Caitlyn Jenner's Obliviousness

[lpetrich]

For lack of a better word.

She is a transwoman who was originally Bruce Jenner, the noted athlete.

Does Caitlyn Jenner Live on the Same Planet We Do? by Ed Brayton.

Caitlyn Jenner seems to be living in a fantasy world. First she says she wants to be a “trans ambassador” to Ted Cruz, who thinks she shouldn’t exist, and now she absolutely refuses to admit that Republicans are anti-gay or anti-trans at all.

Caitlyn Jenner: "Every Conservative Guy Out There Believes in Everybody's Rights"

When trans activist and writer Jennifer Finney Boylan asked Jenner which Republican Presidential candidate would be most supportive of transgender people, Jenner’s response was, “All of ‘em...None of the Republicans [say], ‘Oh, I hate trans people,’ or, ‘I hate gays.’ Nothing like that. They do more, ‘I want a thriving economy so every trans person has a job.’” Here’s an example of Republican Sen. Travis Holdman filing a bill that would ban discrimination based on sexuality, but not gender identity, which would suggest, in fact, that he doesn’t care at all about trans people having jobs.

She was similarly obtuse about other politicians pushing "no men in women's bathrooms" efforts.

Ed Brayton asked what planet she is living on. From what it looks like, it seems like the seventh planet from the Sun, a planet whose name is a horrible pun in English.

That aside, she'd be more at home in the Libertarian Party, an ultracapitalist and social-liberal party. She also ought to be pressing for more third-party-friendly systems of voting, like proportional representation.

 

[credoconsolans]

For lack of a better word.

She is a transwoman who was originally Bruce Jenner, the noted athlete.

Does Caitlyn Jenner Live on the Same Planet We Do? by Ed Brayton.

Caitlyn Jenner: "Every Conservative Guy Out There Believes in Everybody's Rights"

When trans activist and writer Jennifer Finney Boylan asked Jenner which Republican Presidential candidate would be most supportive of transgender people, Jenner’s response was, “All of ‘em...None of the Republicans [say], ‘Oh, I hate trans people,’ or, ‘I hate gays.’ Nothing like that. They do more, ‘I want a thriving economy so every trans person has a job.’” Here’s an example of Republican Sen. Travis Holdman filing a bill that would ban discrimination based on sexuality, but not gender identity, which would suggest, in fact, that he doesn’t care at all about trans people having jobs.

She was similarly obtuse about other politicians pushing "no men in women's bathrooms" efforts.

Ed Brayton asked what planet she is living on. From what it looks like, it seems like the seventh planet from the Sun, a planet whose name is a horrible pun in English.

That aside, she'd be more at home in the Libertarian Party, an ultracapitalist and social-liberal party. She also ought to be pressing for more third-party-friendly systems of voting, like proportional representation.

Caitlyn is a life-long Republican. Many of them do live in their own private Idahos.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If Caitlyn Jenner were still Bruce Jenner, would people be so shocked?

Jenner changed her gender, not her brain.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Jenner seems to be aware of some of Cruz's views on transgender issues (e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/03/03/caitlyn-jenner-like-ted-cruz/81284380/ ).
By the way, I see no evidence that Cruz believes Jenner should not exist. Instead, he almost certainly believes that Jenner is a man who mistakenly believes that he is a woman.

 

[repoman]

I wonder if most versions of transgenderism are the result of A.) diffuse psychological issues or B.) from a very exact brain area responsible for gender identity that has been mapped for the other gender. Sort of like how the sensation of numbers and colors are mapped to specific regions, but in synesthesia these separate sections are still connected.

If it is B then there may be no way that transgenderism can be treated. If it is A then it may be treatable or on the other hand greatly increased in society with the right culture. Seems that even questioning what causes transgenderism is not allowed now.

 

[untermensche]

Becoming a Republican is a break from reality.

Putting on makeup and talking funny doesn't help.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wonder if most versions of transgenderism are the result of A.) diffuse psychological issues or B.) from a very exact brain area responsible for gender identity that has been mapped for the other gender. Sort of like how the sensation of numbers and colors are mapped to specific regions, but in synesthesia these separate sections are still connected.

If it is B then there may be no way that transgenderism can be treated. If it is A then it may be treatable or on the other hand greatly increased in society with the right culture. Seems that even questioning what causes transgenderism is not allowed now.

Because the causes for the desire to change your meatsack's configuration are irrelevant. It doesn't matter why you want to be shaped a certain way and it doesn't matter why you want to have a hormone balance which has been shown to be acceptably within the range of human experience. We do not live in a culture that is responsible or wise enough to have the secret of why transgender people are the way they are because then humanity would be capable of forcing them to be a way in our society which does not yet universally accept the right to be the way they wish.

People as a group are not ready for that knowledge, and the knowledge would not help us be ready. In fact, it may keep us from ever being ready, having it before we have figured out self determination on a wide scale.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

People as a group are not ready for that knowledge, and the knowledge would not help us be ready. In fact, it may keep us from ever being ready, having it before we have figured out self determination on a wide scale.

Leaving aside other issues, are you saying that there is actually a ban on research on the causes of a desire to alter one's hormone balance and/or genitalia, deliberately enforced either by the state or by some other group, in order to keep scientists from figuring it out? If not, what are you saying?

What actually happens in my experience is that discussion of transgender issues (causes, whether their claims are correct, etc.) in a civil and rational way seems to be blocked by to the reactions of some people on both sides - but mostly on the side of condemning those who either deny transgender claims, or ask for evidence, or express doubts, etc. -, and perhaps the same sort of thing blocks research on the matter.

But I see no good evidence that most or all of the people engaging in such behavior do so with the intention of keeping scientists from figuring out the causes. It seems to be mostly knee-jerk reactions (e.g., "He's an evil bigot! Grrr!"), and when there is a deliberate effort, the effort is to prevent dissenters from speaking in universities, blogs, etc. (by different means), not to prevent scientists from doing research (even if that may well be a side effect of all of those reactions and behavior).

 

[Jarhyn]

People as a group are not ready for that knowledge, and the knowledge would not help us be ready. In fact, it may keep us from ever being ready, having it before we have figured out self determination on a wide scale.

Leaving aside other issues, are you saying that there is actually a ban on research on the causes of a desire to alter one's hormone balance and/or genitalia, deliberately enforced either by the state or by some other group, in order to keep scientists from figuring it out? If not, what are you saying?

What actually happens in my experience is that discussion of transgender issues (causes, whether their claims are correct, etc.) in a civil and rational way seems to be blocked by to the reactions of some people on both sides - but mostly on the side of condemning those who either deny transgender claims, or ask for evidence, or express doubts, etc. -, and perhaps the same sort of thing blocks research on the matter.

But I see no good evidence that most or all of the people engaging in such behavior do so with the intention of keeping scientists from figuring out the causes. It seems to be mostly knee-jerk reactions (e.g., "He's an evil bigot! Grrr!"), and when there is a deliberate effort, the effort is to prevent dissenters from speaking in universities, blogs, etc. (by different means), not to prevent scientists from doing research (even if that may well be a side effect of all of those reactions and behavior).

Jeez man, I don't even know what you are smoking. Your response makes no sense.

I am saying that IF we knew how to edit someone's gender before having a widespread respect for a person's right to decide on their own gender, such as the situation in our own society, we will go through a protracted period in which people are forced into genders that they do not want. That we are not ready to know why people have the genders they do because if we did, we would abuse it, at least at our current state. I am saying it is NOT a thing we should look into until we can figure out without disagreement or ambiguity whether we should be given the right to decide our gender for ourselves.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Jeez man, I don't even know what you are smoking. Your response makes no sense.

Your reply to repoman seemed to be reply to the part of his post that held "Seems that even questioning what causes transgenderism is not allowed now.", since you were apparently explaining why it's not allowed.
If you meant something else, I asked what you meant. My reply made sense.

I am saying that IF we knew how to edit someone's gender before having a widespread respect for a person's right to decide on their own gender, such as the situation in our own society, we will go through a protracted period in which people are forced into genders that they do not want.

That is not what you were saying. If you meant to say that, you misspoke. But that does not make my reply nonsensical. It was perfectly reasonable on the basis of your actual words.

That aside, do you have any evidence of any of your claims?

That we are not ready to know why people have the genders they do because if we did, we would abuse it, at least at our current state.

First, who would abuse it?
Second, we were talking about knowing the causes of a desire to alter one's hormone balance and/or genitalia, not the causes of people having the gender they have. Do you think that gender depends on a desire to alter one's genitalia and/or hormone balance? (I find gender claims often very obscure, so I'm trying to figure out what they are about).
Third, knowing the causes of the desires in question does not imply knowing how to modify them (granted, it can help develop a method. But then again, that hardly makes it likely that such a method would be used. )

I am saying it is NOT a thing we should look into until we can figure out without disagreement or ambiguity whether we should be given the right to decide our gender for ourselves.

Right, so you're implying that researchers who try to find out are behaving immorally.
But what is the evidence of that?

 

[Underseer]

Why would anyone be surprised that a Republican believes things that are stupid, evil, and divorced from reality?

Ooops.

I apologize deeply for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that Caitlin Jenner and the other Republicans are patriotic Real Americans^TM who are nobly trying to defend our nation from the terrorist-loving, America-hating, communist-fascist Islammo-atheist libertards in the Democrat party. There. Better now?

 

[J842P]

Why would anyone be surprised that a Republican believes things that are stupid, evil, and divorced from reality?

Ooops.

I apologize deeply for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that Caitlin Jenner and the other Republicans are patriotic Real Americans^TM who are nobly trying to defend our nation from the terrorist-loving, America-hating, communist-fascist Islammo-atheist libertards in the Democrat party. There. Better now?

Dude, this shtick is getting pretty old. Who the hell are you even talking to on here?

 

[Underseer]

Why would anyone be surprised that a Republican believes things that are stupid, evil, and divorced from reality?

Ooops.

I apologize deeply for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that Caitlin Jenner and the other Republicans are patriotic Real Americans^TM who are nobly trying to defend our nation from the terrorist-loving, America-hating, communist-fascist Islammo-atheist libertards in the Democrat party. There. Better now?

Dude, this shtick is getting pretty old. Who the hell are you even talking to on here?

Which part offended you?

If it was the second part, deal with it. Conservatives started saying crap like that during the Bush administration, and their rhetoric has only become more unhinged since then. I'm sorry if pointing this out offends you.

 

[J842P]

Dude, this shtick is getting pretty old. Who the hell are you even talking to on here?

Which part offended you?

If it was the second part, deal with it. Conservatives started saying crap like that during the Bush administration, and their rhetoric has only become more unhinged since then. I'm sorry if pointing this out offends you.

Again, who the hell are you talking to? When did I say I was offended? Do you even finish reading other people's posts anymore? You are tilting at windmills and fighting imaginary demons like a fucking priest. I'm not offended. I am telling you your shtick is getting old. It was funny maybe 8 years ago, but now it just clutters the forum with the sort of stupidity you see on social media, the sort of shit I come here to escape! I'm not taking offense at your characterization of Republicans, I'm telling you you your posts have devolved into the sort of shit one sees on Facebook or Reddit or somewhere else. Hell, this is what you'd expect to find on /b/. The great irony is that you will start threads on the dangers of group-think in the liberal anti-GMO crusade, and yet when it comes to electoral politics, you behave in the same unthinking manner. Do yourself a favor and stop announcing to the world that you are only willing to engage people who live in your bubble. And hey, everyone has a bubble, man. It's how you face being outside of it that counts.

You are an Old One. I know you remember what the fora were like back when this sort of sarcastic trolling was something a poster would be ashamed of. Back when even if you felt that the person was being a bigot, you gritted your teeth and tried to argue the issues, and not target a poster. The fact is there is no real representation, on FRDB of all places, of the arguments you are mocking, and all you are doing is drowning out any chances of having an interesting or productive discussion.

TL: DR
Who the fuck do you think you are dude? Colbert?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If Caitlyn Jenner were still Bruce Jenner, would people be so shocked?

Jenner changed her gender, not her brain.

She isn't still Bruce Jenner, though. We aren't talking about her views on foreign policy, immigration, military spending or her favourite flavour of ice cream. We're talking about an issue which is directly relevant to her transition.

When she transitioned, she grabbed the spotlight. A certain amount of attention would have fallen on her as a celebrity regardless, but it is apparent she sought a fair bit of it out. One would expect, if she is going to play the advocate of transgender rights after having gone through transition herself, her perspective on transgender rights would have evolved. If you are indicating you think so little of her, specifically, that you didn't expect her perspective to change at all, I suppose you'd be correct; however, it is still unfortunate that one of the most visible transgender people in America is acting like the trans equivalent of an uncle tom.

It's one thing if she was simply remaining a Republican based on other issues, and seeking to make inroads for transgender rights with the Republican Party. But some of the quotes coming out make it sound as if she is wilfully ignorant of the transphobic politics going on in America, and that is a bit surprising. Then again, despite her having her own set of hardships in transitioning, she is somewhat more sheltered from many of the issues other transgender Americans face, so it's possible she really just doesn't give a fuck.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I wonder if most versions of transgenderism are the result of A.) diffuse psychological issues or B.) from a very exact brain area responsible for gender identity that has been mapped for the other gender. Sort of like how the sensation of numbers and colors are mapped to specific regions, but in synesthesia these separate sections are still connected

Probably not A. Possibly not B either.

Seems that even questioning what causes transgenderism is not allowed now.

Not allowed, or one has to put up with a small amount of shit to do so? Or do you mean some people and institutions are just sick of hearing the same old bullshit rehashed under the guise pf 'devil's advocate', 'the voice of dissent', or 'intellectual curiosity'?