Largo Embargo

Scott Hardie | March 29, 2007
I don't understand the negative reaction to a Florida city manager coming out as transsexual, which has resulted in his firing. (link) I get the bigoted transsexuals-are-freaks reaction; that's easy enough. But the others don't make sense. (I draw some of these from a friend who lives across the street from the daily city-hall protests.)

- He should be fired because the sex change will cause controversy. One resident is quoted as saying that Largo is now the laughingstock of the nation because of him. But his sex change was local news at best; nobody had heard of this guy except local government employees. It's his firing that has made it national news. Doesn't anybody get that martyring the man will make his side much stronger?

- He isn't being fired just because of the sex change; he also bullied city employees. Isn't that a sign of a city manager being effective? And how does the existence of other reasons make it ok also to fire him for the sex change?

- A sex change is wrong for a public figure. How will we explain this to our kids? Um, that he wants to be a woman. An explanation of transgenderism doesn't have to be graphic, and it's not going to make your kids want their own sex changes. And not to repeat a point, but nobody's kids would have asked what's up with the Largo city manager unless his firing had made it national news, so don't blame him.

- A sex change just plain wrong, because God made him a man. Then why did God make him feel so very much like a woman? Besides, it's his private business if he wants to defy God like this – you can't say it's public business because he's a city employee, if the separation of church and state apply.

What do you think?

Amy Austin | March 29, 2007
Not to diminish the topic, but after reading the article I can't help but have two pointed questions...

1) "Gay Gentry"??? (I'm sorry, but am I the only one who finds this ironically hilarious enough to wonder if the article is real?)

2) "Jimmy Dean"? The sausage guy?? Does he really live in Largo??? (Again, just something comical about this to me.)

Aside from that, I agree with all your points, Scott.

Aaron Shurtleff | March 29, 2007
Well, DUH! The problem here is plain as the nose on your face! No one complains about being bullied by a guy, but once Steve becomes Susan, well, no one wants to be bullied by a woman...even if he (she?) did start out as (and will still be, chromosomally) a man! However, being sexist is not right, whereas we still have the gray area around transgenderism. If they said they had problems with being bullied by a woman, there'd be a much bigger fracas. They just took the easy excuse. ;)

You do all know I'm being weirdly sarcastic, right?

The only quibble I would have with your opinions, Scott, is the we (you and I, at least) are too close to the situation to say that it was solely a "local news" thing. It's already exploded, so it's easy to say it never would have been more than a local issue, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that. I think it's possible that this would have spread out to become a national story either way, though maybe not as widespread as it got after they decided to fire him (her?). And that's a minor quibble at best, because I agree with everything else. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I think the best thing to do is make it a city wide vote of confidence for or against keeping him (her?). If Stanton really wants to see how the city employees and citizens would embrace the change, give it to him (her?). Then, if Largo decides, they don't want him (her?), that's their problem. The commisioners are going to be the ones who look stupid now. Dumbasses!

Kris Weberg | March 29, 2007
More to the point, how public a figure is a city manager? How many people of any age, let alone kids, can name their city manager?

Scott Hardie | March 30, 2007
Well, I hear you, Aaron, but I don't follow Largo news, or even Sarasota news. I first read about this in CNN's national news, where it was reported that his termination was imminent. Maybe I'm biased because that's the context in which I first heard about it.

Jackie Mason | March 30, 2007
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | March 30, 2007
I don't know if this news story will make kids want to be transgendered, but it does make me want to curl up with a pint of Haagen-Dazs and play SimCity.

Tony Peters | March 30, 2007
you know this reminded me of this case in Hawaii I know the only thing that makes them related is the TG issue but at least the Hawaiians were objecting to an actual fairness issue not so much the morality of it

Anna Gregoline | April 2, 2007
A sex change is wrong for a public figure. How will we explain this to our kids?

I HATE when parents use this kind of excuse for wanting to hide the world from their kids. You know what you do? You GROW THE FUCK UP and explain it to your kids like a mature adult, which you should be if you have kids! If you can't manage to talk to your kids about things like this, or drugs, or how sex works, then you're not doing a good job, in my opinion.

Sorry, but it irks me when people want everyone to participate in sheilding their kids from something they are uncomfortable with.

Jackie Mason | April 2, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 2, 2007
It's terribly important. I have a friend who's parent's NEVER gave him the sex talk - and his mom was in the medical field! Guess what? He got a girl pregnant because of misinformation.

It's DANGEROUS not to give your kids the information they need to know in life. And I think it's damn irresponsible of parents to dodge questions.

Lori Lancaster | April 2, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | April 3, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 3, 2007
I don't anticipate having kids, so I won't have a five year old to tell about it. So I can't let you know when I have a kid cause I won't be having a kid. If I did, I can promise you I wouldn't dodge any questions. If my niece (currently 4) asked me any questions I would try to answer them honestly and factually. I don't see any reason why I would want to dodge a question? MY being uncomfortable (if I was) shouldn't be an issue, double so if I was a parent. As a parent, I would feel it was my job to answer those questions. I'm sure nothing about being a parent is easy, but like I said, that's why I get frustrated - some people need to grow up and be the adults in the room and talk to their children. Obviously you can do that because you have.

I don't see talking about sex to a child as "shattering innocence." I've always liked that phrase "the facts of life" for that reason. I'm sorry you felt forced into it because of an unpleasant experience involving your daughter.

If a child asks a question, I hope that parents answer it factually and in a way the child can understand at their age. And yes, I hope that children get information at least about their bodies if not sex from their parents at a very young age. I'm not talking about you since I have no idea what your family life is like - But so often I hear kids who have no clue what the proper names are for anything, etc. And that's upsetting to me.

There aren't any rules about expletives on this site, that I was aware of. I see the boys swearing all the time.

Jackie Mason | April 3, 2007
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | April 5, 2007
That's bad, but there are also the kids who think they have preserved their virginity because they only have manual and oral sex. And they're actually snobs about it. Congratulations, you're a slut and a moron.

Lori Lancaster | April 5, 2007
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | April 6, 2007
No, just something I read about in our society. There are older women who have their hymens surgically restored and claim to have their virginity back, but that's a symbolic statement in support of a religious-political movement to restore sexual modesty in America. The teens I referred to merely think they're getting away with some kind of loophole.

Jackie Mason | April 7, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 8, 2007
Most women don't even HAVE a hymen by the time they have sex. It's usually gone or partially gone by then.

Kris Weberg | April 8, 2007
By the time my folks got 'round to asking me about sex, I already knew the end of pretty much every sentence. Chalk one up for sex ed. And now, with the Internet, I wonder if "the talk" is more like 'the url."

Amy Austin | April 10, 2007
My experience was a little bit like Jackie's -- pamphlets (that I was already well-versed on) mysteriously appearing on my bed when I came home from school. I guess there's really no need to have "the talk" if your well-read pre-teen will happily take a clue and save you the embarrassment.

Steve Dunn | April 10, 2007
Chalk me up as someone who thinks you can still be a virgin if you've only done oral and manual. You're still saving something.

I'm much more ambivalent about using anal sex as a virginity loophole (reportedly a common tactic in some societies). To me that seems a bit like scarfing down a Double Quarter Pounder and Biggie Fries, but still considering yourself on a diet for ordering Coke Zero.

Lori Lancaster | April 10, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | April 10, 2007
Heeheehee... I think it's more like scarfing the DQP et al, and then throwing it up! ;-P ;-D "Manual & oral"??? I think that's more the Coke Zero comparison, myself... ;-)

Lori Lancaster | April 10, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 10, 2007
according to an ex president oral doesn't count as sexual relations take that for what it's worth.....Lori according to the lesbians that I have known straights don't know the meaning of penetration....definitely not virgins.

Scott Hardie | April 11, 2007
There are varying levels of intimacy in sex, and it's true that you haven't achieved a certain level of that intimacy by only performing those acts. But I'm with Webster's on this one: A virgin is a person who has never had sexual intercourse, and intercourse is physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person. Partly this bugs me because some snobby teenagers think they've figured out how to get away with something, and partly it bugs my inner English major that people defy a simple dictionary definition.

TC discussed this four years ago when Rick Santorum made his most controversial remarks: (link) I can't help but notice that his fallacious argument against legalizing sodomy – that it would result in the legalization of bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery – has been proven wrong by time. The only related movement that gained traction was the movement to legally recognize gay marriage, and obviously it wasn't nearly enough traction.

Steve Dunn | April 11, 2007
Well, there are different kinds of virgins. There are people who have never had heterosexual pentrative sex, and there are people who have never seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Everything is relative.

Maybe I'm old school, but in high school we weren't trying to be snobby - we were just trying to find fun things to do without "going all the way." The avoidance of "full sex" in those days was based on the social import/stigma (the sense of sex being a big deal, losing one's virginity as crossing the Rubicon and/or being immoral) and the possibility that pregnancy might result. Those other behaviors were deemed "safe" because there was no risk of pregnancy, and if it left a little something extra for some future true love or spouse, hey, bonus.

Amy Austin | April 11, 2007
I understand what you're saying, Steve -- and I don't want to speak for Scott here -- but if he sees it anything like I do, it isn't really like that anymore. The whole "sex is immoral" attitude is rather passe with all but the most conservative crowds these days -- I mean, there may be those who *do* think it's special to wait, but it seems to me like this whole "purity ball" crap and the accompanying teenage "I'm-still-a virgin-even-though-I've-taken-it-in-the-ass" mentality (which, btw, is ridiculous to me on the added level of supposedly preserving the girl's virginity -- but what of his???) is just another ridiculous example of the hypocritical times in which we live... neo-conservatives finding every possible loophole to fuck -- each other and the country, while maintaining that they're doing something honorable.

Steve Dunn | April 11, 2007
Amy, while I appreciate your turn of phrase, I think the political analogy is a bit of a stretch. I don't think conservatives or neo-conservatives can be blamed for semantic hairsplitting on the part of anyone who lived through the Clinton presidency.

Amy Austin | April 11, 2007
Haha... this is true, Steve -- and while I think it's ridiculous that the man didn't just straight up own the blow job, I think it's equally ridiculous that it was made an impeachable offense, while nothing that our current leader does seems to matter. I also think that it was Puritanical pressure that made him a lying fool in the first place, and yes, I can blame that one on the conservatives. ;-)

Tony Peters | April 12, 2007
sigh I remember the day when a man was proud to get a Blow Job...Honestly I think Clinton was a lying fool long before the cigar incident.

Kris Weberg | April 13, 2007
Of course Clinton was a liar...he ran for President. That's one of the prerequisites for the job.

Anna Gregoline | April 13, 2007
Snort. No shit. And we have the King of All Liars in there now.

Tony Peters | April 13, 2007
yes well I for one would prefer a good old sex scandal to the never ending ineptitude that has shown itself of late
This however is just creepy, promise your dad that you will save yourself for another man....

Kris Weberg | April 13, 2007
I get what you're saying, Steve, but as you imply in your post, the fetishization of some very narrowly defined version of "virginity" is fairly meaningless in terms of everything from physiological response to possible disease risks to (in the case of some forms of nonpenetrative sex, and even occasionally with mutual masturbation) the risk of pregancy. It's a taboo without content, relying entirely, as you say, on "tradition" or "custom."

The problem, for example, with a lot of the abstinence education initiatives is that they seem to trust in the power of tradition in exactly the sort of way that makes a magical protection of "virginty" defined entirely as "lack of vaginal penetration." If everyone's acting n the context of the same traditions, it just about works, but 'd argue that the U.S. at least is a hypermodernized society in too many ways for those traditions to remain properly operative. In a hypermodernized context, traditional boundaries transform into something closer to technicalities or regulations, that is, they cease to have ethical weight and become bare morality -- "law" without spirit, only letter.

That's where I'd source the "anal exception." (As Dave Barry's list of Great Band Names goes, "The Anal Exception" might have a place of honor.) It's taking the custom of virginity and reading it as a technical definition that excludes a very specific physical act; the act and the idea of virginity have then been divorced from the set of traditions and the social system of relations that gave it its real force and meaning. Virginity in that way of living becomes a thing in a very modern sense, and its preservation is not guaranteed by carefully forming and guarding sexual intentions but by thoroughly defining and redeploying sexual techniques.

Steve Dunn | April 14, 2007
Yes, but Kris, the important thing is that hyper-technical definitions of virginity facilitate teen orgasms. That's the important thing. Consider it a half-measure on the way toward straight-up hedonism.

Tony Peters | April 14, 2007
Steve has a point...I mean I've never heard of a bad orgasm

Kris Weberg | April 14, 2007
There may be no bad orgasms, but there are certainly badly-timed orgasms.

Jackie Mason | April 15, 2007
[hidden by request]