Is Bruce Jenner Trolling?

[Mark Antony]

It's funny how everyone who preaches love, inclusion, tolerance, etc, completely demean and ridicule those that disagree with their point of view. Hypocrites.

Translation: "You're being intolerant of my intolerance!"

Sounds like some wild *** "reverse racism" type ****.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

The argument comes down to be being pointless. You can't preach "accept all" yet not accept someone not accepting

 Never even looked at it that way. No BS

 

[julesbeats]

@methodical management: I would of never thought it was rumored Malcolm X engaged in such activity [emoji]128533[/emoji] could only be a nasty rumor, none the less I see the point you're trying to make.

So is being transgender related to mental illness since they're brain is making them identify with a different gender?

 

[iDon’tRead]

In on the first page, of what will surely be a ignorance filled thread

You brahs didn't disappoint

Disgunbgood.. Is this similar to being d.r. But not being of a decent

 

[frankmatthews]

You went an awfully long way around the block just to gussy up "it's not natural, therefore eew and wrong."

No. It's just easier for you to put me in a nice little box so you can easily attack the argument and continue avoiding providing any support for your own position. I'm not a 3rd grader and we are not talking about queer cooties here. It's really getting tiring having to defend arguments I never made.

The leap you're making is akin to "men and women have different genitals, therefore men wear neckties and women have long hair. That's natural."

In the same way that it's frustrating to have a serious discussion about climate change with someone whose argument is "it's all a hoax because snow," it's frustrating to have an argument about sexuality with someone whose argument is "gays are wrong because penis fits in vagina." I mean, seriously.

I mean, seriously??? Can you quote my post directly, otherwise I would appreciate it if you would quit using quotations marks for things I never said. Thanks.

If we HAVE to spin out the whole debate over what's "natural," let's just point our straight away that "natural" is a problematic term to begin with. It presupposes that human adaptation - and no other - is "unnatural." A human's thatch hut or skyscraper is "unnatural," but a bee's hive or a bird's nest is "natural." So, in a sense, you're arguing over which human behaviors are "natural" when "unnatural" behavior is what apparently separates humans from all other species.

Why do we need to compare ourselves to birds and bees to determine if our behavior is natural? Huts and sky scrappers evolved out of necessity. I guess you could debate whether those are natural behaviors. I don't think it is debatable that instincts are natural behavior, that the male-female sexual reproductive system is a natural biological phenomenon and male-female sex is simply the functioning of a natural biological system. Those are facts. It is inherently natural. What you are arguing is NOT inherently natural and I asked you to support why it may be. You choose to harp on the ambiguity of naturalness. I guess it's ambiguous when you have to reconcile people putting balls of silicone and other foreign substances into their body for cosmetic purposes.

That's part of what's at issue here. You're looking at transsexuality through a very particular and limited cultural lens. "You were born with these genitals, so therefore this is your identity and you're expected to perform the gender role that corresponds to your sex." Anyone who doesn't fit cleanly into that category, by dint of their genitals or otherwise, is considered somehow aberrant or illegitimate. That is a cultural belief. It's not inevitable. It's not "natural." It's a particular belief. Perhaps it's one you feel deeply about, but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of its indisputable righteousness.

The issue is you seem to think I hold my opinions up as indisputable righteousness. I am waiting for you to dispute me. I am waiting for you to bring this other cultural lens into focus. All your saying natural is an illusion, gender is an illusion and since social change in the past was beneficial that all types of social change should be accepted going forward, unquestioned. Ok fine, but how any of that justifies invasive cosmetic surgery is escaping me.

The irony here is astounding. It is YOUR particular belief that future generations would be encumbered by the male-female dichotomy. Sexual reassignment surgery is not natural nor inevitable. Just the same, YOU are speaking about YOUR particular, cultural beliefs, trying to convince us of their indisputable righteousness. It is clear you feel deeply about your beliefs but your opinions are no more valid than anyone else here. You have provided nothing to substantiate your position, yet you come in here and write paragraphs with the foregone conclusion that what you believe is a legitimatizing factor.

If you're using "evolution" as a synonym for progress, you're misusing the term.

Progression is in fact a synonym of evolution, sir.

Similarly, the sheer existence of human sex distinctions or skin color variations do not, in and of themselves, necessitate the rigid assignment of identities on that basis - let alone hierarchical systems of dominance on that basis.

And that's where you're losing me. You've yet to explain why sex distinctions necessitate rigid gender roles. [/quote]

They don't, necessarily. The thing is there are a vast array of behaviors associated with gender roles. As I said earlier there are particular behaviors I think are unhealthy and harmful both to the individual and to society. Can a man stay home and take care of the kids while the woman has a career? Sure. Can women be professional athletes? Of course. Can men be nurses? Certainly. You know what, if some guy thinks a sun dress is more comfortable than blue jeans and wants to challenge the assumption that dresses are for girls. Fine. Knock yourself out.

Now, is having breasts a gender role? Is being penetrated by a man a gender role? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But my question is why does abandoning gender roles necessitate trying to simulate sexual reproductive organs through the use of toxic implants, foreign substances and invasive surgery. Why does a doctor need to surgically craft a non existent orifice into a persons body solely for the purpose of satisfying other mens sexual desires. It is the definition of objectifying yourself.

If we say that a females gender role is simply a construct, that it has no bearing on what actually being a woman means, an illusion. Then what does the transgender man accomplish by adopting those roles? He's simulating a false construct, he is under illusion. If the underlying truth is that our genders don't define us, we aren't born with them and that they are not who we are, then we cannot "be who we are" through changing gender roles. We cannot be who we are by surgically manufacturing reproductive organs, it too is an illusion, a simulation of the opposite sex. If there is no chemical link, no biological connection to all these behaviors, the delusion is entirely a product of the individuals pyscho-social condition. If you are unable to define or substantiate these "feelings" which lead to such tragedy, why am I expected to accept this perverse behavior as rational and normal?

 

[jape]

 Now, is having breasts a gender role? Is being penetrated by a man a gender role? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But my question is why does abandoning gender roles necessitate trying to simulate sexual reproductive organs through the use of toxic implants, foreign substances and invasive surgery. Why does a doctor need to surgically craft a non existent orifice into a persons body solely for the purpose of satisfying other mens sexual desires. It is the definition of objectifying yourself.

If we say that a females gender role is simply a construct, that it has no bearing on what actually being a woman means, an illusion. Then what does the transgender man accomplish by adopting those roles? He's simulating a false construct, he is under illusion. If the underlying truth is that our genders don't define us, we aren't born with them and that they are not who we are, then we cannot "be who we are" through changing gender roles. We cannot be who we are by surgically manufacturing reproductive organs, it too is an illusion, a simulation of the opposite sex. If there is no chemical link, no biological connection to all these behaviors, the delusion is entirely a product of the individuals pyscho-social condition. If you are unable to define or substantiate these "feelings" which lead to such tragedy, why am I expected to accept this perverse behavior as rational and normal?

 

[tr1ll]

Bruce Jenner turn into a woman, "Let him live", "be open minded.." Exit..

Young Thug calls another rapper his husband.."He must be stopped!"

This conversations always turn into genuine opinions vs political correctness.

The thing about opinions..they can't be wrong, unless it's politically correct, then the opinion is always right.

Who decided what opinion is "correct"?

 

[RustyShackleford]

It's funny how everyone who preaches love, inclusion, tolerance, etc, completely demean and ridicule those that disagree with their point of view. Hypocrites.

See what I mean. Next time Blco slices, dices, and pan frys everyone's jimmies in a race thread, and people run to call him a SWS and such just remember he was spitting the same rhetoric as many others in this thread.

Some of you guys are operating on Blco's level, and proud of it. Bravo brahs, bravo

 

[Methodical Management]

 

You went an awfully long way around the block just to gussy up "it's not natural, therefore eew and wrong."

No. It's just easier for you to put me in a nice little box so you can easily attack the argument and continue avoiding providing any support for your own position. I'm not a 3rd grader and we are not talking about queer cooties here. It's really getting tiring having to defend arguments I never made.

And yet you follow this by saying, in essence, "fake testicles are unnatural, therefore eew and wrong."  

If you think you've stated it more elegantly than that, you're only fooling yourself.  

Why do we need to compare ourselves to birds and bees to determine if our behavior is natural? Huts and sky scrappers evolved out of necessity. I guess you could debate whether those are natural behaviors. I don't think it is debatable that instincts are natural behavior, that the male-female sexual reproductive system is a natural biological phenomenon and male-female sex is simply the functioning of a natural biological system. Those are facts. It is inherently natural. What you are arguing is NOT inherently natural and I asked you to support why it may be. You choose to harp on the ambiguity of naturalness. I guess it's ambiguous when you have to reconcile people putting balls of silicone and other foreign substances into their body for cosmetic purposes.

If "instincts are natural behavior," then what is so wrong with Bruce Jenner's instincts?  Your concept of "natural" is whatever you want it to be, apparently.  

The issue is you seem to think I hold my opinions up as indisputable righteousness. I am waiting for you to dispute me. I am waiting for you to bring this other cultural lens into focus. All your saying natural is an illusion, gender is an illusion and since social change in the past was beneficial that all types of social change should be accepted going forward, unquestioned. Ok fine, but how any of that justifies invasive cosmetic surgery is escaping me.

The irony here is astounding. It is YOUR particular belief that future generations would be encumbered by the male-female dichotomy. Sexual reassignment surgery is not natural nor inevitable. Just the same, YOU are speaking about YOUR particular, cultural beliefs, trying to convince us of their indisputable righteousness. It is clear you feel deeply about your beliefs but your opinions are no more valid than anyone else here. You have provided nothing to substantiate your position, yet you come in here and write paragraphs with the foregone conclusion that what you believe is a legitimatizing factor.

Don't get it twisted.  You're the one trying to naturalize gender and transphobia.  

It's a common tactic.  Racists naturalize racial inequality.  Sexists naturalize sexual inequality.  "These people have smaller craniums and are more violent, so it's only sensible that we rule them for their own safety."  "These people are governed by emotion, not reason.  It's only sensible that we rule them for their own safety."  "Women nurse, therefore women should be homemakers."  "Race mixing is unnatural."  "Same sex couples are unnatural."  

Your argument regarding reproduction - which was so central to your previous attempt - was absolutely decimated.  No mention since.   You're making up reasons to legitimize "eew."  That's your choice, but don't pretend it's otherwise.  

I, on the other hand, in problematizing gender, have sought less to "naturalize" transsexuality than to demonstrate that variation exists across the spectrum of sexuality.  You're cherry picking which expressions of sexuality are "natural" and which are not based on a procreative standard.  

Again, we don't say that people who "mutilate themselves through vasectomies" suffer from a mental illness, do we?  Is their behavior not "maladaptive" in terms of the perpetuation of the species?   If everyone tied their tubes, there would be no children to carry on our genetic legacy.  

Let's make sure those freaks can't get into the dating pool, or it'll bring ruin to us all!  

I've situated my opinion as an opinion.  I've said quite clearly:  

"One would think, given the certainty with which so many people enforce binary, sex-assigned gender roles, that they are a universal constant.  They are not. Cultures can, and do, vary.  The possibility exists, then, that "our" culture, too, can become more inclusive."

 

If you're using "evolution" as a synonym for progress, you're misusing the term.

Progression is in fact a synonym of evolution, sir.

*sigh* Spoken like someone who's never seriously studied evolution or epistemology.  

Here:  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IBladder.shtml

I trust this is suitably illustrative:

If the underlying truth is that our genders don't define us, we aren't born with them and that they are not who we are, then we cannot "be who we are" through changing gender roles.

I can't speak for any transgender person, let along for the transgender community as a whole, but I get the impression that gender labeling is less important to them than it seems to be to you.  

Today, we live in a gendered society, and, unlike other cultures, the dominant culture in our society features a binary system that seemingly forces people to identify as one OR the other.  To be born intersex, in this society, is to be an outcast.  (It is not, however, unnatural.)  

In a society that allows for three of four genders, such as a "two spirit" gender, then identifying as that is not an attempt to "change" one's role.  

We're saying "fit into this box," but not everyone does.  Where does .5 fit in a binary 1/0 society?  Do you round up or down?  Can't you just BE .5?  

Would EVERY transgender person opt for surgery in a society that included gender roles they considered more representative or accurate?  I don't know.  But if someone feels more comfortable with a gender OTHER than the one they've been assigned at birth, who are you to say they're wrong?

Because it's not "natural?"  Changing your hair color isn't natural.  I don't hear any ranting about deception and toxic chemicals and denying your "true self" on that front.  

You're hung up about altering reproductive anatomy ONLY when it comes to gender reassignment.  When it comes to straight, cisgender people, you can modify your genitals however you want.  Silicone implants?  Go for it!  Sabotage your reproductive organs to allow for non-procreative sex?  Party on!  Just don't screw with sex assigned gender roles, because that's gross.  

If, in the future, a transgender woman can become pregnant and give birth, would you drop your objections?  Somehow, I doubt it.  It's just pretense after pretense after pretense.  

For all this talk about gender affectations and "natural states", you're the one putting lipstick on a pig. 

If you think we should stigmatize and discriminate against transgender persons because you think they're icky and gross, just admit as much.  All this talk about what's "natural" just falls apart under even the slightest pressure. 

 

[yesitsthatdude]

its not a big deal he's just doing what dennis rodman did in the 90's and what magic johnson's son has been doing the last few years

 

[frankmatthews]

Your argument regarding reproduction - which was so central to your previous attempt - was absolutely decimated.  No mention since.  

If you think you "decimated" anything you are sorely mistaken my friend. It was neither central or imperative to my argument and was only brought up to hightlight factual biology as "natural", not to designate any and everything else as unnatural. Check the scoreboard my friend. You're not winning this one.

At this point you are just circling the wagon. I'm not gonna waste too much more energy defending character attacks, if you have something of substance to support your OPINION I'll take it into consideration. You can say it 20 different ways if you like it is still only your opinion, baseless at that, as far as I can tell.

You are regurgitating talking points and doing absolutely zero thinking for yourself. Your entire thesis is a contradiction. You may continue to bask in your false sense of morality, I suppose it makes up for the lack of coherent logic.

 

[frankmatthews]

And yet you follow this by saying, in essence, "fake testicles are unnatural, therefore eew and wrong."  

If you think you've stated it more elegantly than that, you're only fooling yourself.  

You heard what you wanted to hear. I said nothing of the sort. Still zero substance.

If "instincts are natural behavior," then what is so wrong with Bruce Jenner's instincts?  Your concept of "natural" is whatever you want it to be, apparently.  

Bu, bu, but what bruce is doing has no basis in biology. Remember? Instincts have a basis in biology. Correct? Are you completely reversing your argument 180 degrees and saying these are bruce's instincts forcing him to do this? You are decimating your own arguments at this point. Its what happens you you have no logical foundation for your position. Keep circling the wagon.

Don't get it twisted.  You're the one trying to naturalize gender and transphobia.  

And you are trying to naturalize transgenderism. The key difference is you think your OPINION is absolute truth. It's not, I'm sorry. You can preach it untill you get blue in the face, it doesn't magically become true. You have ZERO to substantiate this and have done nothing but dodge any and every attempt to get you to. I can live with my opinions being wrong. Your opinions must be absolute law for everyone to abide by and anyone who doesn't is an ignorant, insecure bigot.

I, on the other hand, in problematizing gender, have sought less to "naturalize" transsexuality than to demonstrate that variation exists across the spectrum of sexuality.  You're cherry picking which expressions of sexuality are "natural" and which are not based on a procreative standard.  

Thats just it, YOU are problematizing gender. These are your own mental gymnastics. Variations exist across the spectrum of morality, that doesn't mean we accept any and all behaviors on the scale.

I merely picked an expression which is clearly and undeniably natural, which just happened to involve procreation. Your views are not clearly nor undeniably natural so you would need to elaborate further, which you have failed repeatedly to do. Just because variations exist doesn't mean they are all welcome and acceptable variations. Why should you accept male-female sex as natural? Cause nature made it. Why should I accept transgendered/homosexual sex? Cause it exists. Brilliant argument.

Again, we don't say that people who "mutilate themselves through vasectomies" suffer from a mental illness, do we?  Is their behavior not "maladaptive" in terms of the perpetuation of the species?   If everyone tied their tubes, there would be no children to carry on our genetic legacy.  

A vasectomy is a medical procedure. Gender reassignment is cosmetic surgery. We do say people who undergo extensive cosmetic surgeries suffer from mental issues, don't we?

"One would think, given the certainty with which so many people enforce binary, sex-assigned gender roles, that they are a universal constant.  They are not. Cultures can, and do, vary.  The possibility exists, then, that "our" culture, too, can become more inclusive."

I understand that gender roles are not constant, they are a construct and can be changed. They have changed over the years in some respects. I don't need every single gender role to be a constant. But when you are talking about surgical manipulation, and putting holes in your body for the sexual pleasure of others and I ask why? I'm kinda looking for more than "because gender roles are something that can be changed". "Because I can" basically. Thats your argument. Because it can happen and does happen we should all accept it.



 

*sigh* Spoken like someone who's never seriously studied evolution or epistemology.  

Stop it with the quasi-intellectual bs. It's a synonym of evolve. Period. You knew what I meant and insist on arguing semantics. Are you that desperate to try and make some sense?
 

I can't speak for any transgender person, let along for the transgender community as a whole, but I get the impression that gender labeling is less important to them than it seems to be to you.  

Today, we live in a gendered society, and, unlike other cultures, the dominant culture in our society features a binary system that seemingly forces people to identify as one OR the other.  To be born intersex, in this society, is to be an outcast.  (It is not, however, unnatural.)  

In a society that allows for three of four genders, such as a "two spirit" gender, then identifying as that is not an attempt to "change" one's role.  

We're saying "fit into this box," but not everyone does.  Where does .5 fit in a binary 1/0 society?  Do you round up or down?  Can't you just BE .5?  

And all I have been trying to understand is how .5 got in the binary system to begin with. How that .5 got there, to me anyways, is very important in determining if you round up, down or just leave it as .5.

Would EVERY transgender person opt for surgery in a society that included gender roles they considered more representative or accurate?  I don't know.  But if someone feels more comfortable with a gender OTHER than the one they've been assigned at birth, who are you to say they're wrong?

Ok fine, but remind me again what a surgically simulated vagina has to do with a gender role?

Because it's not "natural?"  Changing your hair color isn't natural.  I don't hear any ranting about deception and toxic chemicals and denying your "true self" on that front.  

Dye my hair. Cut my penis off. Ok, meth. You are on a roll.

You're hung up about altering reproductive anatomy ONLY when it comes to gender reassignment.  When it comes to straight, cisgender people, you can modify your genitals however you want.  Silicone implants?  Go for it!  Sabotage your reproductive organs to allow for non-procreative sex?  Party on!  Just don't screw with sex assigned gender roles, because that's gross.  

I'm against the principle of cosmetic surgery. If you have a valid reason to have a medical procedure performed thats another story. You take every chance you get to reduce my opinion to 3rd grade rhetoric. you are really starting to look pathetic.

If you think we should stigmatize and discriminate against transgender persons because you think they're icky and gross, just admit as much.  All this talk about what's "natural" just falls apart under even the slightest pressure. 

I'm sure it would be so much easier for you stay upright on that high horse of yours if your fabrication of my viewpoints had any basis in reality. "Just admit it" Lol.

Another 5 paragraphs later and still you have offered nothing of substance. Zero. You have given me your opinion, and I appreciate that. However I am hear to remind you your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. You need to respect those with differing viewpoints. Your opinions are not scripture, they are not even based in any sort of logical reality. Because I don't agree with your arbitrary proclamations does not make me or anyone else ignorant, insecure or a bigot. Do you understand that? 90% personal attacks and strawman arguments. You should be embarrassed if this is the extent of your intellectual fodder on the matter.

 

[doublemesh96]

 

[julesbeats]

^lmao

 

[Methodical Management]

 I'm not gonna waste too much more energy defending character attacks,

Proceeds to write two more pages in a separate reply.  Don't worry, that's the least of your contradictions in this thread.  

​

You are regurgitating talking points and doing absolutely zero thinking for yourself. 

Your argument is pretty much the kid from Kindergarten Cop saying "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina," and I'M the one who's done zero thinking?  You've made no effort whatsoever to understand what might motivate a transgender person to transition, and yet I have done zero thinking?  

Excuse me, what was your argument again?  

"You can be a gay man who dresses like a woman and sleeps with other men, but you can't alter alter your genitals because that serves no biological purpose.  Anyone who does so is mentally ill."  

"What about cisgender people who’ve had genital reconstruction surgery?  They have all that “toxic, nonfunctional ickiness” you find so heinous, but they’re entitled to it because of their birth sex?  Or should they be denied reconstructive surgery entirely?  Would you say that they are deceiving prospective partners by presenting themselves as men or women if their genitals lack proper functionality?"

"Umm.... hormones!  I meant hormones.  Someone with genital reconstruction surgery would still have the hormones associated with their birth sex.  HA!  So there!"  

"Cisgender people take hormone supplements, too, you know, and what about those with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?"

"Uh.... I win and your argument is a contradiction!!!!  Burn!"   

You say my position lacks substance, but all you've done is retreat and reconfigure your "standard."  "Natural?"  Nope.  "Reproduction?"  Nope.  "Hormones?"  Nope.  "Medically necessary?"  Who decides what's "necessary?"  The only stable part of your argument is that it excludes transgender people.  You're perfectly content to alter the "how" and the "why" as needed. 

I suppose you consider that "original thought" in the sense that you're obviously making it up as you go.  

As long as you're busy policing what does and what does not belong in the human body, perhaps you should stop pulling rationalizations from your rectal cavity.  

Stop it with the quasi-intellectual bs. It's a synonym of evolve. Period.

Unless you go by the actual academic definition of evolution, which is kind if important if that's the argument you're making.  

If you're going to allege that a concept's "evolution" implies that it's somehow objectively "better" than its antecedents or alternatives purely by dint of its persistence, you don't understand the first thing about evolution, for one, let alone epistemology.  That's not semantic hairsplitting, it's using words correctly.  

It takes some nerve to call my posts "quasi-intellectual" given that it's painfully obvious you have made no effort - NONE - to study these issues in the slightest.  If I'm supposedly cribbing "talking points" from Foucault, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Donna Haraway, or Steven Seidman, your argument is lifted from an elementary school playground.  

Dye my hair. Cut my penis off. 

 Ok, meth. You are on a roll.

Again, that's your hang up.  Don't pretend that there's an objective difference between these "unnatural" forms of body modification.  Someone who opts to have a vasectomy is "mutilating themselves" by your definition, but your application of this lacks any internal consistency.  If it did, you'd claim that anyone who sterilized themselves suffers from a mental illness and is deserving of scorn and stigma.  It's generally considered elective surgery (though a eugenecist would consider it both "necessary" and compulsory.)  

Ok fine, but remind me again what a surgically simulated vagina has to do with a gender role?

If we're telling people in this society, "you can be 'A' or you can be 'B', but if you want to be 'A', you need these parts," then what do you expect to happen if someone doesn't feel comfortable with the role they've been assigned at birth?  

SHOULD sex and gender be as tightly linked as they are?  That's a fair question, but people who live in the here and now are going to cope as best they can.  Different people transition for different reasons.  

Given the way our society emphasizes sex as a means of achieving intimacy and expressing affection, genitals also affect who and how we love.  The desire to love another consenting adult shouldn't be too difficult to understand - especially when it neither harms others nor imperils the gene pool.  

In the future, it could be the case that gender transitions could be more complete than they are now, even to the point that permits procreation.  Your argument isn't based in that.  It's based on this rule you have in your mind that somebody's chromosomal configuration is absolute and DEMANDS obedience.  

xx males exist.  xy females exist.  xxy males exist.  There's more variation than you care to admit.  

You're making a choice to say "this is wrong because I think it's wrong," but you don't leave it at that.  You dress the argument up to try and rationalize it as the natural way of the world rather than a personal preference or, dare I say it, prejudice.  

(And yeah, 'prejudice' is appropriate when you judge someone based on "gut instinct" rather than accumulated knowledge or direct experience.)

And all I have been trying to understand is how .5 got in the binary system to begin with. How that .5 got there, to me anyways, is very important in determining if you round up, down or just leave it as .5.

It was always there.  For the nth time, other cultures have more than two genders.  Other cultures recognize these differences as valid.  

What's new to you isn't new to the world.  What's different and scary to you is normal to someone else.  

Typologies are a pragmatic construction.  The ability to generalize and categorize has practical value, but this convenience comes at a cost.   There are a great many consequences associated with the sub-categorization of human beings.  If you inhabit an interstitial space, you tend to be marginalized.  Your existence is messy and inconvenient.  You can't be easily pigeonholed.  In a setting where privilege is assigned by race, someone whose race is ambiguous constitutes a threat.  In a setting where privilege is assigned by gender, someone whose gender is ambiguous constitutes a threat.  

I doubt you'd want your identity to be treated as a rounding error.  

I don't need every single gender role to be a constant. But when you are talking about surgical manipulation, and putting holes in your body for the sexual pleasure of others and I ask why? I'm kinda looking for more than "because gender roles are something that can be changed".

Here's an idea:  treat transsexual people like people and LEARN.  You're curious?  LEARN.  Make an effort.  The whole topic of this post is an extended interview concerning one person's transition.  Simply because that's not my experience doesn't make it invalid.  People who never experience life as a minority often think racism or sexism is a figment of the imagination, or an "excuse."  "Things are pretty fair now," says Mitt Romney.   "I can't think of a single valid reason why someone would do that to themselves," says a cisgender person who's never even knowingly spoken to a transgender person.  

Instead, you've just chosen to judge without any information whatsoever.  That really says it all, honestly.  

A vasectomy is a medical procedure. Gender reassignment is cosmetic surgery. We do say people who undergo extensive cosmetic surgeries suffer from mental issues, don't we? 

What about reconstructive surgery?  That's not a legitimate medical procedure?  You keep modifying your argument.  Bottom line: you're choosing to minimize this because you don't understand the person's "need" for it.  

YOU choose to believe that it's superfluous based on a gut-feeling that you then translate into an ever-shifting standard.

And it's up to everyone else to convince you otherwise.  My, what a nice privilege to have.  "I'll accept you as human, but first you must prove to my satisfaction that you are worthy of this distinction."  

Do I personally know what it feels like to feel fundamentally at odds with my assigned sex or gender?  No, but that doesn't mean those who DO are "faking it" or "sick."  I don't have to directly experience what it's like to live as a woman in American society to acknowledge the realities of sexism.  To reject the existence of sexism, I have to invalidate the lived experience of millions and millions of women.  

I guess the difference here is that you're choosing to reject the lived experiences of transsexuals and I'm willing to take them at their word.  

There are still many people who think that gay and lesbian citizens are "mentally ill" and that acknowledging the validity of their marriages or permitting them to express their sexuality in public (*gasp*) would effect the fall of civilization.  I'm still waiting on that.  

When you consider the number of transgender people that now or will one day live in our society and compare it to the likelihood of a transgender flasher accosting a child in a restroom (they're more likely to be flashed by a cisgender person), or the likelihood that you'll be intentionally deceived by a transgender person, it seems kind of ridiculous to reject their rights on that basis.  

 

[heliumclinton]

Bruce Jenner turn into a woman, "Let him live", "be open minded.." Exit..

Young Thug calls another rapper his husband.."He must be stopped!"

This conversations always turn into genuine opinions vs political correctness.

The thing about opinions..they can't be wrong, unless it's politically correct, then the opinion is always right.

Who decided what opinion is "correct"?

There's only one group of people saying Young Thug should be stopped

 

[KingdomFlatbush]

 

If this makes any kind of sense to you, get help

 

[Peep Game]

Bruce Jenner turn into a woman, "Let him live", "be open minded.." Exit..

Young Thug calls another rapper his husband.."He must be stopped!"

This conversations always turn into genuine opinions vs political correctness.

The thing about opinions..they can't be wrong, unless it's politically correct, then the opinion is always right.

Who decided what opinion is "correct"?

There's only one group of people saying Young Thug should be stopped

Who are they? I don't care about him being gay/bi/trolling, I think he makes some of the worst music I've ever heard, so bad that he makes Chief Keef & Soulja Boy sound like Raekwon & Ghostface by comparison

 

[tomdiginson]

There’s a Kardashian-Jenner power struggle developing over controlling Bruce Jenner’s new image when he reemerges as a woman, Confidenti@l has learned.

We reported last week that his ex-wife Kris Jenner — accustomed to closely controlling the family’s public image — was unsettled because she had no control over the ABC News interview, which aired Friday, revealing his transition.

Now we’re told the pendulum is swinging the other way, and Bruce’s older four children are concerned the Kardashian matriarch will have too much influence on the recently announced E! docu-series about his “new life as a woman.”

“They’re worried it will become a Kardashian show,” says an insider.

A source close to the Olympian’s older kids — Burt, Casey, Brandon and Brody — tells us the foursome are suspicious because the show will be produced by someone they believe is in Kris’ pocket, Farnaz Farjam-Chazan, who produced the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” spinoffs “Khloe & Lamar” and “Kourtney & Kim Take Miami.”

“She’s Kris’ crony,” explained another source. “She’s been there since the start (of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians.”) She’s been there for every big story, she writes all the story lines, and she’s very, very, very attached to Kris.”

The second source says that because of their long professional and personal relationship, “Kris will be getting constant feedback and she would also, without any credit (as a producer), be able to affect the story lines.”

We’re told the Jenner offspring are also concerned about the tone of the still-untitled show, which will be headed by Farjam-Chazan, along with Bruce, who will be an executive producer, and co-executive producers Gil Goldschein and Jeff Jenkins. “The kids want this to be educational, like the Friday special was,” says the source, “not a BS drama series like KUWTK.”

In an announcement for the series within minutes after the Diane Sawyer interview ended, a press release from E! said the network “will tell Bruce’s intimate story and will join him as he seeks out his ‘new normal.’ Living for the first time as the person he feels he was born to be, the docu-series will also explore what Bruce’s transition means for the people in his life and how those relationships are affected, while offering a better understanding of many of life’s challenges.”

Reps for E! declined to comment. Reps for Brody Jenner and Kris Jenner didn’t respond to our requests for comment, and we were unable to contact reps for Burt, Casey and Brandon.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...s-wary-kris-control-tv-show-article-1.2202315

 

[tomdiginson]

All about them dollas

 

[blastercombo]

"Did it for awareness"

 

[mr marcus]

Dollars

 

[frankmatthews]

Proceeds to write two more pages in a separate reply.  Don't worry, that's the least of your contradictions in this thread.  

Proceeds to write two or more pages then blocks my IP address.

Didn't ban my account because then everyone would see how much of a tyrant you are. You thought I didn't know how to use a proxy?

Its is absolutely pathetic that, in the absence of any supportive evidence or even a coherent logical thought process, your response is to silence any opposing viewpoint. Just goes to show how much faith you have in your own argument. Stay classy, meth.


​

Your argument is pretty much the kid from Kindergarten Cop saying "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina," and I'M the one who's done zero thinking?  You've made no effort whatsoever to understand what might motivate a transgender person to transition, and yet I have done zero thinking?  


Excuse me, what was your argument again?  

"My argument is_______. "

"What was your argument again?"

LOL. My argument is that gender reassignment surgery is unhealthy and harmful behavior that shouldn't necessarily be something that is whole heartedly treated as acceptable behavior.

I've made every effort to understand, you have done nothing but offer up abstract, undefinable, non-biological "feelings" as the motivation for transition. Whats the motivation? They were born with it? Gender is not biological. It's being who they really are? Gender constructs aren't who you really are. I'm trying to understand. What I've heard thus far makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"You can be a gay man who dresses like a woman and sleeps with other men, but you can't alter alter your genitals because that serves no biological purpose.  Anyone who does so is mentally ill."  

"What about cisgender people who’ve had genital reconstruction surgery?  They have all that “toxic, nonfunctional ickiness” you find so heinous, but they’re entitled to it because of their birth sex?  Or should they be denied reconstructive surgery entirely?  Would you say that they are deceiving prospective partners by presenting themselves as men or women if their genitals lack proper functionality?"

"Umm.... hormones!  I meant hormones.  Someone with genital reconstruction surgery would still have the hormones associated with their birth sex.  HA!  So there!"  

"Cisgender people take hormone supplements, too, you know, and what about those with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?"

"Uh.... I win and your argument is a contradiction!!!!  Burn!"   

This is what you resort to, putting quotations around things I never said in order to make the argument that makes you sound intelligent. You clearly have made no attempt to understand my position. You post with the foregone conclusion that I am wrong and you are right. Not that you offered a single thing to prove this, you just readjust my statements in the most sophomoric way possible. Either you are lacking in comprehension or your stance is so weak and baseless that you prefer cutting down others to supporting your own statements.

You say my position lacks substance, but all you've done is retreat and reconfigure your "standard."  "Natural?"  Nope.  "Reproduction?"  Nope.  "Hormones?"  Nope.  "Medically necessary?"  Who decides what's "necessary?"  The only stable part of your argument is that it excludes transgender people.  You're perfectly content to alter the "how" and the "why" as needed. 

I suppose you consider that "original thought" in the sense that you're obviously making it up as you go.  

As long as you're busy policing what does and what does not belong in the human body, perhaps you should stop pulling rationalizations from your rectal cavity.  

I've not retreated from anything, I have used different examples of why/how the female-male relationship is based in natural biology, not to delineate any and everything else as unnatural or wrong. You are the one who argues the male-female dichotomy is flawed and encumbering. I say reproduction, hormones, and biology proves that it is not inherently wrong or flawed but at the most basic level is an absolute truth of human existence. You cannot say the same for your stance. At least not for the same reasons. I have been waiting for your reasons for pages now. You have none. You rephrase and cherrypick what i said and put it in quotation marks to make my argument easily assailable. MY rationalization are being pulled from out of YOUR ***. Yet you either can't or won't support your own argument.
You put words in my mouth and when I don't address the fabricated position you've created for me I am retreating. Ok, bud.

Unless you go by the actual academic definition of evolution, which is kind if important if that's the argument you're making.  

If you're going to allege that a concept's "evolution" implies that it's somehow objectively "better" than its antecedents or alternatives purely by dint of its persistence, you don't understand the first thing about evolution, for one, let alone epistemology.  That's not semantic hairsplitting, it's using words correctly.  

"Social evolution created the behavior which we can now, in hindsight, view as achetypes, for a reason, for social utility. Yet I don't see how evolution toward that end can be considered patently false, and in the same breath hold up some pansexual, gender neutral utopia as truth. That is your personal assumption at best. You would morph a "flawed" dichotomy into a trichotomy/quadchotomy based on, statistically speaking, anomalous, genetically recessive permutations of said "false" dichotomy? Thats truth? Thats progress?"

I merely asked you if you considered that progress. I did not imply that progress=evolution. I did not imply anything was objectively better. I asked you if you thought the morphing of the dichotomy in that manner was progress. And of course you choose more personal attacks. Didn't answer the question, just told me I am using the word wrong. Of course, the reality is that I never used the word wrong, progression is in fact a synonym of evolution. Now you want to bring up the "academic definition" of evolution, which is apparently different than the dictionarys definition of evolution. Of course none of this anything at all to do with my original statement, this was just another opportunity to paint me as "dumb' and "uneducated". Because I can't even use words right. More distraction from the fact you have nothing of substance to support what you regurgitate.

It takes some nerve to call my posts "quasi-intellectual" given that it's painfully obvious you have made no effort - NONE - to study these issues in the slightest.  If I'm supposedly cribbing "talking points" from Foucault, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Donna Haraway, or Steven Seidman, your argument is lifted from an elementary school playground.  

I called one post quasi intellectual, which was when you tried to incorrectly argue semantics with me when it was completely irrelevant to what we were talking about. You tried to appear smart, and you were wrong. But you read books with big words and I'm still in elementary school, so what do I know, right? You'd think with the disparity in our intellect you wouldn't have to resort to character attacks in every single one of your responses.

Again, that's your hang up.  Don't pretend that there's an objective difference between these "unnatural" forms of body modification.  Someone who opts to have a vasectomy is "mutilating themselves" by your definition, but your application of this lacks any internal consistency.  If it did, you'd claim that anyone who sterilized themselves suffers from a mental illness and is deserving of scorn and stigma.  It's generally considered elective surgery (though a eugenecist would consider it both "necessary" and compulsory.)  

Because people with mental illness are deserving of scorn and stigma, right? I said that, didn't I? Link? Jesus you are full of it.

You want to lump any and every medical procedure relating to genitals into the category of "mutilation" and call it "my definition" Then you find a single procedure that doesn't seem to fit in that category so therefore none of the procedures fit in that category.

If you walk in to a doctors office and ask for a vasectomy for no apparent reason other than you "feel" like it then I guess that is your prerogative. Don't try to pass it off as rational, acceptable behavior though.

If we're telling people in this society, "you can be 'A' or you can be 'B', but if you want to be 'A', you need these parts," then what do you expect to happen if someone doesn't feel comfortable with the role they've been assigned at birth?  

How many times have you came in here and stated sex is not gender, gender and sex aren't interchangeable? Numerous. But now it's, "if you want to be a woman you need a vagina." Do you even realize how much you have contradicted yourself in here? You just completely changed your position. Also: "people who switch genders are just trying to be who they really are" and "Gender does not define who you really are". You are lost my friend. You need to reformulate your opinions and try to make some sense.

xx males exist.  xy females exist.  xxy males exist.  There's more variation than you care to admit.  
 

Ok, now you are talking about biology again, nature. Gender has no basis in biology remember? Are you now saying that your chromosomes determine your gender? You really need to get focused.

It was always there.  For the nth time, other cultures have more than two genders.  Other cultures recognize these differences as valid.  

Is there any basis in fact for your claim that it was "always" there or are you just pulling stuff out of your ***. If there is no natural component to gender how is it that a sense of being the wrong gender is and always has been there? If you are not born with it, then it is learned behavior. If it's learned behavior then it was not always there. But you just made that up, didn't you?

Typologies are a pragmatic construction.  The ability to generalize and categorize has practical value, but this convenience comes at a cost.   There are a great many consequences associated with the sub-categorization of human beings.  If you inhabit an interstitial space, you tend to be marginalized.  Your existence is messy and inconvenient.  You can't be easily pigeonholed.  In a setting where privilege is assigned by race, someone whose race is ambiguous constitutes a threat.  In a setting where privilege is assigned by gender, someone whose gender is ambiguous constitutes a threat.  

I doubt you'd want your identity to be treated as a rounding error.  

You need to understand that every single person who doesn't agree with you is not out to marginalize and oppress. There a very hateful people in this world, I realize that. But not every objection to your opinion is rooted in hate. Assigning privilege by any measure is wrong.

I could care less how the next man treats my identity. I am free to walk the streets and do whatever I please to my own ends. I don't need to manufacture identity traits and wear them around with me so people will identify me how i want them to.

Here's an idea:  treat transsexual people like people and LEARN.  You're curious?  LEARN.  Make an effort.  The whole topic of this post is an extended interview concerning one person's transition.  Simply because that's not my experience doesn't make it invalid.  People who never experience life as a minority often think racism or sexism is a figment of the imagination, or an "excuse."  "Things are pretty fair now," says Mitt Romney.   "I can't think of a single valid reason why someone would do that to themselves," says a cisgender person who's never even knowingly spoken to a transgender person.  

Instead, you've just chosen to judge without any information whatsoever.  That really says it all, honestly.  

I take offense to the fact you assumed I don't treat all people like people. I treat everyone how I want to be treated. It so much easier for you to dismiss what i say when you paint me with this evil, oppressive, hateful brush. I came here, I asked questions, and I was attacked in your very first reply to me. What a great facilitator of learning you are. The assumption is that you have learned, you have the knowledge. Yet all you do is throw out personal attacks and manipulate and simplify any response so it fits your predetermined notion that anyone who doesn't agree with your OPINIONS is an insecure bigot.

You are not fooling anyone, you have not learned anything, you have no credible knowledge on the subject. You entire thesis is made up of arbitrary opinions and contradictory statements. If you had knowledge, you've done everything you possibly could to keep it to yourself.

What about reconstructive surgery?  That's not a legitimate medical procedure?  You keep modifying your argument.  Bottom line: you're choosing to minimize this because you don't understand the person's "need" for it.  

Gender reassignment surgery is not reconstructive surgery now is it? It's not a need, it's a want.

YOU choose to believe that it's superfluous based on a gut-feeling that you then translate into an ever-shifting standard.

I do. But I would definitely consider any alternatives regarding your need based theory. Just the same, the transgender, and you yourself, choose to believe it is NOT superfluous based on your gut feeling.

And it's up to everyone else to convince you otherwise.  My, what a nice privilege to have.  "I'll accept you as human, but first you must prove to my satisfaction that you are worthy of this distinction."  

You don't have to convince me but I don't have to accept it either. How about them apples?

 

I guess the difference here is that you're choosing to reject the lived experiences of transsexuals and I'm willing to take them at their word.  

I don't reject it, I just don't take them at their word. The world is flat, take my word for it.

 

[blastercombo]

Bruce trolled the dudes here claiming he did this to fight the power and oppression of being transgender.


Like I said, show is in the works

 

[tomdiginson]

Bruce trolled the dudes here claiming he did this to fight the power and oppression of being transgender.


Like I said, show is in the works

They'd label you as a bigot if you didn't agree with the. Eggs on their face now.