How polite are we then?

A baby could become the first person without a legal mother if a transgender man wins a historic court battle.

Lawyers representing the parent told a judge that he had been biologically able to get pregnant and give birth but had legally become a man when the child was born.

The man wants to be identified as the child’s “father” or “parent” on a birth certificate, however a birth registrar told the man the law requires people who give birth to children to be registered as mothers.

I had a quick – and incomplete – think through this. And couldn’t come up with any reason why it is important that the state, or just the public register, records “mother” rather than parent.

Lots of tradition, but not really a current reason.

Anyone?

BTW, anyone who gives birth is a woman. But still can’t think of why “mother” must appear on the document.

42 comments on “How polite are we then?

  1. Trying to think, and not coming up with anything. “Parent” seems fine. I can only come up with orthodox rules about who is considered Jewish based on your mother being Jewish and disregarding the father, and Muslim inheritance rules which reserve something for the mother (I think). Not worth getting in a twist about.

  2. Because all children, absent some bio-science wizardry such as cloning, have a mother and father.
    Our paperwork needs to reflect reality, not some crazy fever dream interpretation of what Insane McCrazyPerson thinks is reality.

    Also, if there is an x-linked genetic defect, and we want to trace back to find other likely carriers, it might be helpful if we can look at records and determine which parent is which.

  3. The Mother’s mental problems are her own business.

    However the vital issue in the trannie caper–and the only reason the left give a shit–is the enshrining in law of Marxist subjectivist evil.

  4. The document exists to reflect the situation at the time the child was born. It’s part of an audit trail. The fact that both of my parents are dead does not change the fact that they actually were my parents.

  5. What is the current legal situation when two gay men adopt a baby?
    Or if a baby is abandoned on the church/hospital steps and they are unable to trace the mother.

    I’m pretty sure in both cases the child has no legal mother so the headline is a bit overblown.

    Though having a fully complete birth certificate without a mother might be unique.

    Surely the ultimate problem is that this bloke holds an ‘outdated’ and ‘sexist’ attitude that ‘mother’ implies the person is female. Though to be fair the whole marriage/civil partnership debate shows how hung up people seem to get about historical baggage on terms – some gays insisting there relationships must be named a marriage, and some heterosexuals insisting that theirs must be named a civil partnership even though at the end of the day they are the same thing.

  6. What Chernyy_Drakon said.

    We are back with the Czech greengrocer. If it was a matter of politeness I could accept it. But it is not. Behind it will come the next demand. And the next. And the next.

    People will be fired if they do not pretend that someone born with two X chromosomes and a vagina is not a man. People will be hounded out of public life.

    At the moment we are still, to some degree, free to protest about this. So protest we must. Or our children will ask us what the f**k happened:

    The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

    Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.

    It is us or them. Either we will be in labour camps – or I suspect most people will be happy to be humiliated – or they will be in mental hospitals. Choose a side.

  7. The Mole – “some gays insisting there relationships must be named a marriage, and some heterosexuals insisting that theirs must be named a civil partnership even though at the end of the day they are the same thing.”

    No, they are not the same thing. Why this should be is the question but we know from outcomes that marriage makes a huge difference in a child’s life and second rate imitations of marriage are not as good.

    Gays are not insisting that their travesty ought to be called a marriage. They are insisting all of us should be brow beaten into acknowledging something that is not true. They do not give a damn about marriage. They only care about humiliating the rest of us.

  8. Maybe changing the certificate will mean anyone reviewing the certificate will know your parents were a nutjob.

    Might affect the future.

  9. If our rules and legal system are to be subjected to the counterfactual whims of the mentally ill and wilfully irresponsible, we are truly fvcked. This woman needs to be sectioned for the good of her, her child and society.

    In certain countries, the authorities or a court can refuse to accept and register the name proposed for a child by its parents. eg NZ apparently refused proposed names of Anus and Sex Fruit. To me that, and the mother here wanting to be called a father, should be grounds for the child to be taken out of the care of its parents and the social work department should be all over the mother like a rash.

  10. Surely the ultimate problem is that this bloke holds an ‘outdated’ and ‘sexist’ attitude that ‘mother’ implies the person is female.

    This bloke?
    Are you referring to the woman who gave birth to the child?

    This is the problem. Mother is a female term. Father is male. The non-gendered term is parent.
    Saying that a mother can be male is just wrong.

  11. “To me that, and the mother here wanting to be called a father, should be grounds for the child to be taken out of the care of its parents and the social work department should be all over the mother like a rash.”

    Because that always ends well. And the social work departments aren’t in the least stuffed to the gunwales will people who believe – or profess to believe – this kind of arrant nonsense…

  12. Probably something to do with citizenship. Before 1983 the mother couldn’t pass on citizenship it had to be conferred through the father.

    I’m looking into getting British passports for my 2 who were both born abroad to a foreign mother and there’s all sorts of complicated rules depending on when they and I were born. If I had been born after 1983 I’d also have to show my father was born in the UK or something.

  13. Gays … only care about humiliating the rest of us.

    Of the several gays with whom I am acquainted, I have seen no evidence that any of them cares about humiliating anyone. I thought that the process of ascribing the qualities of certain members of a group to the entire group was a hallmark of the left.

  14. On a point of order concerning the first comment. As far as I’m aware, Jewishness was originally partrilinial. As in pretty well all Indo-European cultures and many others. However, the widespread rapes & killing during the Cossack pogroms left a lot of Jewish women with what would have been non-Jewish children & a shortage of male Jews. So they fudged it.

  15. Here’s a reason. Children should not be subjected to the whims of their mentally ill parents. She gave birth? She’s the mother in every sense, mentally ill, but still the mother.

  16. I’m very much minded to agree with Mr Black there. Can you imagine trying to explain to someone why the “mother” on your birth certificate is a geezer? That your Mum was a loonie. Why do they presume their children will have the same delusions? But then, a feature of these nutcases is they only apparently think of themselves & have little regard for other people.

  17. “I had a quick – and incomplete – think through this. And couldn’t come up with any reason why it is important that the state, or just the public register, records “mother” rather than parent.”

    Sigh. This topic again?

    The basic problem here is that there are two definitions that can be used to select pronouns and gendered words like mother/father: sex (what’s between your legs) and gender (what’s between your ears). Which one is the more appropriate depends on what you’re asking for. But the modern rule, and the one the complainant is trying to apply here, is to use a person’s gender. That’s how a lot of people are going to interpret it, and that’s going to be more likely to be appropriate to how they’ll apply it in social situations.

    In the delivery room itself, it’s certainly arguable that ‘sex’ is the more relevant criterion, and referring to people by their sex more useful. Genetic studies, too. (Although given modern fertilitiy treatments involving sperm or egg donation, this is now unreliable.) But most other uses of birth certificates don’t involve what’s going on between the parent’s legs – it’s all about who has parental responsibility, who is next of kin, who can marry who, who has custody, who pays child support, who gets child benefit, and so on. The basic function is to identify a particular person as having parental responsibility for a child, and it makes that a hell of a lot easier if the hairy bloke with a beard showing up at the school to pick their kid up doesn’t have to enter into complex, embarassing, and highly personal explanations of their medical history to be able to say yes, this really is their child, they’re the parent listed as “mother” on the birth certificate.

    From the point of view of accuracy and completeness of records, then it’s certainly arguable that they should extend the format of birth certificates to be able to precisely express all these fine distinctions. From the point of view of its practical and legal uses, there’s no actual need for this information, so listing “parents” ought to be perfectly acceptable.

    The law in question makes a distinction between mother and father because only the mother has to be named on the certificate – if not married to the father, then the father’s name can be left off. (So of both parents are claiming to be fathers, you don’t want them both to be able to ask to be left off!) There are also a bunch of other procedures for changing names and parentage declarations later on, as circumstances change. So it’s clear that the law intentionally gives some latitude to allow for people to avoid some of the social stigma surrounding the true circumstances of their birth – and this case seems like the same sort of thing. The rules as they stand are based on the social mores that existed in 1953, they just need updating.

  18. @NiV

    We should also allow more than two parents on a birth certificate. That way we don’t discriminate against polygamy types who all want to be part of one big family.

    Would that be reasonable?
    Then a child could have two mothers and one father…

    From the point of view of accuracy and completeness of records, then it’s certainly arguable that they should extend the format of birth certificates to be able to precisely express all these fine distinctions

    Or we could have our legal documents reflecting reality for accuracy. One mother, one father.
    If a woman wants to pretend they’re a dude, and call herself the father, she can have at it.
    If a group want to share parental responsibility and decide amongst themselves in some sort of commune, have at it.
    Raise their kids how they want.

    Forcing changes to legal documents like this forces us all at gunpoint to partake in the insanity.

    That is what is wrong here.

  19. Chernyy_Drakon
    Exactly. If some eccentrics want to indulge their strange delusions that they are a different sex to the one they born as, fine. They can reasonably expect tolerance. But there is no obligation on the rest of us to incorporate their delusions into the legal system.

  20. Last time I checked the law, the person whose name goes in the ‘father’ column is the person who provided the sperm, and the person whose name goes in the ‘mother’ column is the person who provided the womb, regardless of what those persons identify as. This has caused issues where the womb-provider is not the egg-provider and the egg-provider wants to be the legal parent as the womb-provider has to relinquish their possessory rights so the egg-provider can adopt the offspring.

  21. Gamecock – “So not all women are transgender man, but all transgender men are women?”

    There are now, apparently, transgender women who are women to women transgenders. That is they were born female, they think of themselves as female, but not in the traditional way in which they were raised.

  22. There are now, apparently, transgender women who are women to women transgenders. That is they were born female, they think of themselves as female, but not in the traditional way in which they were raised.

    Eh? Wtf?
    How does that work?

    So they’re just… women…

    When did the inmates take over the asylum?

  23. 1991. Bill Clinton & co. determined that they could accommodate the personality disordered to get their votes.

    “Got a problem? It’s not your fault! Vote for us, and we’ll take care of it for you!”

  24. “We should also allow more than two parents on a birth certificate. That way we don’t discriminate against polygamy types who all want to be part of one big family. Would that be reasonable? Then a child could have two mothers and one father…”

    Yes. In cases where an egg from one mother has the cell nucleus replaced by one from another mother, and then fertilized with a sperm from the father, then the child would have genetic material from three parents. That’s already been done.

    And as genetic technology progresses, I’m sure even more exotic combinations will soon be possible.

    The problem with writing “good-enough-for-government-work” laws that work 99% of the time is that they only work 99% of the time! There are always edge cases where one has to be a bit more flexible. But it takes a particularly bloody-minded bureaucratic stupidity to declare that 99% is 100%, the edge cases don’t exist, and reality has to fit the rules because that’s what the rules are. The rules don’t bend.

    “Or we could have our legal documents reflecting reality for accuracy.”

    Yes, agreed. The modern usage is that gendered nouns and pronouns are by default selected on the basis of gender, not sex. The gender of that particular parent is male, and therefore the *accurate* word to use would be ‘father’.

    The answer depends on precisely what question you’re asking, and therefore what definition you’re using.

    “Exactly. If some eccentrics want to indulge their strange delusions that they are a different sex to the one they born as, fine.”

    This is *your* delusion! That’s not what they’re saying at all.

    ‘Sex’ is about how their genitals are arranged. ‘Gender’ is about how their brain is wired. Their claim is that their brain is wired ‘male’ where their genitals are ‘female’ (or vice versa). So they’re not claiming to be a different *sex* to that assigned at birth, they’re claiming their *gender* doesn’t match their sex.

    And they’re describing reality accurately – their brain really is wired that way! The delusion is to deny the medical reality, and blindly assert that the brain can’t possibly disagree with the body, simply because it doesn’t fit tradition.

    “Eh? Wtf? How does that work?”

    It’s just an alternative (and unecessarily confusing IMO) label for MtF transgender. Their argument is that if you do categorise people by their gender, then they were ‘female’ both before and after their transition – they only looked male, before. It’s a case of attempting to pedantically apply the new terminology with strict accuracy and consistency, and taking it too far.

    It’s actually a misunderstanding of the reasons behind the terminology, because in current usage the ‘M’ and ‘F’ in terms like ‘MtF’ are not referring to either sex or gender, but to social gender roles and appearance – how you ‘present’ to society. It’s yet another definition; for an entirely distinct concept.

    There are lots of different concepts that are strongly correlated with sex and gender, but none of which match exactly with any of the others. It depends, as always, on why you’re asking.

  25. “Yes. In cases where an egg from one mother has the cell nucleus replaced by one from another mother, and then fertilized with a sperm from the father, then the child would have genetic material from three parents. That’s already been done.”

    You don’t have a clue what “replaced” means.

  26. “You don’t have a clue what “replaced” means.”

    Interesting claim. Why do you say that?

  27. Yes. In cases where an egg from one mother has the cell nucleus replaced by one from another mother, and then fertilized with a sperm from the father, then the child would have genetic material from three parents. That’s already been done.

    While technically true, it is the DNA in the nucleus that is by far the dominant when considering genetics. So for practical purposes, we can ignore the mtDNA.

    The problem with writing “good-enough-for-government-work” laws that work 99% of the time is that they only work 99% of the time!
    99% of the time is amazingly reliable, especially for government work!

    There are always edge cases where one has to be a bit more flexible.
    And the system allows for this – write unknown in the box for father (or mother if you are found in a box. But if a baby popped out of your vag, congratulations, you’re a mother. Even if you enjoy pretending to be a man.

    The modern usage is that gendered nouns and pronouns are by default selected on the basis of gender, not sex.
    Is it? Must have missed that memo.
    This is a highly contentious issue, which goes against thousands of years of history. To state that everyone up to now was just wrong, this is how it is now and anyone who disagrees is a Stalinist bigot, is the height of arrogance.

    Their claim is that their brain is wired ‘male’ where their genitals are ‘female’ (or vice versa). So they’re not claiming to be a different *sex* to that assigned at birth, they’re claiming their *gender* doesn’t match their sex.

    Yup, they’re making a claim.
    I subsequently have to determine whether that claim is accurate on available evidence.
    Since I don’t carry a Pocket MRI machine to scan brains, I have to use other evidence. So I use things like general body shape, gait, voice frequency, adams apple, presence or absence of a dick/breasts, attitude. These can be done quickly and extremely accurately in a cursory glance thanks to thousands of years of evolution. It is extremely rare to be confused, and in those cases, it only takes a couple of seconds to determine.
    We have to use determinations on what we can easily see.

    It’s just an alternative (and unecessarily confusing IMO) label for MtF transgender. Their argument is that if you do categorise people by their gender, then they were ‘female’ both before and after their transition – they only looked male, before. It’s a case of attempting to pedantically apply the new terminology with strict accuracy and consistency, and taking it too far.

    It is impossible to transition from one place to the same place. The word transition means to travel or change, originating from latin transire – to go across.
    By transitioning, it is an admission that you weren’t always the one you’ve tried to change into.

  28. Too fucking obvious, NiV.

    “In cases where an egg from one mother has the cell nucleus replaced by one from another mother”

    Replaced means the DNA from one mother is REMOVED. REFUCKINGPLACED.

    “then the child would have genetic material from three parents.”

    3 – 1 = 2. NOT 3, TWO!

    Except in your Fantasyland.

  29. “Replaced means the DNA from one mother is REMOVED. REFUCKINGPLACED.”

    Ah! I see the source of the misundertanding!

    The cell has two sets of DNA, one in the cell nucleus, and the other in the mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA descends down the female line only via the egg.

    The point of three-parent IVF is that there is a genetic fault in the mother’s mitochondrial DNA, so they get the egg from another mother with healthy mitochondria, substitute the other mother’s nuclear DNA, and fertilise. The egg has one mother’s mitochondrial DNA, and the other mother and father’s nuclear DNA. That’s DNA from three parents!

    But thanks for explaining why you had a problem with it. It’s hard to answer objections constructively if people just call you an idiot without explaining why.

    “Is it? Must have missed that memo.”

    If you somehow missed the LGBT community and politically correct brigade banging on about it for the past decade, then surely you noticed all the posts that Tim’s put up about the subject?

    I think the problem is not that you missed the memo, but that you didn’t read it.

    “This is a highly contentious issue, which goes against thousands of years of history. To state that everyone up to now was just wrong, this is how it is now and anyone who disagrees is a Stalinist bigot, is the height of arrogance.”

    *Lots* of things are contentious and go against thousands of years of history. The industrial revolution. Free markets. Computers and electronics. Modern agriculture. Hygiene.

    Socially too. Votes for women. Women wearing trousers. Women going to work, and not just as the secretary or the dancing girls. There’s the sexual revolution, and internet porn, and rock and roll music, and the end of slavery.

    Society changes. It’s not precisely the case that people were “wrong” before – it’s more that the definition of “wrong” has changed. 150 years ago people would have thought it “wrong” for women to wear trousers, but nowadays nobody blinks at that, and they would instead think the people who thought so were “wrong”. By modern standards, they were. But it’s unfair to judge people by a standard that wouldn’t even exist for another century.

    The same with slavery. It’s a practice with thousands of years of history, and its abolition was contentious. In ancient times, owing slaves was honourable and even admirable. It was a sign of wealth and power. Was it “wrong”?

    Before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, people walking around naked were innocent. Afterwards, they were guilty of indecent exposure. Same act, different judgement. That’s just how morality works.

    The ‘Stalinist’ thing was only in response to someone else doing the same – conflating everyone who supported LGBT rights with Stalinists. Lots of people here persist in thinking it’s a left-right thing, when it’s actually on the other Nolan-chart axis. I just thought it amusingly ironic, when being anti-LGBT was actually a Stalinist policy.

    If you don’t want to be called a Stalinist bigot, then don’t tar everyone who is even slightly pro-LGBT as left-wing Stalin-supporters. Don’t assume that just because someone has some policies in common with some on the left it implies they’re a leftist. Simple.

    “Since I don’t carry a Pocket MRI machine to scan brains, I have to use other evidence. So I use things like general body shape, gait, voice frequency, adams apple, presence or absence of a dick/breasts, attitude. These can be done quickly and extremely accurately in a cursory glance thanks to thousands of years of evolution.”

    The issue is that brains and bodies sometimes don’t match. We’re asking how you tell how the *brain* is wired, independently of the body. So you suggest looking at the *body*. How does *that* make sense?

    In any case, thousands of years of evolution has already provided us with an answer – you tell how brains are wired by observing how people behave. You can easily tell if someone is introverted or extroverted; if they’re sporty or geeky or arty. If a boy starts acting like a girl, it’s very obvious, which is why they usually and very quickly got the shit kicked out of them by the other boys, until they learned to hide it. If there was no observable difference, it wouldn’t be such a problem.

    It’s not that you can’t tell. It’s that you automatically assume the difference you see is due to sinfulness, deception, delusion, or mental illness, rather than simply that their brain is naturally wired that way.

  30. If you somehow missed the LGBT community and politically correct brigade banging on about it for the past decade, then surely you noticed all the posts that Tim’s put up about the subject?

    I think the problem is not that you missed the memo, but that you didn’t read it.

    No, I saw that. I saw a minority pressure group making lots of noise. I saw a weak, unprincipled press, influenced by said pressure groups cave in fear of being called bigoted.*
    Just because the media and a pressure group or two say it is, doesn’t mean it is so.

    *Everyone is intolerant to some extent. People in the West are just afraid of bring labelled so. Once you come to accept that you are intolerant of somethings, it is quite liberating as being called a bigot/racist/trangenderist /whateverist loses its power.

    bit about history
    The difference is that we’re not talking about some technological development, or an argument about who should get to have a say on how society is (and there are multiple viable models, democracy is relatively new and by no means proven to be best in the long run – I think something like from the book Starship Troopers would be worth trying) . We’re arguing about whether society has the right to force you to say something that disagrees with all readily available evidence. To force you to say that that dude over there with a dick is actually a woman, and if you don’t you get shot.
    That is wrong.

    So you suggest looking at the *body*. How does *that* make sense?
    Because I can’t look at the brain. That’s the point. And it isn’t just the body, it’s unconscious behaviours – stance, gait, etc. It makes sense because it’s quick, easy and means I don’t have to spend hours watching a person to know how to interact with them.

    If your brain is telling you that you’re a woman, when you have a meat and two veg, then you’re mentally ill.
    Same as this bloke.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3524063/Transgender-woman-Eva-Tiamat-Medusa-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.html
    He isn’t a woman. He isn’t a dragon.
    He’s a loon.
    Or should we all pretend he’s a f*king mythical lizard?
    How am I meant to interact with him? Do I ignore his eccentricity? Or do I go and find a suit of armour, a sword, a shield and try to slay him to partake in the fantasy?

    Is it just the dragon fantasy that’s crazy, and you consider him to be a woman? Where do you draw the line NiV? At which point do you, personally, say “nope, too crazy for me” and why?
    I’m genuinely curious.

  31. “Just because the media and a pressure group or two say it is, doesn’t mean it is so.”

    Exactly. You saw the memo, you just rejected it’s content.

    “Everyone is intolerant to some extent. People in the West are just afraid of bring labelled so.”

    Yes, because of our history. There have been a lot of intolerant groups in the darker reaches of humanity’s past, and they’re not all well-regarded nowadays. People do indeed take that seriously.

    “Once you come to accept that you are intolerant of somethings, it is quite liberating as being called a bigot/racist/trangenderist /whateverist loses its power.”

    So you’re not at all bothered by “Stalinist bigot”? Good!

    The Stalinists and Nazis and Social Justice Warriors and Beardy Islamic Fundamentalists all say the same thing. Yes, they’re intolerant of stuff. But they see it as stuff that it’s right to be intolerant of, so they don’t actually *care* what you call them, or what you think of them. In fact, it’s a plus that you do! Once you accept that you’re an authoritarian, the ‘insult’ loses its power. It’s very liberating!

    “We’re arguing about whether society has the right to force you to say something that disagrees with all readily available evidence.”

    It doesn’t disagree with the readily available evidence, but nevertheless society doesn’t have the right to force you to say it.

    If you think Islam is the one true religion, society doesn’t have the right to force you to say otherwise. If you think blacks and Jews are racially inferior, society doesn’t have the right to force you to say otherwise. If you think the rich Capitalists are exploting the poor workers and ought to be sent to the Gulag, society doesn’t have the right to force you to say otherwise.

    You have the right to say it, but I have the right to argue that you’re wrong, while still arguing that you have the right to say it. Just because I think you’re technically and morally wrong about TGs doesn’t mean I’m one of those who thinks you shouldn’t even be allowed to argue your case. Don’t confuse the two positions – or the two groups of people. Women are not all radical Marxist feminists. The poor are not all socialists. Baby polar bears are not enviromentalists.

    “Because I can’t look at the brain. That’s the point.”

    Just because you can’t look at it doesn’t mean that it’s not there, or that it is not what it is. I can’t tell what religion a person is by looking at them either – should I assume therefore that the religious are all mentally ill?

    “Where do you draw the line NiV? At which point do you, personally, say “nope, too crazy for me” and why?
    I’m genuinely curious.”

    Depends what question you’re asking. Regarding whether people should be allowed to get on with it, my limit is the Harm Principle.

    Regarding whether people are crazy, that’s a more difficult question. I’d start by asking do they have valid evidence for it? (Thus, on the TG question, there’s clear medical evidence for it, none that I can see against it, and so the TGs are not crazy, but those who insist against all the evidence that they are are clearly deluded.) However, that’s difficult because humans very rarely have valid evidence for most of their beliefs, so we would wind up condemning the entire human race as ‘crazy’ if we took that stance.

    ‘Crazy’ is a spectrum. We’re all on it. And if we want society’s tolerance for our own unfounded beliefs and peculiarities, we had best show as much tolerance as possible for everyone else’s.

  32. NiV, your patience astounds me. Most of the other comments here are playing semantic games of one form or another. Your comments manage to separate the labels from the things most helpfully.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.