Caitlyn Jenner

[RandyForRubio]

I think he was referring to being afraid of trans gendered, not transvestites. Yes, there's a big difference between the two.

I don't think your transphobic. I would say, however, that disagreeing with Christianity is hardly being Christianphobic. It's not the Christians we don't like (speaking on behalf of others) but the horribly bad ideas they espouse and which they ceaselessly try to impose on others. Granted, it can be a fine line at times between hating the ideas and hating the people who espouse them, but there's nothing phobic about being opposed to unscientific, socially ignorant and bigoted ideas that have their roots in Iron Age superstitions.

The irony is impeccable. Yes, I disagree with many lifestyles that popular society promotes. That's my choice to do so, just as its your choice to disagree with that, and I'm totally fine with that. That's how it should be. I don't want to force my morals on anybody, that wouldn't be right. That doesn't mean that I can't promote mine though. You can insult myself and my ideas all you want, but you're just doing the same thing that you're accusing me of. Really, the only people attacking anybody here have been you and Dala. Between being called ignorant, transphobic, bigoted, a prick, etc...who are the people attacking who here? Why can't we disagree with others without throwing out names and accusations? I find this sad, and I don't find it progressive at all. We can't have a society where we force people to accept everything, or agree with what popular society says.

And fwiw, I agree that people that disagree with Christianity aren't christianphobes. I was just saying that's where Dala's logic led. And you are quite correct that transvestites and trans gendered are two very different things. That was a poor mistake on my part, thank you for pointing it out and correcting me.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The irony is impeccable. Yes, I disagree with many lifestyles that popular society promotes. That's my choice to do so, just as its your choice to disagree with that, and I'm totally fine with that. That's how it should be. I don't want to force my morals on anybody, that wouldn't be right. That doesn't mean that I can't promote mine though. You can insult myself and my ideas all you want, but you're just doing the same thing that you're accusing me of. Really, the only people attacking anybody here have been you and Dala. Between being called ignorant, transphobic, bigoted, a prick, etc...who are the people attacking who here? Why can't we disagree with others without throwing out names and accusations? I find this sad, and I don't find it progressive at all. We can't have a society where we force people to accept everything, or agree with what popular society says.

And fwiw, I agree that people that disagree with Christianity aren't christianphobes. I was just saying that's where Dala's logic led. And you are quite correct that transvestites and trans gendered are two very different things. That was a poor mistake on my part, thank you for pointing it out and correcting me.

Which specific ideas of yours have I insulted? I made a general reference to the outdated social views of conservative Christians (and conservative religious folks overall), but I do not believe I offered you any personal insult.

Look, I used to be a staunch religious social conservative. I did not 'evolve' on certain social issues, such as same sex marriage, at the same rate as others, and I'm willing to allow others their own space and time to evolve on them as well. Many of the things social progressives support are socially quite radical to many within society, although being radical does not make them any less critical or true, including many, many good, fair, honorable or (if you will) 'Christian' people.

At the same time, even such good people often harbor biased/bigoted views, even if at the subliminal level. It is right, I believe, to point those out where they can be identified, although as you note, the tone used in doing so makes a difference. Part of the problem is that many of us are so used to dealing with truly bigoted people (who do not merit, in my view, polite consideration), that we treat those of good faith in a similar vein. Where do we draw the line between religious persons of good faith struggling to reconcile his/her traditional religious beliefs with rapidly changing social mores and religious bigots whose religion teaches them, and fills them with, animus toward 'others' and who use religious belief as a socially and culturally privileged pretext to impose their animus on others, and in the process trying to exclude and marginalize them, and further attempt to enshrine their religiously inspired animus in public policies?

 

[Stoked]

The best part about this to me is that I see both Howard's and Jimmy's arguments as applying equally to both sides. Change a few words and the argument still stands.

There are unfortunately large segments of both groups that attack the other side for simply disagreeing.

Also @ Jimmy. I find your use of the word "evolve" to be interesting. In your opinion would someone who starts out socially liberal and progresses to religious conservative be "evolving" the stances?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The best part about this to me is that I see both Howard's and Jimmy's arguments as applying equally to both sides. Change a few words and the argument still stands.

There are unfortunately large segments of both groups that attack the other side for simply disagreeing.

Also @ Jimmy. I find your use of the word "evolve" to be interesting. In your opinion would someone who starts out socially liberal and progresses to religious conservative be "evolving" the stances?

Yes, personal 'evolution' can go in any direction. I would add, however, that evolving toward more socially progressive positions with regards to civil rights/liberties, tolerance/acceptance of traditionally marginalized groups, respecting human dignity, etc has, at least in the US, been the typical (if not universal) direction of social evolution. Social conservatives in the US have always been, and will continue to be, on the losing side of history.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, personal 'evolution' can go in any direction. I would add, however, that evolving toward more socially progressive positions with regards to civil rights/liberties, tolerance/acceptance of traditionally marginalized groups, respecting human dignity, etc has, at least in the US, been the typical (if not universal) direction of social evolution. Social conservatives in the US have always been, and will continue to be, on the losing side of history.

I was hoping you would say this.

I am not so sure about this. (and I consider myself to lean slightly left on social issues)

 

[NAOS]

lmao

 

[LogGrad98]

More correct, I believe, to say that Jenner chose to take actions to live her gender identify (e.g.,, come out in public, wear the clothes, get the operation, etc.), but she did not choose to identify herself as a female, not any more than a homosexual choose to be sexually attracted to men, or a heterosexual male chooses to be attracted to women.

It seems to me you're conflating two very distinct issues here.

Nah I was trying to simplify what everyone else is trying to complicate. I don't care what the choice was, it was his/hers to make. Good for her /him.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Which specific ideas of yours have I insulted? I made a general reference to the outdated social views of conservative Christians (and conservative religious folks overall), but I do not believe I offered you any personal insult.

Look, I used to be a staunch religious social conservative. I did not 'evolve' on certain social issues, such as same sex marriage, at the same rate as others, and I'm willing to allow others their own space and time to evolve on them as well. Many of the things social progressives support are socially quite radical to many within society, although being radical does not make them any less critical or true, including many, many good, fair, honorable or (if you will) 'Christian' people.

At the same time, even such good people often harbor biased/bigoted views, even if at the subliminal level. It is right, I believe, to point those out where they can be identified, although as you note, the tone used in doing so makes a difference. Part of the problem is that many of us are so used to dealing with truly bigoted people (who do not merit, in my view, polite consideration), that we treat those of good faith in a similar vein. Where do we draw the line between religious persons of good faith struggling to reconcile his/her traditional religious beliefs with rapidly changing social mores and religious bigots whose religion teaches them, and fills them with, animus toward 'others' and who use religious belief as a socially and culturally privileged pretext to impose their animus on others, and in the process trying to exclude and marginalize them, and further attempt to enshrine their religiously inspired animus in public policies?

I get what you're saying man, and most of it I don't have a problem with. I think for us the major difference, or turning points in our views is going to be this: should our social stances shape our religious views, or should our religious views shape our social stances? I understand that everybody is going to view this differently, especially those who don't believe in any religion. Personally, I think it should be the latter. I also think that we can still love those we don't agree with, and I wasn't showing Caitlyn very much love or respect. While I still disagree on the gender issue, I can and should be able to show more love while still disagreeing. It's a fine line, and one I often struggle with. I tend to be too legalistic, and it especially comes out more in type than in speak where I can't convey my emotions well. I don't want to be viewed as legalistic, but I also refuse to give ground on my religious convictions. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I get what you're saying man, and most of it I don't have a problem with. I think for us the major difference, or turning points in our views is going to be this: should our social stances shape our religious views, or should our religious views shape our social stances? I understand that everybody is going to view this differently, especially those who don't believe in any religion. Personally, I think it should be the latter. I also think that we can still love those we don't agree with, and I wasn't showing Caitlyn very much love or respect. While I still disagree on the gender issue, I can and should be able to show more love while still disagreeing. It's a fine line, and one I often struggle with. I tend to be too legalistic, and it especially comes out more in type than in speak where I can't convey my emotions well. I don't want to be viewed as legalistic, but I also refuse to give ground on my religious convictions. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

No problem Howard. I appreciate what you are saying. I certainly view you as a person of 'good faith' trying to work through these issues. I can accept that we won't necessarily reach the same conclusion.

I also try separate opinions from actions, although this is probably not evident from my sparring style here. I learned this from my father, who was as kind hearted man who ever was, but who occasionally voiced embarrassing racist opinions. Yet, I know, and observed, that he would treat a black person as fairly as he would treat anyone else. He was kind of old school in his views, but salt of the earth in his actions.

He struggled mightily when my brother came out as gay, and although he would never march in a gay parade, became much more tolerant and open minded over time. He told me that his single greatest regret in life was turning his son (my brother) over to the LDS Church authorities (so to speak), who treated him abysmally.

Not sure why I went into all of this. It just seemed somewhat relevant to the topic.

 

[olden_undercover]

So, I realize the relevance of this might be iffy...

Look up apotemnophilia, or BIID (here's a great article: https://the-gist.org/2011/07/body-i...heories-to-explain-the-desire-for-amputation/). Currently, this condition is classified as a psychological disorder. What it makes me wonder, though, is if it's really that different from feeling that you were born the wrong sex, and that you essentially need to re-configure your social role to live the rest of your life happily. I'm seriously asking. These people are living tortured lives dealing with the distinct, unsettled feeling that they weren't supposed to be born with two legs, or with all ten fingers, or with the ability to use their limbs at all. Moreover, much like someone who eventually undergoes a sex change operation and completely re-identifies from a gender standpoint, they aren't looking for a shrink to fix their "broken thinking"-- they just want to modify their bodies to reflect how they see themselves mentally/emotionally, and move on. Who has any right to tell them they are wrong? Some would/do call this self-mutilation, but is it? I doubt many of us classify a sex change as self-mutilation, and we've moved past thinking that someone struggling with gender identification has psych issues, but are there not parallels? Should society accept this "disorder", re-classify it with a more tolerant/accepting label, and proceed as though people amputating their own limbs is nobody's business but their own? I'm not sure what I think about this, personally. I'm mulling it over, I guess. But I do know it is part of the the broader conversation about tolerance/acceptance toward the individual's right to choose his or her identity, and it makes me wonder if there truly are any boundaries. Assuming there are, where do they lie...?

Edit: I am not suggesting in any way that I think Jenner-- or anybody who goes through anything resembling his experience-- may be an apotemnophiliac...

 

[fishonjazz]

 

[♪alt13]

Being a chick with a penis = weird

Being a dude with boobs = awesome