Caitlyn Jenner

[Stoked]

Well, then act that way. Simple as that. What the hell is wrong with asking that we, as a society and as individuals, be kinder and more understanding of one another? To not say things like "I wanna call him a moron who couldn't live with his manhood." Or, heaven forbid, to not think that. To not think less of and dehumanize people based on what they say or do or feel?



Equal protection is bullsh*t. Those who need more protection ought to get more protection.

Absolutely not! Not group, under and classification you can name, should be given any protections denied to others. None. If a protection is needed then it should be given to all.

I 100% disagree with the bolded.

 

[Archie Moses]

Did anyone else read Matt Walsh's blog today? Love him or hate him, the comments on his Facebook page are only second to Sportcenter's.

https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/

From his FB page:
I mean every word of what I'm about to say: that Vanity Fair picture of Bruce Jenner dressed like a woman is a monstrosity.
And before you lecture me for using that word, read what I have to say. Keep in mind, the picture isn't real. It's part digital, part makeup, part silicone, part camera trick, and part cosmetic surgery. It's not an authentic image of anything or anyone. It's a fiction, and the fiction is horrifying.
We're told this is Bruce's "new self," but he can't have a new self. He has only one self, and the self he has is a he, no matter how much plastic surgery he gets or how many trashy lingerie outfits he parades around, but our society seems to have lost sight of this fact.
Indeed, everyone is treating a disturbing Photoshopped picture of a mentally disordered grandfather dressed up as a college girl like it's mankind's greatest achievement since spaceflight. Once again, there is a virtually unanimous public agreement that "transgender" people like Bruce Jenner are heroes and saints and and messiahs, and should be worshiped.
The truth is, I get so sickened and infuriated by this kind of madness that I'd prefer, for my own mental health, to ignore it and write about something else. But there is a war for reality happening right now, and from what I can tell, conservatives have almost entirely abandoned the battlefield. They don't want to touch this issue. They claim it isn't important, but really they're just terrified of the backlash.
There are many different points that need to be made, and I try to cover them all here. One that I particularly concentrate on is the fact that it is, without a doubt, incredibly insulting and demeaning to women to call this mockery of femininity "female." Being a woman is about more than having a pointy chin and wearing a corset. If I were a woman (which I'm not and never could be), I would be especially angry at the notion that a wealthy celebrity man can essentially buy his way into my sex.
That's one part of this equation, but there's plenty more to be said. Read and, if you can take the heat, share:

Blog


Parents, be aware: soon the magazine rack in the checkout line at the supermarket will feature this profoundly disturbing image of Bruce Jenner. The picture is plastered right on the cover of the next Vanity Fair issue, and it shows Bruce dolled up in makeup and hair extensions, posing in a corset, with parts of his face, forehead, and throat shaved off for cosmetic reasons, and his chest enhanced by hormone pills, Photoshop, and silicone. The idea is to make the 65-year-old grandfather look like a college girl, but the effect is that he looks like a distorted version of neither.

What he most closely resembles is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists. Far from having the appearance of a genuine woman, he reminds me of someone who is being abandoned to his delusions by a culture of narcissistic imbeciles. I feel a great deal of compassion when I gaze upon this tragic sight — especially because post-op “transgenders” very often regret their decision, and in many cases attempt suicide — but few share my love or concern for him.

He’s just happy that, through extensive plastic surgery, high doses of synthetic chemicals, pounds of makeup, and a liberal use of Photoshop, he can finally be himself. By dismantling, dismembering, mutilating, and editing himself, he is himself, he says.

*grabs Cheetos*

 

[Siro]

Did anyone else read Matt Walsh's blog today? Love him or hate him, the comments on his Facebook page are only second to Sportcenter's.

https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/



*grabs Cheetos*

So his argument boils down to "THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!".

 

[JimLes]

Absolutely not! Not group, under and classification you can name, should be given any protections denied to others. None. If a protection is needed then it should be given to all.

I 100% disagree with the bolded.

So, the fact that my lower-middle class neighbourhood has more cops assigned to it and patrolling it than my parents' wealthy, upper and upper-middle class neighbourhood is bad, then? We should have equal number of cops assigned to patrol both? Whether that means reducing the numbers in mine or increasing the numbers in my parents'?

 

[Archie Moses]

So his argument boils down to "THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!".

That pretty much sums him up. He's a grade-A quality *******, but he makes me laugh more often than not. Even Kicky thinks that guy is condescending.

 

[framer]

You can choose to immerse yourselves in other cultures completely-- I don't think there's a problem with that at all. The problem stems from when people culturally appropriate, which is a completely different thing from adopting/immersing yourself within a foreign culture.



People tryin to make themselves look more beautiful on photograph?! OMGOSH ur right, how unauthentic /lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You understand that there all already people that come from several different backgrounds both racial and cultural and they already "culturally appropriate." It is a damn healthy thing. You SHOULD take from your culture the things you like and add things from other cultures that you like. It used to be called "The Melting Pot" and it was a good ideal to strive for. It is, however, utterly useless for social justice warfare, which is why adherents to that philosophy do their best to keep people segregated into their racial and cultural castes. There are plenty of white people who have lived the traditional "black experience" more than a lot of people who others would identify as "black." The fact that you deny them the ability to label their culture, but insist that others have the ability to re-label their sex speaks volumes. It is the same type of religious dogma that you rail on others for.

And yes, if you want to "celebrate" Jenner's choice, do it warts and all. Otherwise it isn't that heroic. Don't put something on the Magazine that isn't Jenner and tell us how wonderful it is. It is like putting a brave "plus size model" on the cover of your magazine and photoshopping three dress sizes off of her. What a victory for "healthy sized women!" If you aren't ready to give the image in truth, you aren't ready to put it on your cover and pat yourself on the back.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Matt Walsh always gets a good reaction from people. Says some pretty dumb things on occasion.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I clearly answered that in my last post.

I don't think you did.

I believe you purport that Jenner isn't entitled to be called a woman. To be consistent, you'd have to say the same about yourself. What makes you a man?

If you think you answered the question, then I read your answer is "I have a penis, therefore I'm a man."

Have you never said to someone or yourself, "Man up," or, "Be a man." If you have, that would be equivalent to quite literally, "Have a penis," under your definition above. If the answer is actually, "You have a penis, act like it," it loses your biological definition. Acting like a male, female, whatever, means different things the world over and across time. Thus, it's culturally defined and if that individual fits the role the culture would deem as woman, that's what that individual turns out being.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

And I do not know what in my post made you think I want to "enforce gender" so I am not sure what you are arguing against.

Just as said arbitrarily assigning gender based on sex doesn't work in a society, enforcing it based on sex doesn't work either, making gender a much more fluid thing and incapable of being set as gender equaling sex.

 

[babe]

As long as it doesn't involve smoking pot. Amirite?

Not on this one, because I've never hunted down a pot smoker and called the cops or knocked the joint out of his/her hand. I do my own whatever, and you've done your whatever without any restraint from me. I like chemistry, and I like to make stuff chemical-wise and do things I think are pretty good with them. I don't like govt claiming regulatory powers over my activities, either. A lot of bad stuff happens when idiots don't understand everything about the chemicals they use. A lot of bad stuff happens when govt regulators don't understand everything about what they regulate. "Natural" substances, like weed, are not really beyond fault on those lines either. We don't know what we don't know. We do stuff and we get consequences sometimes we never expected. I found out that I can't afford to do stuff with chemistry unless I get certain licenses, zoning, permits, and such, and do a lot of reports to regulators. To hell with all that. I realized that I can't afford enough lawyers to defend myself against every possible consequence of my ignorance. Society has lost a lot of useful inventions because of regulators and lawyers, but there's fewer "Love Canals" to be cleaned up after, as well.

I would preach to you all day long to quit weed, but I think you did already. You're just a cool dude who doesn't get your shorts in a bunch over it if others do it. Fine. I'd still like to reach out to some other dudes who haven't thought it all through yet, or decided they know it all already. I really cannot see where any chemical substance, even chocolate, my favorite addiction, doesn't deserve some discussion and maybe more research. I don't believe there are not meaningful consequences to our choices.

 

[fishonjazz]

To not think less of and dehumanize people based on what they say or do or feel?

Isn't this what you are doing to babe because of what he says and feels?

 

[fishonjazz]

Not on this one, because I've never hunted down a pot smoker and called the cops or knocked the joint out of his/her hand. I do my own whatever, and you've done your whatever without any restraint from me. I like chemistry, and I like to make stuff chemical-wise and do things I think are pretty good with them. I don't like govt claiming regulatory powers over my activities, either. A lot of bad stuff happens when idiots don't understand everything about the chemicals they use. A lot of bad stuff happens when govt regulators don't understand everything about what they regulate. "Natural" substances, like weed, are not really beyond fault on those lines either. We don't know what we don't know. We do stuff and we get consequences sometimes we never expected. I found out that I can't afford to do stuff with chemistry unless I get certain licenses, zoning, permits, and such, and do a lot of reports to regulators. To hell with all that. I realized that I can't afford enough lawyers to defend myself against every possible consequence of my ignorance. Society has lost a lot of useful inventions because of regulators and lawyers, but there's fewer "Love Canals" to be cleaned up after, as well.

I would preach to you all day long to quit weed, but I think you did already. You're just a cool dude who doesn't get your shorts in a bunch over it if others do it. Fine. I'd still like to reach out to some other dudes who haven't thought it all through yet, or decided they know it all already. I really cannot see where any chemical substance, even chocolate, my favorite addiction, doesn't deserve some discussion and maybe more research. I don't believe there are not meaningful consequences to our choices.

Sold answer

 

[Darkwing Duck]

That actually fits in my viewpoint just fine. Name it what you want. In those other societies I would like to know how they arbitrarily assign gender and also completely ignore the biological sex of the child. On some level that is still part of it, however it evolves after that. And if someone in that society decides or feels differently then it is the same situation in general.

As far as the question of "choice" goes, I don't know if we want to go there in this thread. When I used choice I mean it as Jenner was choosing to openly live who he feels he is, that is all.

There is no arbitrary, it is how the individual lives within its society and "gets assigned" once that individual sets certain parameters. Most common one in pretty much all cultures is coming of age. One is not born a "man" or "woman" in any society. One most "earn" the title. Now, in most modern western cultures, the title is easy. Exist for eighteen cycles of the earth's revolution around the sun. Probably one of the most arbitrary markers. Prior remnants of other gender defining moments still exist, though. In Mexico, you have quinceañera, which shares the arbitrariness of sun revolutions, but in this case, concludes at fifteen.

In other cultures, it's completing an event, a proof that you are what western culture might define as "man." There are plenty of examples. Land diving is one. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1125_021126_TVVanuatu.html

Gender is never arbitrary. It's never immediately set, either. In many cultures, like the one I link a few pages ago, there are different gender roles individuals can fit into. In cultures with only two genders heavily influenced by biological sex, those that do not fit the profile are left with little recourse, identify with the other gender, or essentially be nothing.

 

[Archie Moses]

I don't think you did.

Please, see my first first post again. I promise you, I did. I won't answer your strawman.

Also, if you'd like to call me a girl, sissy, Troutbum, that's your right to. It's not my right to make you call me what I want.

 

[Archie Moses]

What happens when you live in a society where society differentiate the definition of marriage and are unable/willing to differentiate the definitions of gender and sex?

I personally like the idea (within context) more tolerance and less-ignorance. The concept that's even more awesome once fully understood is... wait for it... wait for it... No matter what, people have been, are, will be different than me and it's perfectly normal and OK. This falls on both sides of the fence too. Sometimes, you should just agree to disagree and realize, more often than naught, people will see what they want to see.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

It's a phenotype, much like balls and a vagina. So if we have to identify with similar skin color, why don't we identify by our other phenotypes (balls, vagina)?

Because we don't, at least not fully.

And as mentioned, phenotypes don't always match the genotype. Why identify with what looks like when you can identify with what is? Besides, you'd call someone "she" if that person looked like what this culture would have the expected characteristics of a woman. I'll throw a picture up here. You truly have no knowledge just by looking at the picture whether this individual has a vagina or a penis, yet you'd have no problem using the pronoun "she" and calling her a woman just based on this one picture. Now if Jenner did the same pose and clothes, and you didn't know it was Jenner, you'd still use "she."

 

[NAOS]

I agree life is complicated, and we can make it a lot more so with all our possible ideas, or choices.

You're right, the agency we have (however over-estimated it might be) does play a role in diversifying life (i.e. making it more "complicated"). I fail to see a problem.

From some of your other comments, I've wondered if you might not be a woman, or something like a woman, based on some of your opinions which I think I have observed pretty uniquely in women's thinking.

There is no such thing as a mode of thought which resides only in women. If some of my thoughts merge with what you've observed of women, then that's because the texture of experience which you refer to as "women's experience" is open, and we all merge with it from time to time, yourself included. Conversely, bodies which are sexed as female and gendered as woman aren't locked in some prism of "women's thinking": they wayfare from one texture of experience to another, some textures are commonly associated with womanhood, some are commonly associated with manhood, and, if they're anything like Kafka, some are commonly associated with a cockroach.

Women are actually a lot smarter than men in certain ways. Men are handicapped by the neurological snipping that occurs in the male brain as a consequence of testosterone binding to membranes of nerves and marking them for removal. You could say our male bodies perform an autonomous sort of "operation" in the first place to produce a phenotypical male out of our embryonic equality with women. I'd say, logically, that a brain with more nerves still functioning on the original complex model has gotta be more intelligent, really.

I mean, a person with one leg can't walk like a person with two legs, although a person with two legs can walk the same way as person with one leg, if he/she wants.

males have some advantages, functionally, with the narrowed field of possible thoughts, emotions, and focus. They can aim a rifle better and pull the trigger smoother. Probably a lot of stuff, going back all the way to atlatls and doneys for crushing other peoples' skulls. Less distraction.

folksy stuff here.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Please, see my first first post again. I promise you, I did.

"think they need to be addressed to biology not sociology"

I read that as gender=sex. Am I misreading? That's why I don't think you answered the question since that's shown to be inaccurate.

 

[Archie Moses]

There is no arbitrary, it is how the individual lives within its society and "gets assigned" once that individual sets certain parameters. Most common one in pretty much all cultures is coming of age. One is not born a "man" or "woman" in any society. One most "earn" the title. Now, in most modern western cultures, the title is easy. Exist for eighteen cycles of the earth's revolution around the sun. Probably one of the most arbitrary markers. Prior remnants of other gender defining moments still exist, though. In Mexico, you have quinceañera, which shares the arbitrariness of sun revolutions, but in this case, concludes at fifteen.

In other cultures, it's completing an event, a proof that you are what western culture might define as "man." There are plenty of examples. Land diving is one. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1125_021126_TVVanuatu.html

Gender is never arbitrary. It's never immediately set, either. In many cultures, like the one I link a few pages ago, there are different gender roles individuals can fit into. In cultures with only two genders heavily influenced by biological sex, those that do not fit the profile are left with little recourse, identify with the other gender, or essentially be nothing.

I'm willing to bet you'd be the guy that likes arguing koala bears are not scientifically bears and never have been to people who give the slightest **** about scientific specie of animals. To them, it's a koala bear, man.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm willing to bet you'd be the guy that likes arguing Koala Bears are not scientifically bears and never have been to people who give the slightest **** about scientific specie of animals. To them, it's a koala bear, man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZPfgVSrPVY