The word "bigotry" should not be used against people who question the validity of transgenderism. That itself is a kind of bigotry.
That's like the assholes at Breitbart claiming they're some kind of heroes because they defy "PC" by being openly racist.
As has already been pointed out to you sexuality is far more complex that a binary on/off switch.
Just ask all those republicans who like you condemn in public anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to a "conventional" sexual stereotype but in private often do express a far more complex sexuality. Often in ways that are far more personally and socially destructive than people who are very open about their sexual nature.
So this is just more of conservative, "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Why do think so many people no longer take conservatives seriously at all. Look at what you have in the White House, what a debacle Fox Network has become and how out of touch the entire conservative movement is. Maybe we should get that arch-conservative Bill O'Reilly to chime in on his take on sexuality that could include how sexual harassment is perfectly acceptable. But we don't hear from him much anymore for some reason.
We're not living in the world 250 or even 50 years ago, the more we understand nature which includes ourselves the more we understand just how complex human nature is including sexuality.
That may seem threatening to people who seemingly want to control everything while at the same time behaving in whatever way they please. Which is exactly what defines conservatives today in the US when you look at who they just put in the White House and how they love to condemn others in public for many of exactly the same things they do in private.
Sexuality really isn't that complex at the physical level. What you are talking about is the complexity of the human mind, which is something quite different. As I said, just because I choose to think I'm Napolean does not make it so, aside from my wish to be Napolean, and to indulge misguided people, who need to address deeper issues instead of indulging in delusional ideas about their sexuality, is damaging them more than trying to get them to comes to terms with their issues. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
No, what you're talking about is meaningless ideological mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. The sexual development of individuals is highly complex even when they're still in the womb, after they're born it gets even more so. But what does that mean to someone who demands that the world conforms to their beliefs not fashioning their beliefs based on what the world tells them.
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.
A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male1. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis," says James.
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure," says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.
Does that sound simple to you at all, but that's just the start of how complex human sexuality and all life is.
But as Lausten says, this probably means little to nothing to someone who's already decided their belief system is perfect and all that remains is to impose it one everyone else.You're overlooking the fact that sexuality/gender is only complex when it's DISORDERED - as it is in a very small segment of the population. For most humans, sexuality/gender is very simple.You're incorrectly implying that because something applies to a small segment, it is a DISORDER. If that were true, then you yourself, and each of us, is a DISORDER.You misunderstand - although I could've been more clear - I'm saying these disorders only affect a small number of people and that is why its incorrect to state sexuality/gender is complex; it isn't complex for most of humanity. Something that only affects a small number of people isn't automatically a disorder.
And to say it’s not easy for members of the LGBT community is a huge understatement, here is a very long list of violence against LGBT people in the US alone.
Someone posting extensively on how they should be singled out and treated with the same lack of regard we do for people who victimize others like pedophiles is encouraging more violence and intolerance in society not less.
Once again, how is this poster not engaging in hate speech with an intent to do harm. All the science contradicts his claims that LGBT is not just an aberration but a harmful one, extensive psychological research indicates that LGBT is part of the normal spectrum of human orientation and genetic research shows that down to the cellular level individuals can be both male and female which backs up the psychological research fully in establishing why there is in fact a spectrum.
So are you saying if a child consented to indulge in sex with a pedophile that would be ok? You see how illogical your argument is? You are trying to justify aberrant behavior on the basis of consensus.
If a group of people liked to take part in bestiality would that be ok? You see you have to have societal standards otherwise anything goes.
The term is "consenting adults", which assumes that adults are able to make considered decisions.
An animal cannot be considered a "consenting adult.
Seems you are making it more complicated than it is.
I was taking an extreme example in order to make a point and no, an animal cannot be considered a consenting adult but this illustrates what I was attempting to convey. That some practices are to be abhorred, whether consenting parties are involved or not. Or, put another way, there are (or at least should be) societal standards that are above individual predilections and need to be adhered to. This is why we introduce laws to guide the way we and others behave.
So are you saying if a child consented to indulge in sex with a pedophile that would be ok? You see how illogical your argument is? You are trying to justify aberrant behavior on the basis of consensus.
If a group of people liked to take part in bestiality would that be ok? You see you have to have societal standards otherwise anything goes.
What I actuallysaid:
Children are unable to give informed consent and are often under the total control of the adults who are abusing them. The same applies to bestiality, so for any rational person neither are considered an expression of sexuality.
I''m not the one who has brought up pedophilia and bestiality as an expression of sexuality you are, all I've said is that they are illegal and why.
If you're unable to tell the difference between the concepts of consensual sexual expression and abuse then there's no point in discussing this topic with you.
Or any other as far as I'm concerned, you're way over on the other side of a ideological divide that I'm not going to waste any more time trying to cross.
I refer you to my last post.
Thank you.
In my opinion this discussion here has never been about the morality or possible harm that open expression of LGBT has on individuals or society.
People like the thread starter who are the most vociferous and adamant that no open expression of LGBT be allowed in society are effectively trying to force it back into the closet...where many of them spend their lives.
How do we know this, by the many conservatives who are publicly strongly opposed to LGBT rights but who are then revealed to be closeted LGBT.
Partial list:
- Larry Craig
- Bob Allen
- Randy Boehning
- Steve Wiles
- George Rekers
- Pastor Eddie Long
- Troy King
- Richard Curtis
- Ted Haggard
- Glenn Murphy
- David Drier
- Bruce Barclay
- Roy Ashburn
- Ed Schrock
...
So the evidence isn't that LGBT rights harm society, the evidence is that individuals who are the most opposed to open expression by other adults of their LGBT nature are themselves closeted LGBTs. This likely isn't about the damage that liberals do by allowing a much fuller expression of informed and adult behavior, this is quite likely about someone in denial of aspects of their own nature trying to control that by controlling others. Trying to equate LGBT with pedophilia and bestiality is something the most vociferous opponents of LGBT rights do, not the most rational. And it's become cliche that they take that position not from any concern for others but because they are simply unable to accept their own sexual nature.
As I said before, it must be a special kind of hell.
I think it is mischievous of you to suggest I am equating LGBT with pedophilia and bestiality - I wasn't. What I was doing is taking extreme examples of some sexual practices that we need to legislate against based on moral grounds. Also, I need to make it clear that I do not necessarily think that everyone who is gay or transgender is simply misguided and able to overcome their sexual predispositions. I trust you will respect this before hurling hate accusations at me, which is the usual tactic of anyone who has a view not in accordance with the pro-LGBT community. I do not hate anyone but all I am saying is that, in my view, there are many people who choose to get on the LGBT bandwagon for nefarious reasons of their own and actuality, bring the whole issue into disrepute.
For those people who genuinely has little or no choice about how they express their sexuality I have sympathy and understanding for, but I do not condone the behavior of others who simply feel they want to 'be different' and mimic the lifestyle of the LGBT community in a misguided attempt to experiment. I think this is insulting and patronizing to people who have genuine problems trying to find their true nature.
Informed? How?
Just because someone is an adult does not mean they cannot be misguided and, in fact, can be worse because they can allow themselves to enter into situations that they have been led to think are fashionable and trendy.
I'm not the saying anything goes. I am saying consent alone is not sufficient reason for acting how you want.
I can't tell if you are trolling or just stupid. Children can't give informed consent to have sex with an adult, because they are not capable of understanding what they are are giving consent for, therefore, it can't be informed, according the definition of the word according to law and common sense.
Of course adults can be misguided, so we have definitions like "vulnerable adults" or "registered pedophile" for them. We don't care if they think what they're doing is trendy, it's still illegal. This is exactly what pedophiles are fighting for. They think there is some segment of the population for whom this should be normal. They use other cultures and history as their precedents. So far, they haven't gotten very far. Certainly no one on this forum is advocating for them. So quit arguing like anyone here is or accusing of us of some kind of slippery slope. It ain't happenin.
I'm neither trolling or stupid.
This is a more complex problem than you are trying to make out it is. The central question here is to what extend do we condemn someone who has a personality problem with regard to their sexual preference? Someone who has a real issue with gender identity or whether they are genuinely gay or not, need to be treated with respect and understanding, however the thing I condemn is people who decide voluntarily to choose an unnatural sexual orientation other than they would under different circumstances. To me this just disrespects the genuine gay and transgender community.
I think I have already pointed out that people are a mixture of male/female characteristics but it is a question of moral standards and how we want to see society function. I, you, anybody else, are free to sleep with whomever we wish. We might even choose to indulge in sex with animals and you could argue that this is simply a particular way of expressing our sexuality. What about pedophiles? Pedophiles express their sexuality in a certain way, and to use your argument they do so because their sexual preferences have been influenced by biological and early fetal developments beyond their control. Yet I do not suppose you approve of pedophiles. So, you are probably right when you point out that sexuality is a complex mixture of factors, however, that does not mean it is acceptable to allow ourselves to become victim to the perversions that sexuality can all too easily lead us into in the current climate of social permissiveness and 'trendiness.' Your position seems to be that we allow ourselves to indulge in hedonistic pleasures based on whatever whims happen to sway us.
People used to hang and quarter others who had sinned against the state or stone women who were thought to have transgressed against God. Was this due to early fetal experiences in the womb? Human beings are capable of a range of behaviors, both noble and ignoble and to use excuses of complexity is to ignore societal standards that are put into place to maintain a healthy, integrated society.
I reported this for being possible hate speech, I think that someone who includes LGBT with pedophiles and people who commit bestiality clearly hates the community at large.
Based on the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM over 40 years ago and is now fully recognized by science and most of society as part of the normal spectrum of human orientation, claiming that it is equal to something that is still fully regarded as not just inappropriate but illegal because of the well documented harm it does to victims, I don't see how this kind of speech has any other purpose but to motivate others to express hate towards an identified group.
Ben Carson quickly withdrew similar comments out of recognition of the damage they can and will do to others, is something like this acceptable here.
Far from being a voice of reason I think the poster of these comments is entering the same area of harmful behavior that he is trying to place the entire LGBT community in. Considering the long record of violence and discrimination against LGBT people he is attempting to make them targets and potential victims. In the same way a pedophile would with a vulnerable child.
Well, I trust I have clarified my position a bit more and hope you can see I do not hate anyone, least of all gay and transgender people who have little choice about their sexuality. But I do strongly disapprove of those who seek to experiment with their sexuality in some distorted hope they will find something 'different'. Whatever comes naturally to you is always best and what is natural to one person isn't necessarily natural to another. I would always advise less hysteria in response to such discussions as this just makes it much harder to conduct a rational debate.
IMO, you have not clarified a thing. Why are you advocating the need for laws against, let’s just call it “rape”, when such laws are already established?
Seems to me you have more than a communal interest discussing the subject. No one I know advocates forced sex on non-consenting adults.
It’s like saying, that there should be laws against slavery. Well, there are!.
IMO, you have not clarified a thing. Why are you advocating the need for laws against, let's just call it "rape", when such laws are already established?
Seems to me you have more than a communal interest discussing the subject. No one I know advocates forced sex on non-consenting adults.
It's like saying, that there should be laws against slavery. Well, there are!.
I'm neither trolling or stupid.
This is a more complex problem than you are trying to make out it is. The central question here is to what extend do we condemn someone who has a personality problem with regard to their sexual preference? Someone who has a real issue with gender identity or whether they are genuinely gay or not, need to be treated with respect and understanding, however the thing I condemn is people who decide voluntarily to choose an unnatural sexual orientation other than they would under different circumstances. To me this just disrespects the genuine gay and transgender community.
We don't condemn someone who has a personality that conforms to all the norms of modern society, but might conflict with a Medieval idea of what a "man" should be. I agree, someone should not be able to just walk into a hospital and request their member get cut off. Pretty much the whole world agrees with that, so you are arguing a straw man. I showed you that a psych eval is part of the process and you just dismissed it.
Also, look up Apophasis, I think it's what you are doing, mentioning pedophilia and bestiality during a discussion about healthy sexual behavior, then saying you aren't equating them.
Too much liberalism in some western societies giving rise to damaging trends that undermine the cohesiveness of such societies in terms of gender roles and sexual preferences that have, in the past, usually accompanied a disintegration and ultimate end to a healthy, functional social and political system.
I think it's now safe to say that while the OP was posed in the form of a question given the subsequent posts of this "person" it was in fact a statement. And one that is impossible to establish in any objective terms.
First off there is no proof that liberalism is responsible for the widespread acceptance of individuals of the LGBT community. Extensive research all the way down to the molecular level has placed them within the normal spectrum of human orientation and this has been reflected in laws and social conventions that now include them except for the most extreme members of society. Those who represent the real threat to us in my opinion as they seek to divide and conquer us all.
There is also no evidence that changing acceptance of gender roles and sexual orientation in the past have "accompanied a disintegration and ultimate end to a healthy, functional social and political system." unless you're taking the Bible as a literal record of history and including Sodom and Gomorrah as literal stories.
So in this end this is just some bigot who likely wants to see more "fags" get their heads bashed in.
IMO, you have not clarified a thing. Why are you advocating the need for laws against, let's just call it "rape", when such laws are already established?
Seems to me you have more than a communal interest discussing the subject. No one I know advocates forced sex on non-consenting adults.
It's like saying, that there should be laws against slavery. Well, there are!.
It looks like you've missed the point here. Equating pedophelia or crimes against transexuals with sexual intercourse between consenting adults, does not make a point. My birth country of Holland has extremely liberal sex laws, yet it has one of the lowest rates of sexual crimes.
What exactly are you advocating?
https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html#perpetrators
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
There is nothing in the psychological or biological study of human behavior and sexuality that places LGBTs in the same classification as pedophilia and bestiality. Only bigotry of the most extreme kind does this when you consider that people are still being violently attacked and murdered in the US based on this kind of ignorance.
This kind of thinking is locked in a past when society was much more violent and intolerant of natural variations within the community at large. So contrary to what was claimed in the OP, what this poster most likely is seeking is a more violent, uncivilized and ultimately unstable society.
Which is entirely consistent with the modern expression of conservatism in the US when you look at the rhetoric and actions of many of the leaders of the movement including the "man" now in the highest office of the country.
Which is probably why clear bigots feel emboldened to openly try and make their case for violence and intolerance against other that they irrationally hate.
Times change and people do to, thirty years ago I had some very negative opinions about gays based on the environment I grew up in which was a largely conservative home.
Then I had a cousin come out. We all knew she had been miserable for years but didn’t know why. She tried as hard as she could to live as a heterosexual woman and it almost killed her. She was very unhappy in her marriage and her husband took it personally and eventually tried to kill her.
A few years latter she finally came out to her Mom, it was a very emotional exchange and my cousin left to let her mom cool down and process a bit. It was a probably a good idea and I’m sure when she came back a couple of hours latter they would have worked things out. When she got back her mom was still sitting in the same place on the back patio… she’d died of a heart attack soon after my cousin had left, she was cold.
Anyone who thinks this is about choice or it’s easy for LGBTs doesn’t have a clue what the reality is. They aren’t pedophiles and they aren’t on the level of people who copulate with animals, you have to have something seriously wrong with your head to think that way about people are in most cases just as “normal” and a positive part of society as the rest of us.
In my cousins case when she finally worked through the guilt of feeling she’d killed her mother - she didn’t - she found a happiness with a female partner that she had never had in her life before.
So “people” who keep trying to tell us how evil gays are better wake up to the fact that for millions of us gays are our friends and often our family and many of us truly don’t like people comparing them to pedophiles and animal f…s
I also think if there hadn’t been such a stigma around the issue it’s likely my cousins mom wouldn’t have become so stressed it killed her.
I'm neither trolling or stupid.
This is a more complex problem than you are trying to make out it is. The central question here is to what extend do we condemn someone who has a personality problem with regard to their sexual preference? Someone who has a real issue with gender identity or whether they are genuinely gay or not, need to be treated with respect and understanding, however the thing I condemn is people who decide voluntarily to choose an unnatural sexual orientation other than they would under different circumstances. To me this just disrespects the genuine gay and transgender community.
We don't condemn someone who has a personality that conforms to all the norms of modern society, but might conflict with a Medieval idea of what a "man" should be. I agree, someone should not be able to just walk into a hospital and request their member get cut off. Pretty much the whole world agrees with that, so you are arguing a straw man. I showed you that a psych eval is part of the process and you just dismissed it.
Also, look up Apophasis, I think it's what you are doing, mentioning pedophilia and bestiality during a discussion about healthy sexual behavior, then saying you aren't equating them.
You actually believe a psych. evaluation is going to be definitive enough to allow someone to undergo evasive surgery which could well cause long term physical problems? I don't think so. Psychology is not a reliable way to determine someone's sexual orientation at the genetic level because it is all too subjective. You must be pretty naive if you fall for that one.
The point about bringing in pedophilia and bestiality is that these behaviors are relative and in a democratic society are condemned, but that does not necessarily apply at other times and places. The point being that such behaviors seem to come within the realm of potential human behavior and given the political and social climate pertaining, might be more or less acceptable. You only have to look at historical instances to see this. So, unless there are laws in place that discourage behaviors we do not approve of things will 'drift' and we end up with people indulging in lifestyles that are counterproductive. People tend to like experimentation and this is all well and good when not taken to extremes but in our liberal society this seems to be getting out of hand.
Too much liberalism in some western societies giving rise to damaging trends that undermine the cohesiveness of such societies in terms of gender roles and sexual preferences that have, in the past, usually accompanied a disintegration and ultimate end to a healthy, functional social and political system.
I think it's now safe to say that while the OP was posed in the form of a question given the subsequent posts of this "person" it was in fact a statement. And one that is impossible to establish in any objective terms.
First off there is no proof that liberalism is responsible for the widespread acceptance of individuals of the LGBT community. Extensive research all the way down to the molecular level has placed them within the normal spectrum of human orientation and this has been reflected in laws and social conventions that now include them except for the most extreme members of society. Those who represent the real threat to us in my opinion as they seek to divide and conquer us all.
There is also no evidence that changing acceptance of gender roles and sexual orientation in the past have "accompanied a disintegration and ultimate end to a healthy, functional social and political system." unless you're taking the Bible as a literal record of history and including Sodom and Gomorrah as literal stories.
So in this end this is just some bigot who likely wants to see more "fags" get their heads bashed in.
Once you liberalize certain behaviors it creates a knock-on effect by giving a wink and a nod to other kinds of behaviors since it creates an atmosphere of general permissiveness. This has led to things like abortion and sexual diseases where people lack the moral guidance to know any better. Divorce is another example, diminishing the institution of marriage.
What you call 'normal' is only the result of accepted societal standards and trends and nothing to do with genetics.
IMO, you have not clarified a thing. Why are you advocating the need for laws against, let's just call it "rape", when such laws are already established?
Seems to me you have more than a communal interest discussing the subject. No one I know advocates forced sex on non-consenting adults.
It's like saying, that there should be laws against slavery. Well, there are!.
It looks like you've missed the point here. Equating pedophelia or crimes against transexuals with sexual intercourse between consenting adults, does not make a point. My birth country of Holland has extremely liberal sex laws, yet it has one of the lowest rates of sexual crimes.
What exactly are you advocating?
https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html#perpetrators
The point you are missing is that over-liberalization results in a deterioration in the moral fabric of society and this does not necessarily manifest itself only in sexuality but in other ways also. It is also a question of how we relate to one another in terms of respect and consideration and to become obsessed with one's sexual desires seems to me to be rather selfish and inward looking.
Times change and people do to, thirty years ago I had some very negative opinions about gays based on the environment I grew up in which was a largely conservative home.
Then I had a cousin come out. We all knew she had been miserable for years but didn't know why. She tried as hard as she could to live as a heterosexual woman and it almost killed her. She was very unhappy in her marriage and her husband took it personally and eventually tried to kill her.
A few years latter she finally came out to her Mom, it was a very emotional exchange and my cousin left to let her mom cool down and process a bit. It was a probably a good idea and I'm sure when she came back a couple of hours latter they would have worked things out. When she got back her mom was still sitting in the same place on the back patio... she'd died of a heart attack soon after my cousin had left, she was cold.
Anyone who thinks this is about choice or it's easy for LGBTs doesn't have a clue what the reality is. They aren't pedophiles and they aren't on the level of people who copulate with animals, you have to have something seriously wrong with your head to think that way about people are in most cases just as "normal" and a positive part of society as the rest of us.
In my cousins case when she finally worked through the guilt of feeling she'd killed her mother - she didn't - she found a happiness with a female partner that she had never had in her life before.
So "people" who keep trying to tell us how evil gays are better wake up to the fact that for millions of us gays are our friends and often our family and many of us truly don't like people comparing them to pedophiles and animal f.....s
I also think if there hadn't been such a stigma around the issue it's likely my cousins mom wouldn't have become so stressed it killed her.
I suggest that your cousin had not found the right male partner and, therefore, jumped to the conclusion she could never form a sexual relationship with a man. People, whether male or female, possess different qualities and to come to the conclusion that you cannot form a deep, sexual and emotional relationship with a man and consequently look to another woman, is a false assumption. Your cousin may have experienced some kind of traumatic event involving a man, I don't know, but you can have a relationship with anybody, as long it is the right person, male or female. It is not a question of sexual orientation but of emotional orientation.
Can you back you assumption with any facts?
I know of nothing that "too much of" brought down any social of political system.
What about pornography, promiscuity, families where both parents are working, leading to lack of child rearing, drug addiction, Anorexia nervosa, obesity, cosmetic surgery, unrestricted immigration, lack of strong male roles, rampant advertising, debt, crime, etc?
Why did Trump get elected? People had had enough of the liberal elite.
Either that or the electorate is just plain stupid. I assume the latter. They're looking for a magic cure to the country's ills--one that doesn't hurt--at least not the 1%. By the time it comes to pass the US economy will be in much worse shape than it is now, to say nothing of its standing on the global stage.
I suggest that your cousin had not found the right male partner and, therefore, jumped to the conclusion she could never form a sexual relationship with a man. People, whether male or female, possess different qualities and to come to the conclusion that you cannot form a deep, sexual and emotional relationship with a man and consequently look to another woman, is a false assumption. Your cousin may have experienced some kind of traumatic event involving a man, I don't know, but you can have a relationship with anybody, as long it is the right person, male or female. It is not a question of sexual orientation but of emotional orientation.
You're problems go much deeper than not understanding politics, history or sexuality. You just don't care about others. You can actually learn empathy, but people usually have to be first forced into it, by being diagnosed as psychopaths. You can't accept that someone Doug was close to actually had the feelings he reports her having. What would it take? How could you get inside her head enough to know what she is experiencing? You don't make the first step to try to answer that.