HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:24:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Nov16.185735.25510@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
>> Since you made a public anouncement, I hope you won't mind my asking why?
>> (The sex change that is)
>>  
>
>Why???? Because I am a woman. I just happened to get stuck inside of a man's
>body. While I have surpressed these emotions for many years, and tried to
>act as a man, I've always known I was female. The internal conflict is almost
>too much to bear. I doubt that you would understand. Most people don't, although
>more women seem to then men. 
>
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>
>Wendy

Think about what we all experience as real differences between men and women.
Men and women think, act, react, dream, ... differently.

Now, each one of you that strongly identifies with being male or female - take
your current personality and picture it inside the body of the opposite sex.
It would be damned awkward, confusing, at times humiliating as you would 
behave in a manner different from the "norm".  Wouldn't you want to get
back to a body you're comfortable in?

I don't know about the statistics, but I've not yet heard of somebody 
changing their sex twice!

Nature/God tries out endless "variations on a theme" all the time.  I don't
know why people feel so threatened that someone is born gay or that someone
feels like a woman trapped inside the body of a man.  Since our society 
has trouble accepting men who act like women, I think it's fine to use
the technology we have to allow someone to be consistent in their nature and
their appearance.

Take care, Wendy.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:58:25 GMT

In article <JULIE.92Nov18190943@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:

[entire post deleted]
>
>---Julie
>
>(oh, and the pipeline stuff is from Science, vol. 241, p.1740.  The
>date is Sept. 1988, so the numbers may have changed slightly, but most
>statistics like this in science have stayed pretty stable for years,
>from what I've read, so I doubt there's been any major change.)


Julie, by sheer concidence, the issue of Science which arrived yesterday
was also a Pipeline issue. I have only scanned it, but it should be interesting
to compare the two issues, and see what changes have occurred.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.women:19718 alt.feminism:4547 soc.men:19404
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:52:44
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<810O03.ybac100@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<MUFFY.92Nov13120057@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1e8t4lINN95k@saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk's message of 16 Nov 1992 19:34:45 -0000

In article <1e8t4lINN95k@saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
[Quoting me]
>>No, dear. 
>I wonder if anyone can tell me which half of the population is 'permitted' to
>use this sort of insulting and condescending phrase.

Neither half.  Personally, I think both should be "permitted" to.  I
think if someone makes some idiotic and incorrect statement about my
opinions, then I have plenty of reason to have a low opinion of them.

>No fob-offs like 'oh it was obviously not being used to be insulting' please,
>since it was clearly intended with that exact purpose.

Absolutely.  It was specficially intended to be insulting.  I often
respond to insults with insults.  That may not be the best thing to do,
but I find it just as effective as any other method (i.e. not at all) of
responding to insults.

>If any such defenses
>do come to mind, I would simply refer you to the standard feminist
>'prosocution' of males who do this. And you will find that under this
>philosopy, the remark is indefensible.

Why should it be defended?  If it is okay for a man (actually, many of
them...*smile*) to insult me, why should it not also be okay for me to
insult them?  I certainly think it is.

>Have you, by dint of precident, now disowned allegence to the feminist
>requirement that such phrases are not used in address to womyn? Have you, in
>other words, given us all the right to call you 'dear'?

Do you mean me, here?  Boy, I'd be happy if that was the worst thing
that I was called on this newsgroup...*smile*.  Honestly, I would.

>But had you ever considered the possibility that if you practise the new 'human
>rights' that feminism preaches, men will be more inclined to?

I don't think there's an issue of "human rights" here.  Perhaps there is
one of politeness.  Do you think that it is a "human right" to be able
to speak without being insulted?  If so, and if you wish to defend such
rights, I refer you to a recent post by starbuck, where you should be
able to find lots of non-idle remarks about me to criticize.  Somehow,
though, I don't expect to see criticism of people who attack feminists
with insults.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky soc.women:20086 alt.feminism:4815 soc.men:19719
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: A Woman Trapped in a Man's Body? (was: Self Appreciation)
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:04:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov21.050408.24776
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BxvJp7.12o@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>   There is at least one branch of feminist thinking that tends 
>   to downplay the concept that gender roles are anything more 
>   than the results of socialization.  These people believe that
>   any suggestion that there are innate differences in affect
>   or intellect to be highly questionable and in any case that
>
>   How do those who hold this view square it with the opinions 
>   of posters like the above?   Transexuals will frequently claim
>   that they "feel like" a member of U sex in a V body.   Indeed,
>   interesting philosophical questions are raised by just asking
>   what it means to "feel like" a member of a certain gender.

A very interesting point. You can't have it both ways. If we accept
somebody's claim that "I feel like a U in a V body", then we are
validating the concept that men and women have fundamental emotional
differences. And once we have accepted that, we have blown apart the
notion that any difference between mens' and womens' roles are proof
of "discrimination." They act differently, they make different
choices, because the *are* different. So the believer in the vast
Discrimination Conspiracy must argue that mens' and womens' emotional
makeup are NOT different (as most of them have).

     "If you are in any doubt about the effect of hormones on emotion,
      libido, and aggression, have a chat with a transsexual, who
      must take hormones medically. He or she will set you straight."

                  - Camille Paglia, in "Sex, Art, and American
                    Culture" (Vintage Books, 1992, p. 186).

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:32:03 GMT

In article <GFZSBZ9@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu
(David S. Auer) writes:

>Another possible skewing perhaps overlooked in those figures, and to my eyes
>a more relevant one is the figures for number of men and women graduating
>this year with Ph. D.'s in math.
>
>Perhaps, women's higher wages, (the implication by Leonard being that the
>difference is small), may be fully explained in that women math Ph.D.'s are
>more of a commodity than men math Ph.D.'s (which if one accepts Leonard's
>claim as being accurate would imply that the value of being a female
>commodity in a more traditionally male discipline is not particularly rewarding
>financially.  Granted there is an implied causal link in there which may not
>exist, yet I am unfrightened by that possibility.)

Why should someone who is looking to hire a new Ph.D. in math care
about the sex of the person being hired?  (I know that they often do
care; I'm asking why they _should_.)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Xref: sparky soc.women:19928 soc.men:19563
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:50:05 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Helen Johnston (johnston@fys.ruu.nl) wrote:
Warren Sarle (saswss@unx.sas.com) wrote:
: Women who enjoy solitude are called "anti-social" in this article.
: If it were men who tended to prefer solitude, they would probably
: be called "independent", "autonomous", etc.

aaron@minster.york.ac.uk wrote:
: I think in this instance the term "anti-social" has a technical definition 
: as it is behaviour that does not involve socialisation. It is psychologists
: speak and I don't think it would make any difference if it were men who
: preferred to be alone.
: 
: Yet Warren Sarle has a point; the "technical definitions" have a
: distinct tendency to mysteriously acquire names that are more positive
: for male attributes than female attributes. 

  I would agree with you on this point to a certain extent but this is
  not always deliberate or malicious. In this case 'anti-social' is poor 
  choice because of the negative connotations of this word in every day
  usage but the writers of the report probably unthinkingly used the same
  language as they use to describe fruit flies and so are guilty of
  insensitivity.  

  Perhaps something along the lines of 'non-socialising behaviour'
  would actually be a more accurate decription.

  The writers of reports are in a position of power and should learn
  or be taught to be more aware and considerate.

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:08:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...

MLP> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

MLP> >Uncertain parentage should be made certain.

MLP> How???

DNA testing...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Corel Draw does it all?  If not, there's always EDLIN.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: Beards vs. Make-u
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:33:13 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 11-23-92 18:21
On Nov. 23, seldner@hdi3sun.kfk.de (David Seldner) wrote:

S(>In article <1992Nov22.114245.2638@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu>, xenon@drycas.club.
S(>cmu.edu writes:
S(>|> re: Recent episode of Star Trek where Dr. Beverly Crusher says that beards
S(>|>are an "affectation" comparable to the wearing of makeup by women.

S(>|> [...]

S(>|> I think the one similarity between beards and makeup is that each of these
S(>|> things is more popular with the sex that wears it than with the opposite s
S(>|> but I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more men who don't like mak
S(>|> than there are women who don't like beards... ;)

S(>That's an interesting point. Psychologically, men who have beards want to
S(>hide something, they don't want to "show their face".

Horseshit! I've had a beard for over twenty years. I clearly remember the
frustration and agony of shaving every morning - I *hated* it. I grew a
beard simply to avoid this onerous chore. I discovered that I looked
better with it than without, so I had a rationale to *keep* it.

                                                Cheers,
                                                Greg.

Greg Grainger
Toronto, Ontario.
greg.grainger@rose.com
5:59:24 pm, Mon 11-23-1992.

        Personal policy statement: Neither flames nor flame-bait
        will be responded to.
---
   OLX 2.2   Honesty pays, but not enough for some.
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Xref: sparky soc.women:19878 alt.feminism:4679 soc.men:19537
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:08:13 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

}Well, let's look at this.  First, I was posting in alt.feminism, not
}soc.men.  I do not know why it is that people keep cross-posting
}everything to soc.men.  I have not cross-posted any of my posts to that 
}group, but I do reply to all the groups that a posting was originally
}put in.  Presumably, while you may consider soc.men to be your personal
}space, I, as a "well-known net feminist," can consider alt.feminism to
}be at least partially mine.

This may -- note I say "may" -- be a source of at least a tiny part of
the problem here.  I have been reading all of these "what is sexist"
(and the preceding thread) postings in soc.men.  Perhaps we all tend
to slant our view of what is posted -- and correspondingly flavor our
responses -- according to what newsgroup we are reading the postings
from.

}Third, (and you may not have realized this), there is absolutely no
}requirement on moderators of soc.feminism to be polite to idiots in
}other newsgroups, only to be polite to idiots whose posts we receive for
}approval.

You know, I've been trying to ignore the unwarranted insults you've been
hurling in my direction.  Honestly, I didn't take offense at the original
"Dear" line, and I did kind of like the "Moose" followup.  And I even
tried seriously addressing this topic of the definition and usage of
"sexist".  But more and more you're coming across as just a nasty
individual.  Would it be possible for you to specifically cite whatever
it was that I posted that makes you feel that the label "idiot" is
justified?  Or have I committed some other horrible sin of misreading
and you were not aiming that label at me?

--James Preston

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: stringb
Subject: test
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:38:15 GMT



youblow


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:36:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.151525.27355@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.184216.12972@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>
>[peters post deleted, again!]
> 
>> First, the dissonance that Celeste mentions is significantly stronger
>> the the "occasional" dissonance you mention. It is almost unbearable.
>> In my case, I sometimes feel like trying to rip my brain out of this body 
>> and find a female body to put it in. It is more like PAIN and HURT.
>>
>> Now, with reapect to the MMPI. As part of my evaluation I was required
>> to take the MMPI-2. The MMPI-2 is an updated version of the MMPI that
>> has been updated, especially in the area of gender. Stereotypes that
>> could be used to force the test to show male or female associations were
>> removed. 
>
>You mean there are tests which can determine gender without gender clues?
>Curious. Since [usually] one will have the same sex and gender, would
>this not point to non-social sex differences?
>
>Without knowing more about the tests, I am just speculating, is that OK
>rini?
>
>I wonder if Rich Lynch has any comments on this.
>
>>               There are also scales, apparently, to determine whether one is
>> fudging the answers. I scored exceedingly high in femaleness (over 
>> 80 percentile) without fudging. Most biological females would be expected
>> to score high like that also. The rest of my test results were what would be
>> expected from a biological female or very close. Whether this applies to 
>> anyone else, I don't know. I am also trying to describe what my therapist 
>> told me, and hopefully I haven't misstated anything.

I'm far too cynical to put much stock in some damn test as a final answer, but
it sounds like Wendy has done more than take one test.  I'd rely far more on a
competent psychiatrist's opinion, and even that would be hardly infallible.

Also, it seems to me that Wendy ought to be the one to make the final decision;
the only way I (or anybody else for that matter) should have any say is if I
(or whoever) has to pay for it.

Anyway, I'm sure the people who make up these tests can provide a far better
explication of the intricacies of the statistical validity than I; why not ask
them?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:20137 alt.feminism:4856 soc.men:19773
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Women at the top
Date: 22 Nov 92 07:10:42 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov20.204742.29801@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

	.... A literate, well written, thoughtful essay ....

This sort of thing is gross violation of soc.* canons for usenet posting.
Susan is hereby cited for the following violatations:

*	Failure to include even one slur at the social perceptiveness
	and/or intelligence of a previous poster.

*	Insufficient inflammatory content.

*	Excess original thought

*	Excess literateness

A warning from the court of the Usenet Gods is hereby issued.  The Gods
are of two minds as to whether further action should be taken.  One school
holds that the offense is henious and warrants draconian measures.  One
school holds that the incident is within statistical noise and should be
ignored.  A third school [Usenet Gods can't count] holds that political
correctness requires that the illiteracy impaired have the right to post
also.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19891 alt.feminism:4689 soc.men:19546
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re:Women in Combat
From: phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:25:44 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

to paraphrase christopher thong...
women can't go into combat,as they will get their frilly dresses all muddy,
they can't fight,they're to busy looking after babies... etc
what utter crap! anyone going into war will experience extreme discomfort
(or even death,for goodness sake). why would it be any harder for
a women.hell,i'm male,i don't want to sit in a trench all day long and i
sure as hell don't want to die just yet,thankyou very much.
the role in life or the career someone chooses is up to that person only;
others,with their religious beliefs etc can't force their views on anyone
else.if a women wants to go into combat,its up to her,not anyone else;
if she can handle the job,whats the problem?
like wise,women should beconscripted to war the same as males,if its neccessary
for our nation to get involved in armed conflict.
people in the past believed e.g. physics was not for women;likewise
many other jobs.we have moved on from that position,we are adveancing
all the time.i don't think anyone can rest until females are equally
represented in all aspects of life;it may take a century,but i would be
proud to live in a country with 50 percent female soldiers,physicists,
engineers...


stephen botha
christchurch
new zealand.

From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:45:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Sexual victimization of 13 year old boy
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	I've seen a fair amount of discussion on this topic that
	has taken the form of  _Who done it_, vs. what was done.

	Presupposing that either men _or_ women are the resopnsible
	party for sexsm directed against men is quite a presumption
	indeed.  It is an improper assumption.  

	I sometimes wonder why there is all this effort behind finding
	what 'group' is to blame, and so little effort is spent on
	discussion of the original problem.  All this discussion 
	about the "patriarchy" and "matriarchy" (hope I didn't botch
	the spelling) is just so much bunk.  We are FAR LESS a patriarchy
	than we are a _society_ formed by all who compose it.  The
	reason that men live lives of men and that women live lives of
	women (whatever that may mean) is simply born of society and
	environment.  

	There seems to be the idea that if you don't belong to the
	group "responsible" for any particular evil, than the 'victims'
	of that evil are not deserving of your concern, sympathy, or
	assistance.  "Men created the mess.... I wash my hands of
	the whole thing!" is typical of this way of thinking...  The best
	example of this I've seen recently is the idea that even though
	men represent BY FAR the most violently victomized group in this
	country (or even on the face of the earth), somehow these victims
	are not deserving of any but the most minimal consideration
	by society, while women who enjoy the safest existance, have
	the lawmakers scrambling to make sure that more money and laws
	are created to _further_ minimize the victimization of women.

	Why?  The fact that much of the violent crimes are comitted by
	men somehow make the male victims less deserving of our attention,
	in effect, making these male victims less victimized than female
	victims.  And all determined by the gender of the criminal... 
	
	The tendancy in this "what's the perps gender?" focus is that
	kids abused by women are not helped, husbands abused by their
	wives are ignored, tennage girls that hop in the sack with an
	adult man are automatically 'raped' by definition, while teenage
	boys that go for a roll with a woman are 'lucky'.

	Forget the gender/race/religion of the criminal.... it doesn't
	change the crime, nor the victims need for help or protection.

	-Mike-
	
	 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men