Anyway, I did respond, but the T-Central admins haven't approved it, yet. (They're busy, I know.) As I didn't bother keeping a copy of it, I guess I should try to reconstruct it, or at least the basic points I was making. Zagria's main concern is my criticism of her list of prisoners; she disputed that it was a sordid. I can only assume she'd be happier if I'd described it as a sad little list that was shabbily presented?
Zagria thinks "sordid" means dirty. That's one meaning of the word, but it does have a couple of meanings and I used the first, more common, definition:
sordid |ˈsôrdid|adjectiveinvolving ignoble actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt:the story paints a sordid picture of bribes and scams.A secondary definition is:
• dirty or squalid: the overcrowded housing conditions were sordid and degrading.My use of the word could be taken either way; but only the first meaning provides any context. I can hardly describe the list as "dirty"; I'm not sure such a usage would make any logical sense. I could describe the list as squalid, but I didn't; I deliberately used the word "sordid". As far as Zagria's main allegation, "that she thinks of the story our sisters in prison as 'dirty' (which is what sordid means). Shall we presume that she finds incarcerated women not to her standards?", I can only assume that Zagria didn't take the time to understand my critique was of her list, not the individuals she listed.
I don't care about her allegation that I am "lacking in empathy"; as such, I'm going to ignore it from hereon. It's a meaningless contention that isn't worth my time in responding to, beyond noting that if I did lack empathy, I'd not care about her gossipy criticism of Mr Norton.
Zagria is also unaware that "highly critical" is often welded to "languid" thinking. Lazy thinkers tend to be very critical; Zagria is certainly very critical of Gary Norton, providing us with comparisons that he's forced to be lacking against and instructions that are approximately 23 years too late. Her comparisons demonstrate a thoughtless languorousness that simply begs uninformed criticism; Zagria made no apparent effort to disappoint on that score.
Finally, Zagria asserts that "[n]either perfection nor not making mistakes are 'standards' in my writings. Carolyn has read only a little, and extrapolated far too much. My attitude is that trans people are human, all too human. In this Gary is like the rest of us." Which belies her actual words; if she were genuinely interested in perceiving this 75 year old chap as "like the rest of us", she would not have used the comparisons she did, nor would she issue the instructions she did. Zagria doesn't like the tale this man tells, and as such she criticized his life and the decisions he has made in it.
Which is fine; gossip is gossip. But what Zagria seemingly fails to understand is that gossip is exactly that: gossip. Bitchy gossip will always be bitchy gossip. Zagria's refutation is as lazily constructed as her original post. Considering that Zagria is quite keen to point out Mr Norton's failings, it seems a trifle hypocritical for her to be upset when the failings of her blog post about the man are pointed out. Perhaps Zagria could think about how she'd feel if someone came along and criticized her life, her decisions, as she criticizes Mr Norton?
And, finally, if Zagria were as aware of people as she seems to like think she is - she would know I go by masculine pronouns (I don't mind feminine ones, but I am a man), that I enjoy gossip - especially political gossip - and that I, like most, have no trouble extrapolating mean-spirited criticism from its original bitchy gossip.
C'est la vie and all that jazz.
Added: The Fine Ladies of T-Central put up my comment. So now I don't have to try and remember what I said. :-) (It was an off-the-cuff remark, and I don't usually make any effort to remember those!)
Your list was sordid. Look up the definition of "sordid" and you'll notice that list of yours fits.
Here, allow me:
involving ignoble actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt:
I thought your list to be morally distasteful. Most of the people on that list had been involved in, or perpetrated, ignoble actions. Hence, sordid. (I have no idea if your intent was to evoke sympathy or not? I was sympathetic to some on your list.)
"Languid" and "highly critical" are not mutually exclusive; indeed, I've often noticed that they are joined with alacrity and enthusiasm. Frequently, you'll find they've been glued together and become the same thing - the evidence being right there, in a gossipy, poorly considered critique of someone's life, for instance.
Mr Norton is like the rest of us. His life is also his affair. You weren't there when he made the initial decision to have a sex change, and you weren't there when he decided he'd made a mistake. You might want to consider the "23 years ago" part of his story; you clearly did not stop to think about his state of mind back then, or that the information someone could obtain about sex changes and gender in the late 1980's was scarce and often dangerously uninformed. You might also want to consider that the next time you feel like blasting someone for making a decision with their life that you can't, or won't, take the time to understand. While Mr Norton's story is newsworthy, the gossip it promotes is not above, or immune to, its own criticism. You assuredly do not convey the idea that Mr Norton is "like the rest of us" in your post; quite the opposite - you set an unreasonable bar and then deride him for not clearing it. I'll even go so far to say that I think you deliberately hold Mr Norton to an unreasonable standard because you don't like his most recent decision about his life. The comparisons you employed imply nothing else. If you were intent upon showing that Mr Norton is "all too human", you would not have been so highly critical of his decision and would not have mentioned, because it would be unnecessary, what he should have done by your lights.
If you took the time to read a little about me, you'd find that I read widely, am very fond of political gossip and go by masculine pronouns.