In this thread, however, the only people I see who are angry are those who deny the existence of transgenderism, who refuse to educate themselves about it, who are totally triggered by the introduction of words like “transwoman” into the language. In this case, anger arises from plain ignorance. Not sure if that’s whom you’re suggesting the gods will destroy.

That’s all fine and well; I would call you out on your quickness to publicly dismiss and condemn a whole category of humanity while simultaneously saying you “can’t be bothered” to learn anything about it, but so be it. As for “maybe [being] an ar$ehole,” I’m in no position to say, but maybe “grumpy old man”? I find that the latter term often describes myself perfectly ... Cheers.

Two quick things I saw were wrong in your assessment here: (1) your statement that transgenderism is a “mental problem coupled with homosexual wiring” (gender identity and sexual orientation are two entirely different things, and a “mental problem” only results when a transgender person is forced into accepting the gender they were assigned at birth); and (2) your notion that “nobody really takes them seriously” and that “most of us don’t want to accept” them. I think you’re simply wrong about that, or get the wrong idea from the company you keep or what you read. At least in the Western world and in tolerant societies elsewhere like Thailand and the Philippines, I think most people are quite open to transgenderism. Sure, there’s a reaction against it, but the reactionaries are generally in a minority. Here’s a couple of links I quickly found online. The American Psychological Association gives a good overview. Wikipedia has exhaustive information about the history of transgenderism. And Scientific American goes into the biology of it, in layperson’s terms. Might be worth looking at; I have had a hard time myself wrapping my brain around it, but I try to read, and listen, and understand. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

What a piece of work. You may think you’re speaking “truth” but the fact is you’re clueless. Transgender people have been around for all of recorded history, and the fact that you regard it as “perversity” rather than what is actually the case (a brain that’s wired somewhat differently, as someone here characterized it) speaks to your own intolerance. Being 75 years old (or whatever you said your age was) doesn’t give you wisdom; it means you’re unteachable.

“Ladyboy” is a perfectly good and nonoffensive word; I often use it. However, “transgender” is also a good word, and I often use that as well, depending on context. If you believe that the word “transgender” pollutes the English language, that’s your problem and no one else’s. Languages evolve organically: deal with it.

The article said that she reported a sexual assault, that the police had enough evidence to arrest and detain the guy, and that somewhere during this time he confessed to “the crime,” which is “sexual assault.” I assume the article was written in English; the writer is Thai, and I assume they are able to read police reports in Thai and translate them correctly into English. To confess is <สารภาพ>. Sexual assault is <การล่วงละเมิดทางเพศ>. It would be hard to mistranslate either of those words. Those are my assumptions. You’re assuming that Thai cops and Thai reporters don’t know how to do their jobs, in an effort to impose your own male-centric narrative on this whole sorry incident. If you have access to the Thai-language police reports, go wild, and if you find errors showing that the man is in fact innocent, I’ll profusely apologize. Meantime, basta.

For the billionth time, the man already confessed to sexually assaulting the woman! What don't you get about that?

Perhaps the woman was foolish, or naïve, or gullible, or too trustworthy; who knows. I myself wouldn’t recommend that any female friend of mine do the same thing. But the problem here is, by saying “Yes, the guy shouldn’t have done it, *but the woman ...*,” you’re engaging in a sort of false equivalence, pivoting the story to lay some blame on the woman, who after all is the victim here. Why not say instead, “Yes, the guy shouldn’t have done it [in this case, he’s already confessed to sexual assault], *and I hope the woman gets her day in court and doesn’t suffer any long-lasting trauma from the experience.*” I’m not referring to you (charmonman), but the majority of people posting here twist the story completely around to lay most if not all of the blame on the woman, as though by her giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, that gave him a god-given right as a male animal to attack her. This I find sickening.

Oh, boo hoo. Men (especially Christian white men) are the most oppressed demographic on the planet (?) Gimme a break ...

Elise Stefanik is a Republican, in fact the fourth-ranking Republican in the House and the worst sort of Trump sycophant. For as much as you've posted on this thread, you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. And with each post, it's the same inaccurate and misinformed mantra over and over. Move on, man!

She said that he sexually assaulted her, and he confessed. Sexual assault is a crime. It's really that simple.

According to the original article, the woman said that sexual assault occurred, and the man confessed to the crime and was arrested. That seems pretty clear to me; why do we need to know about her bruises, if any, for the purposes of general discussion? What’s weird, though, is that you’re bending over backward to defend this guy, casting doubt on the woman’s story even though he confessed.

That’s absurd -- if a man is “excitable” and behaves like a dog, that excuses his behavior? He is 100% responsible: if he is “excitable,” he has lots of options that don’t involve assaulting the woman. Even if the woman is “loose,” wearing sexy clothes, flirtatious, comes on a like a dog in heat herself, the moment she says “no” or pushes him away, that means stop.

Sorry, I was simply parroting the language of the person I was responding to, who wrote “Women often take too many risks.”

I don’t know what you’re saying. There’s a pretty big difference between wanting to have sex and being willing to assault someone against her will to get it.

Thank you for posting that. And further to your last comment, it is *unnatural* for a man to want to rape or physically assault a woman who has said “no” in plain English, casual acquaintance or not.

It’s very unlikely that you’ll be accused of sexual assault unless you actually commit sexual assault. That said, your arrangement with your massage lady sounds like a safe bet all around.

Ha ha. Which is all the Commander wanted to do with the Handmaid, literally play Scrabble, in Margaret Atwood’s novel. As far as I can tell, most people posting here would feel right at home in Atwood’s dystopian world.

I’m not saying whether she was smart or not; I don’t know the woman; but that doesn’t matter in the least. What matters is, you’re putting the blame entirely on her for being attacked by a date who turned on her. I do not live in “cuckooland,” nor am I “naïve,” thank you. But you have a depraved view of humanity. Good luck with that.

I was merely parroting the wording of whatever misogynist it was I was responding to.

This is pure victim blaming. You’re blaming women for not thinking, rather than men who violently assault them. The vast majority of men are not criminals, but maybe you hang out in a different crowd than I do.

More victim blaming! She expected that he would respect her wishes, as almost all men would; that he would not suddenly become an animal and assault her. Posts like yours are not so much misogynistic as man-hating, you seem to have so little regard for the civility of your own gender (assuming that you’re a man).