jumping dresses over hot heads

come to think of it, we came from the same school of thought, social sciences. you are in psychology, while i am in social anthropology.

source

although we (should) know, how "glamorous and empowering" these fields are, considering we are able to explain and observe human behaviors and interactions, we are still bound to its flaws and shortcomings. thus, we should not put ourselves above the rest. for regardless how predictable and general human behaviors can be, we still cannot limit them on certain categories and underestimate how human mind works.

no wonder we don't have laws and just rely on theories, and these theories are never constant either. they evolve, give birth to another and will never stop until they become a law--- until absolute truth is reach (which i believe is still a long way to go).

for you, crossdressing and transgender are abnormalities. while for me, it is a matter of preferrence. basically, what i am just driving at is the moment you tag them as abnormalities or disorders, you are already implying that they are atleast a disease, contagious or genetics and curable or controlable.

but, in my perspective, it is a preference. cross-dressers and transgenders are like that because they chose to be one, reared by their personal and social environments and not by certain gay genes or hormones.
although, most would argue that hormonal stimuli are still factors to be considered, it could still not be denied that such identity is brought about more by their own personal decision.

source

then, you raised that it is scientific, that through psychiatry and its empirical means, psychology or atleast you have established that such cases are indeed abnormalities and disorders.

but history have already decided this, through the 1973 convention by the American Psychiatric Association, where they have already removed homosexuality as a mental disorder and not universally viewed as a pathology.

if these are still not enough, then lets just simplify things for the benefit of you and to those who are not in related to our field. perhaps, you are starting to tag me as know-it-all again.

but you have said it yourself, whenever you attend mass. it annoys you how much the church could be judgmental and discriminatory to homosexuals. but how is this different from your standpoint?

source

following the analogy, if church views it as evil, while psychology deemed it as an abnormality, would it also be the same if we say that while bible condemned it as a sin, psychology books identify it as a disorder?
i (will) never impose my standpoint into to you or anyone vis-a-vis the discpline i belong, and neither tell you that you should drop yours to give way to mine. for me, this was suppose to be a healthy arguement regarding interdisciplinary views to homosexuality, but the moment, you called me, "makitid ang utak," that was beyond my patience to endure.

i tried being as objective as i can be, like most of the arguement i had been. but you were the one who pushed me to my subjectivities. i am sorry, if i called you names. i am sorry, if i wasn't able to meet your expectations. and i am sorry, if i can't change myself and my opinions just for you.
let's just drop this off.

* ewik in his pa-intellectual tampuhan blues.
** no, this doesn't happen often. i can still make tampo because of lovelife, sexlife or even with the kikay earings that you are wearing-- and see i can also be konyo! (probably, joaqui is now laughing and enjoying this!)
*** and above all, no i am not a crossdresser or transgender, not because i find something wrong about it. or do you also want to have a piece of my pa-intellectual tampuhan blues?

**** this isn't funny, dabo, don't laugh?! hahaha.