"My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are. I can criticize, and I do, for what people do, for their behavior. But as far as for who they are, you have to respect everybody, and these are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody."
Said Rick Santorum.
May 2, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
146 comments:
Besides, "it" votes Republican.
How many seconds will (did?) it take before someone claims that Santorum is only so accepting because Jenner also "came out" as a Republican? And would such a claim be right?
God Bless Both of Them.
Glad Rick answered this, because next to Afghanistan and the Economy, the most important issue facing the USA is Bruce Jenner's sex change.
What does Hillary think of Jenner? Millions of 2016 votes hang in the balance.
Seriously, is it ever possible for these politicians to just say "I don't care" or "That has nothing to do with my run for political office"?
I guess not.
Pretty remarkable that Santorum said that. Thanks for sharing this.
If I hear voices,and see people that aren't there, does anyone have a right to tell me that they aren't real? If I think I'm Napoleon, will a psychiatrist proscribe me a Bi-corner hat and a sabre? But if I'm a man, and I believe myself to be a woman, they will give me estrogen and surgically mutilate my body to become a "woman". Why is it that gender dysphoria is the only psychological disorder where we change the body to satisfy a delusional brain; whereas other disorders we recognize the delusions themselves are the problem?
""If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman.""
A man who wants to have children will never accept Bruce Jenner as a "woman." Regardless of whether he has a vagina or breasts. And this urge, the urge to breed, is primal biology. It's a part of nature. We can control nature and resist nature. But it's still there. The underlying reality is still there, regardless of what we say.
Weasel words. A man is not a woman because he says so, nor does Santorum think this. I feel safe in this assumption and I expect nearly everyone else thinks he's weaseling as well. He'd have to go a good deal further at this point to sell this load. So either he looks like he's bullshitting or, just barely possibly, he has swallowed the gender-as-choice camel.
The Dem operatives in the press will thrust this choice on every Republican candidate, hoping to either make them look as ridiculous as Santorum (who hardly needs the help) or make them do the weasel dance. Not enough voters are convinced that gender is elective to make denying it risky. A candidate with the verbal judo skills to turn this crap around on the media one way or another is bound to get traction by it.
Outright denial of their farcical sacred truth would do fine for a rebuttal but it's not even necessary. This kind of stupid question is its self an issue in politics. Every time such a thing is asked the answer is to point out that the questioner is a Democratic operative pretending to be objectively neutral.
It's been plain forever that the press is actively working for one side. It's time a candidate says so plainly every time something like this is asked. Rand Paul looks better at handling this bullshit. Walker too.
And I think a person ought to be able to say I am a Harvard graduate when applying for a job and his prospective employer should just accept that and award him a job without question.
Back in March, shortly after she "came out" as a Christian, Ana Marie Cox said in an interview that she went to a church to hear Rick Santorum talk, and that she was greatly moved by his sincerity and that, for her, it was "a revelatory moment".
This also solves the gay marriage issue. One partner declares as a woman and presto, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Santorum has cut the Freudian Knot.
If you call a Christian hateful, if he's serious about his Christianity, it's going to give him pause. One of the nice things about Christianity, I think.
Christians are also called to be honest. I think this comment...
""If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman.""
can be mocked over and over. But the urge to be loving and respectful of other people should not be mocked.
Bruce Jenner is not a woman, he feels like a woman. Even after the operation, he will still be a man who has had pretty radical plastic surgery.
I feel sorry for him, and hope he finds peace, but he is not a woman.
No, I don't have to be "compassionate and respectful" of evil, Bishop.
Raises an interesting question, doesn't it?
You've deliberately and maliciously embraced evil. The reasons for that are pretty clear... personal gain, sloth, sitting on your ass for 45 years with nothing to do but bitch, greed, the infantilization of living on a college campus and getting your ass kissed for it...
You are one of the most evil, rotten women I've ever encountered... which is saying something because white intellectual women are mostly worthless.
What's the proper Christian response to a incredibly intellectually brilliant woman who has deliberately and maliciously embraced evil?
I'll admit that I don't know.
Well, that explains the driving.
The normalization of mental illness...
Oh, that's why they call it the Stupid Party.
If I say I'm a Klingon, I'm a Klingon. And dammit, I want voting ballets printed in my language.
I'd like to be able to criticize the politics here, but when even I as a lowly middle class worker that is forced to say the sky is red to stay employed, I can't. I can't criticize anything anymore.
The left is convinced that conservatives hate gays, transgenders and others. They believe their own talking points. When someone like Santorum fails to deliver a quotable quote, it's big news. Why would Rick Santorum care how Bruce Jenner chooses to live his life?
Ironically, the equivalence movement through shaming and bullying prevents or discourages trans individuals from seeking treatment.
That said, principled tolerance, rather than selective exclusion. While the pro-choice philosophy costs virtually nothing, its consequences are priceless.
I wonder if Santorum will be equally accepting of orientations and behaviors that the psychiatric "consensus" has curiously excluded.
Jason: "Well, that explains the driving."
Thread winner.
Santorum can certainly say what he wants and he is very cautious here.
Believing Christians have a Biblical imperative not to judge but also to recognize unnatural attractions between men and men, women and women, men and animals.
He is on safe ground here until Bruce declares her "attraction."
I'd be interested to read the full context in which this delusional quote was given. In the meantime, if Vanilla Ice or Eminem say they are black, does that mean they are black? And that "we" need to look at it in a way that is "compassionate and respectful" of them?
You have XX chromosomes. Act like a woman.
You have XY chromosomes. Act like a man.
You have two legs. Get out of that wheelchair and walk.
You have two eyes. Put down that white cane and watch where you are going.
You have two ears. Quit lip reading and listen up.
Its good to be polite to people, and treat with with kindness.
But's he's really not a woman.
I do hope he finds peace though.
There is nothing compassionate or respectful in lying to people about fundamental objective truths.
Wrong, Rick. People cannot choose their sex. They are what they are. It is tragic that doctors and others do so much harm to people by playing along with these disorders.
If that human says he is a dog, then that human is a dog.
Doesn't the fact that I kept saying human mean I don't believe they are a dog?
Rick Santorum keeps saying he. That's your give away.
The gay-rights crowd's obsession with Rick Santorum is beyond strange.
It's like Dan Savage's having signed up for Gary Bauer's Iowa caucus campaign in the winter of 2000, and having licked the doorknobs and office supplies in an attempt to spread the flu he was suffering at the time, then writing a column about it.
Beyond strange.
Rick Santorum could do a great service to the cause by shutting the fuck up. I was in his corner as a younger, dumber man. He's not a good person. He's not even a nice person. He needs to go away.
But she breaks just like a little girl.
I remember being in Paris during a summer with mu college girlfriend. We were on a bus and she was wearing a button-down shirt with no bra, and opened another button due to the sweltering heat.
I casually glimpsed inside her shirt at the sweat upon her breasts and soon had a mighty erection that was embarrassingly evident in my light pants.
I recall trying to will that erection to subside before everyone on the bus noticed, so I can kinda understand a bit about a man wanting to cut his penis off.
Maybe not the same, I don't know.
I am Laslo.
Perhaps in the future we will have restrooms and lockers rooms labeled "Penis people" and "Vagina people" instead of "men" and "women"
Since Jenner had (has?) a penis and will never have a vagina, even after he cuts his dick off, he would have to use the first.
the other day I saw a comment somewhere that talked bout how some people who are thin think they are fat and we treat that as a mental illness try to help them.
Isn't this the same thing? Jenner and other transsexuals have no attributes of womanhood (or Chastity Bono of manhood). Why do we say they are not mentally ill and try to help them? I think it may even be illegal for a doctor to help them back to male/femalehood in some states.
As a liberal, I have no problem with his slicing his dick off and calling himself a woman. His body his choice.
I don't think it gives me any obligation to view him as a woman. Or use the women's facilities in any public place.
John Henry
The correct response, if the reporter is a man, is to grab the reporter by the throat and say "you appear to be a man but are really a little pussy". Next question.
I am doing my best to understand why a 65 year old man, well past his sexual prime for a while now, would care whether he was considered to be male or female. There is but one answer - the storyline gives the Kardashian reality show a new storyline to keep this incredibly bad television alive.
Having attended an off-Broadway performance of "Oh Calcutta" at the Belasco Theater on W. 44th Street many years ago (1971 or 1972), I was struck by the fact that nudity is soon boring, just as looking at Kim's fat butt has now become.
Here is a hot tip for Bruce and his new-found buddy and serial hypocrite, Slick Rick Santorum - Nobody Cares if Bruce is now Belinda.
---I wonder if Santorum will be equally accepting of orientations and behaviors that the psychiatric "consensus" has curiously excluded.
What meaningless verbal diarrhea. Do you have a point?
If you say you're a woman and you're not a woman then you're not a woman.
I can say I'm black, but if I'm not black then I'm not black.
I can say I'm a lion, but if I'm not a lion then I'm not a lion.
Once he transitions he's still going to be a man. Because his DNA says as much.
End of story.
Now, if it were a matter of respect and he wanted to be called a woman, to his face I'd say "yes bruce, you are a woman". I will accept that HE thinks he's a woman and I will not force him to accept premise that he's a man to his face.
But he's a man. Just because he believes a fallacy doesn't mean that I have to be in that same fallacy.
if he had transitioned as a man when in his 20's should we have let him compete in the olympics as a woman?
That guy Shouting Thomas sounds insane.
THere's a movie called Lars and the Real Girl, about a guy who suffers some trauma with his real girl friend. (I forget the details). So he gets a sex doll, and starts walking around as if his sex doll was a real girl.
And all the town folk start treating the relationship as if she was a real girl.
Ultimately he gets over his delusion and goes back to dating real women.
There is something to be said for having respect for people going through traumatic situations. You go along with the delusion because you love the person and don't want to see them hurt. So, you pretend that Lars is dating a real girl. You don't keep telling him to his face that his girl friend is a sex doll. Since that's hurtful to him
But being polite is different than accepting that she is in fact a real woman, if she's a sex doll. Just because Lars is suffering a delusion, and just because you want to make him happy doesn't mean that you have to suddenly start believing yourself that she's anything but a sex doll
Does no one remember the story of the emperor having no clothes? Transgenderism is like a real version of the story taking place in modern times.
Here's the story. A vain emperor (transgendered) who only cares about dressing and wearing clothes hires two swindlers to make him clothes (doctors/charlatans who pretend they can change sex). The swindler promise to make him the finest clothes using an invisible fabric that is invisible to anyone unfit for his position or hopelessly stupid (liberals arguing against anyone who might point out that Bruce is a man).
The emperors ministers can't actually see the clothes but pretend they can so as to not seem unfit for their positions (intolerance).
Finally the swindlers dress him up (sex change) and parade him around the town. All the townsfolk play along since they don't want it known that they are either unfit for their position or hopelessly stupid.
But then a child in the crowd to young to understand the idea of keeping up the pretense (an honest person) says "The Emperor has no clothes).
And then the towns folk start repeating the cry. The emperor cringes, expecting that its true, that he has no clothes, but continues on with the procession.
If the emperor is naked, then he has no clothes. It doesn't matter if you think you are intolerant if you say otherwise. The emperor still has no clothes.
Bruce Jenner is a guy who is naked who thinks he's being given fine clothes. He can suffer the delusion, and it may even be nice to pretend along with him that he is clothed. But he's not.
Why is Rick even in the mix for President now? He is irrelevant. He has no chance.
I went into a Barnes and Noble today, and there was a beautiful woman in one of the book aisles.
She caught me looking, and quickly put her book back, and then scurried over to the Religious section.
I was very attracted, so I went over and said hello. I asked her: "So, are you a Jesus Freak?" She replied: "You pig, I came over here to get away from you."
I thought maybe she wasn't too serious, so I asked her: "Well, can I invite you for a cup of coffee, and maybe you can put a hex on me."
Not amused now, I could tell, she asked: "Do you know why God gave men bigger brains than dogs?" Well, that was a new one, so I replied: "No."
She said: "So they wouldn't keep trying to hump ladies legs in the book stores."
Well, I figured at this point she wasn't really interested in coffee, or conversation, so I went up to the cashier and paid for Hot Rod magazine and left.
"My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht."
Unknown:
What part of selective exclusion do you not understand?
The psychiatrists pandered to certain transgender and transsexual (e.g. homosexual) demographics with a promise of normalization while selectively excluding others. It's a principle of politically-motivated pro-choice that you should understand.
Are you pro-choice?
The fantasy of pseudo-scientific nonsense and amoral/immoral selective principles is wearing thin. Pro-choice or selective principles, including arbitrary exclusion through selective normalization, are notorious for creating moral hazards for the People and unplanned Posterity.
"THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!"
Rick isn't saying anything like this hoping to win votes from people who hate him, and he certainly expects to lose some support within the hardcore who will read this as supporting sin. I think this is what you lawyers call an admission against interest. which earns him a lot of credit in my book. Perhaps he's seen all he holds dearest ridiculed, mocked and pissed upon, and decided he'll stop doing that to others.
I feel a smidgen more compassion and a tiny bit less respect for Santorum tonight. But I trust he's not saying anything new to please me.
She said: "So they wouldn't keep trying to hump ladies legs in the book stores."
Well, I figured at this point she wasn't really interested in coffee, or conversation, so I went up to the cashier and paid for Hot Rod magazine and left.
You're a better man than I....I would have humped her leg and then demanded a jury trial.
"He's a Woman"
Can any of you write songs? What a great title for the anthem of this generation.
With one comment, Santorum schools you all.
John Lennon was the walrus. Bruce Jenner can be a girl.
Mountain Maven said...
With one comment, Santorum schools you all.
5/3/15, 12:29 AM
LMAO! In what, how to be a sanctimonious liar? How to deny truth when courting approval? Guys who cut their dicks are off are just guys without dicks. Women who take male hormones to grow a beard and have their vaginas operated on to simulate a penis-like object are just women who take male hormones, et cetera. This fantasy that surgery changes a person's gender is maybe the most absurd progressive position of them all. It is Orwellian denial of the very firmament of fact. I suspect that this is part of the larger goal of anti-social progressive dogma to completely undermine societal norms and objective reasoning in order to replace them with political ideology.
Can we just abolish the entire manual of psychological disorders now?
Jenner can say he's a woman if he wants to, it doesn't change the reality that he isn't, and won't be no matter how much surgery or hormone therapy he does. Archaeologists studying the bones centuries later would classify them as human male.
I feel for the guy, it seems he's got some psychological or biological issues and isn't being well-served by the enlightened opinion that there are more self-defined genders than flavors of Baskin-Robbins.
My younger sister once had a phase when she was quite young where she insisted she was a boy and demanded everyone treat her as such. It was patiently indulged to a degree, but none of the adults ever had any wild notions that maybe God or nature screwed up, and the phase eventually passed. Luckily that was some 25 years ago, or the "experts" may have turned a phase into a brother.
Unrelated, but also of note: the allowance of subjective definitions of what should be objective external characteristics of identity is also how progressives get away with such crap as saying that black/women/gay conservatives/Republicans don't really belong to the minority group in question.
Is Bruce Jenner still alive, and planning on going forward with surgery?
He seems to have completely lost all newsworthiness.
I wonder how that happened.
Perhaps Bruce can keep his penis if he just now calls it a really big clitoris.
Not sure about the balls, though.
I am Laslo.
To keep it in perspective: Lance Armstrong is still one testicle ahead of Jenner in the junk dismantling procedure.
I am Laslo.
I enjoy reading Althouse for the insightful commentary to complementary topics.
And then there's the predictable response to any thread with the transgender tag.
I like to ask myself before responding, am I seeking to help, or am I seeking to harm? Often I move on without much comment.
Where to begin?
When folks dismiss your life and experience as delusional, inauthentic, psychotic, evil, *gasp!* sinful!, I am at a loss for words.
Maybe some day I will have something helpful to say.
The gap in Rick Santorum's logic is so wide than you can drive an entire universe through it without scratching the paint. Strangely enough smart people can say stupid things that they live to regret all their days. For example, in the 5th century BC a guy called Democritus claimed that everything material is composed of irreducible bits called atoms -- a very interesting and potentially power idea which Democritus inadvertently torpedoed by not knowing when to shut up, a flaw that trips up a lot of smart people. "Nothing exists but atoms and empty space; all else is opinion," he went on to say. Brilliant. By overstating his case Democritus exposed his theory to attack by numerous reducio ad absurdum arguments, thereby setting back the cause of science for centuries.
Fortunately there's this one weird trick that everybody learns in childhood (everybody but congenital morons, that is) which helps smart people to know when to shut up. I call it substitute the nouns. To put a brake on your passions, to avoid the fatally stupid remark, all you need to do is substitute the nouns; if what comes out seems crazy, then it likely what you were about to say or write is likewise crazy, therefore you don't.
If Bruce Jenner says he's a woman, then he's a woman... Substitute the nouns... If Bruce Jenner says he's a lawyer, then he's a lawyer. or If Bruce Jenner says he's a fried egg, then he's breakfast.
Easy. People do this unconsciously all the time. It's as if there's a tiny logician living in our heads who spends his time checking our thoughts for obvious stupidity. So the real question isn't whether womanhood is a matter of opinion, it's what happened to Rick Santorum's little logician.
When folks dismiss your life and experience as delusional, inauthentic, psychotic, evil, *gasp!* sinful!, I am at a loss for words.
Give your little logician the day off, did you, hoyden? That's nice. I imagine you give him quite a workout.
Too bad your poverty of words isn't absolute.
Where is Tammy Wynette when you need her?
"Too bad your poverty of words isn't absolute."
I can believe you would prefer not hear from me.
One of the things I have learned is there is life beyond logic. Regardless of any opinion to the contrary, over 30 years ago I jumped through the flaming hoops and got over the derail of being born with male anatomy. I have the paperwork to prove I am not delusional, and an incredibly satisfying life that validates my decision.
There aren't many depictions for the story of my life but there are a few.
Living the male role was like being born in prison, or being assimilated by the Borg Collective; no freedom of thought and feeling outside the prescribed limits of masculine socialization.
One of the things I have learned is there is life beyond logic.
Well, I'll be darned. Hoyden might be a woman after all.
I have the paperwork to prove I am not delusional
LOL!
Funny stuff!
"The normalization of mental illness..."
You prefer to pathologies more of what human beings do?
I think Santorum's point, which is widely prevalent in America and among Christians, is to respect every individual. We respect those with illnesses, so why are you using "illness" as a way to distance yourself from a person with a particular kind of psychological profile. If it's something that manifests itself, what should we do? Santorum is saying: First, be respectful.
The biggest hurdle in my life has been to work through the defenses I erected to survive male socialization (ie, your feelings are irrelevant), and to learn how to be an individual, and to express that individuality as an autonomous being.
Being raised in the male role was a mixed bag; there are things I learned that have served me well and are still a part of my life. I never for a moment bought into the societal belief that women were second class citizens. As a child it was a mystery to me how people could believe this. I also learned to keep my thoughts to myself because being/acting/expressing anything female would bring the wrath upon you from adults and children alike.
I learned how to be a functional drone. I also learned that life on those terms was not a life worth living.
Living the male role was like being born in prison, or being assimilated by the Borg Collective; no freedom of thought and feeling outside the prescribed limits of masculine socialization.
This makes you a pitiable failure as a man. (So sorry, life is more than universal success, else Darwin would have nothing to write about.) It does not make you a woman any more than a chicken costume makes one a bird.
A sound philosophy doesn't obligate anyone to be respectful of nonsense no matter how sincere the purveyor.
"This makes you a pitiable failure as a man."
So true except the failure was totally an inside experience. I had successfully achieved all the man-things that I set out to achieve, and only then realized that there was more to life than man-things.
I don't pretend to know what it feels like to be a man, and I don't pretend to know what it feels like to be a woman.
I know what it feels like to be treated as a man, and I know what it feels like to be treated as a woman. There is a difference.
---
are you pro-choice?……...
….The fantasy of pseudo-scientific nonsense and amoral/immoral selective principles is wearing thin. Pro-choice or selective principles, including arbitrary exclusion through selective normalization, are notorious for creating moral hazards for the People and unplanned Posterity.----
personally, I’m pro large-scale ignoring whatever the hell Jenner is doing.
I don’t expect conservative politicians, when being asked gotcha questions by Democrats with bylines, to cite the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or to refer to DNA markers or any other scientific framework.
This was just an another attempt to get a Republican to say something stupid that could be a headline for a couple of days and used to bludgeon other Republicans - early battles space preparation on behalf of Hillary!.
You seem to be joining the effort though it is difficult to tell.
You can ramble on about psychiatric tomes and choice (of sexual identities) all you want, but the magazines at the checkout counter being picked up by low information women voters all picture Bruce Jenner as a human being, not a psychiatric label.
With rioting in our streets, Obama and Iran getting the bomb, Saudi bombing Iranian proxies in Yemen... If politicians have to opine on Bruce Jenner in response to the “journalist"-Democrats with a pad or recorder then responding like those women in the grocery line is the way to go.
Santorum is saying: First, be respectful.
How come normal people always have to be respectful of the freaks, but the freaks never have to be respectful of normal people?
"personally, I’m pro large-scale ignoring whatever the hell Jenner is doing."
Then why are you here expressing an option about my existence?
Another thing I have learned is that folks who are happy and centered in their life do not have to attack others because they are different. Those that attack have something else going on. Note that attack is different from inquiring.
This is America; you can believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do within legal limits. At least that's how I live my life.
"How come normal people always have to be respectful of the freaks, but the freaks never have to be respectful of normal people?"
Interesting that you believe that. I was raised to be respectful of others and to not expect, but earn, the respect of others.
And whats this thing you call "normal"?
"I think Santorum's point, which is widely prevalent in America and among Christians, is to respect every individual. We respect those with illnesses, so why are you using "illness" as a way to distance yourself from a person with a particular kind of psychological profile. If it's something that manifests itself, what should we do? Santorum is saying: First, be respectful."
being respectful doesn't mean you make truth into a liar.i do respect transgendered. They have a right to sex changes. But they don't have a right to make me believe something that isn't true,
As a matter of respect I'd refer to Bruce Jenner as xer or she to his face. But he is not a xer or a she. He is a he.
What rights would that provide Bruce? He still needs to be treated like a man especially in instances like whether he can be on women's sports teams. Unless you, as a woman, think it's fair to have men with all their physical advantages take the spots of women simply because they assert they are a different gender. That's discriminatory towards women.
Another thing I have learned is that folks who are happy and centered in their life do not have to attack others because they are different.
Really? Tell that to the gay couples percecuting businesses because they refuse to participate in a gay wedding.
Of course, we're just breeders.
And whats this thing you call "normal"?
Well we can start with someone who doesn't pretend to be something they're not.
Interesting that you believe that. I was raised to be respectful of others and to not expect, but earn, the respect of others.
Interesting.
But what about the rest of the alphabet soup coalition (LBGTXYZ...brigade)?
Hoyden wrote:
"How come normal people always have to be respectful of the freaks, but the freaks never have to be respectful of normal people?"
Interesting that you believe that. I was raised to be respectful of others and to not expect, but earn, the respect of others.
And whats this thing you call "normal"?
Normal doesn't require plastic surgery to achieve. Normal is natural. Normal is biology. What you are describing is a simulacrum.
Now, is dysphoria a natural? Well, yes. Some people naturally suffer from dysphoria. And we should be respectful considering they are suffering from a disorder. Doesn't mean that their perception is real though.
He still needs to be treated like a man especially in instances like whether he can be on women's sports teams. Unless you, as a woman, think it's fair to have men with all their physical advantages take the spots of women simply because they assert they are a different gender. That's discriminatory towards women.
Here in California it is the law.
Hoyden wrote:
don't pretend to know what it feels like to be a man, and I don't pretend to know what it feels like to be a woman.
I know what it feels like to be treated as a man, and I know what it feels like to be treated as a woman. There is a difference.
if you don't know what it feels like to be a woman how do you know that you are one?
"One of the things I have learned is there is life beyond logic. Regardless of any opinion to the contrary, over 30 years ago I jumped through the flaming hoops and got over the derail of being born with male anatomy. I have the paperwork to prove I am not delusional, and an incredibly satisfying life that validates my decision. "
life beyond logic? Is that like, fantasy?
And I have the diplomas to show I attended Harvard law school. I didn't actually attend Harvard Law school.
"if you don't know what it feels like to be a woman how do you know that you are one?"
I have never claimed to be a woman. My female identity is legal, and I play one in real life.
"life beyond logic? Is that like, fantasy?"
Not really, more like spiritual and physical.
Logic is limited by the knowledge that supports it. There may be a biological component to my experience that has not been discovered yet.
Sometimes life requires a leap of faith.
Gahrie wrote;
Here in California it is the law.
any one competing as a transgender of the opposite sex should have an asterisk next to their stats. Especially if they are men who compete in womens leagues. That's worse that taking steroids.
And we call Lance a bastard for lying about juicing.
or for juicing.
Renee Richards sued to be able to play tennis as a woman. But she subsequently said it was a mistake.
"She calls the 2004 decision of the International Olympic Committee, which allows transsexuals to compete, “a particularly stupid decision,” explaining that when she sued to play at the U.S. Open, she was 40. “I wasn’t going to overwhelm Chris Evert and Tracy Austin, who were 20 years old.”
And
"Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”
hoyden wrote:
Logic is limited by the knowledge that supports it. There may be a biological component to my experience that has not been discovered yet.
But until we discover that biological component we are left with chromosomes.
Hoyden, you are describing your reality as subjective. Does that mean we have to assume your subjective reality is actually objective, simply because you assert it as such?
Subjective is only relevant for you. Not for the world. which is allowed to apply it's own subjective opinnion to reality. Or, apply objective facts to reality.
And whats this thing you call "normal"?
For starters, I don't think it involves getting a plastic surgeon to hack your standard-issue, God-given anatomy with a knife. And it certainly doesn't involve trying to take the remaining tissue and mold it into a Groucho Marx nose of a vagina.
jr565: SUBJECTIVITY IS OBJECTIVE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5cQcmAtjJ0
"Subjective is only relevant for you. Not for the world. which is allowed to apply it's own subjective opinnion to reality. Or, apply objective facts to reality."
Absolutely. I take my subjective reality and participate in a objective world. I am happy with that. A much better deal than trying to pretend being male.
"For starters, I don't think it involves getting a plastic surgeon to hack your standard-issue, God-given anatomy with a knife. And it certainly doesn't involve trying to take the remaining tissue and mold it into a Groucho Marx nose of a vagina."
Surgery fixes a lot of things, some of them cosmetic. I did not have the aversion that I imagined men have when it comes to scalpels and the genitals between my legs. I had 28 years to think about what was going on.
I will share a personal moment. Before starting hormones my father asked me, if they can give you hormones to make you female, why don't you take hormones to make you male? I told him it was a matter of who I was, not what I was, that was important. He later said he always thought there was something different about me.
Except for some radical feminists no one else has ever voiced their judgment with who I am, and even they had no complaint about the appearance of my, as you describe it, "Groucho Marx nose of a vagina". You are out in Janice Raymond/Andrea Dworkin territory.
hoyden wrote:
Absolutely. I take my subjective reality and participate in a objective world. I am happy with that. A much better deal than trying to pretend being male.
But you're asking the rest of us to assume your subjective reality.
Say you're schizophrenic and hear voices. That's your subjective reality. A psychologist who doesn't hear those same voices cant make the argument that there are such voices. Only that if you are suffering from a delusion that YOU hear voices.
Because the schizophrenic hears voices what does that obligate the rest of us to believe, who know that said voices are not in fact real?
So, hoyden... Should we treat anorexia with liposuction, diet pills and laxatives?
hoyden wrote:
I will share a personal moment. Before starting hormones my father asked me, if they can give you hormones to make you female, why don't you take hormones to make you male? I told him it was a matter of who I was, not what I was, that was important. He later said he always thought there was something different about me.
I question the very premise of your stipulation. IF they can give you hormones will it change your sex? and to that I answer, no. So whether you get female hormones or male hormones it doesn't change sex. You are hardwired to be what you are born.
We currently have no capability to change sex, and certainly not by simply giving people estrogen or testosterone.
hoyden wrote: Except for some radical feminists no one else has ever voiced their judgment with who I am, and even they had no complaint about the appearance of my, as you describe it, "Groucho Marx nose of a vagina". You are out in Janice Raymond/Andrea Dworkin territory.
Voice judgement of who you are? There you go demanding that others adopt your subjective reality over objective reality. I don't see why your view takes precedence, considering its subjective, nor why it overrides actual reality.
And don't suggest that chromomes determining sex is some extremist position. That is simply the way we determine sex. You are a biological male, as is Bruce Jenner.
I'm not judging your morality or judging what you're going through as sinful. Simply disagreeing with the premise that gender is a social construct, or that you can change genders by having plastic surgeries.
---Then why are you here expressing an option about my existence? ----
That’s a revealingly egocentric question. (and I assume you meant 'opinion')
If you read with reference to something other than your 'existence', you will see that I was responding to someone who was demanding that a candidate for President regard Mr. Jenner in the framework of science and diagnosis. I believed that demand was simply a ploy to again get a candidate to say something that the the liberal press would again blare as evidence that Republicans are anti-science.
I once worked in psychiatric settings studying what was once called abnormal psychology so I have no judgements to make about your 'existence' or whatever else you have shared above that I didn’t read. However, I don’t want the media to perpetually force the celebrity transgender of the month in my face either. We have a sick media which is pushing all sorts of things that we really shouldn’t be fascinated by.
In short I strenuously object to politicians being asked questions about in the end quite meaningless pop-cultural phenomenon to elicit a Democratic talking point. I further object to the media sensationalizing this.
If you see this as related to your existence then that is a perceptual problem that you must address.
Even as a gay supporter of gay marriage, I always hated the way Santorum's words were twisted and misconstrued by the contemptible, perpetually petulant adolescent Dan Savage.
"But you're asking the rest of us to assume your subjective reality."
I don't recall asking you for anything. I state what is true for me and hear what true for you. No one has to validate my reality. When I meet folks eyeball to eyeball the issue of my "subjective reality" is not the topic of discussion.
This forum that Ann provides and her choice of topics presents a unique opportunity.
Unknown, I realized my error in responding to you and wondered if you would too. I agree with your Democrat media observations. Just like Republicans need to know how to handle inane questions from a hostile media I am learning how to handle hostile questions.
I say I'm a 15 year old black hermaphrodite. Thanks Rick.
Can you imagine Beatrice Jenner speaking at the GOP convention next year?
That would blow evangelical minds.
Thank you Rick Santorum for providing an opening of sanity for Christian Republicans.
Will the rest of them take it?
It would blow Dems minds more.
ST thinks he's "won" in the game of life.
Alex: "Thank you Rick Santorum for providing an opening of sanity for Christian Republicans"
LOL
A member of the party of islamist appeasement takes time out to lecture Christian Republicans (who are characterized as insane) on acceptance of homosexuals!
Its simply not possible to caricature the left anymore.
Drago - you're a self caricature at this point.
The issue is not your reality hoyden. The issue is, how the law treats you. And whetehr you saying you are a woman makes the law have to treat you that way. ANd that its discriminatory if the law doesn't treat you the way that you feel.
And if the law makes it hate speech to say that biology makes you a man or a woman, not sex hormones.
I hope that Bruce transitioning brings him happinesss, though I'm dubious about it in a lot of cases. But even if it makes HIM happy,it doesn't changed the biological reality.
And since we are talking about the law, it opens up all sorts of absurdities and inequeities in law.
IN particular in sports. Title 9 allows women to play sports in college. Should a man who says he's a woman get to compete with women in THEIR league simply because he says he's a woman?
If Mike Tyson thought he was a woman and wanted to compete with women boxers he would absolutely murder them. Its one thing to have people fight as heavyweights but quite another for a biological male to fight women in the same weight class. The same is true for most sports. The fastest male runner can kick the fastest females ass in most races.
If a very good runner but not fastest male, was able to compete against the fastest female runner as a woman he would be the fastest female. That is cheating.
You can't escape biology in that scenario. And so, it actually hurts women to let me compete in their division and take their top spots.
Rick Santorum is wrong, again. But not in a way I would have expected him to be wrong.
Maybe he's trying the George Costanza 'do the opposite' experiment.
"And whetehr you saying you are a woman makes the law have to treat you that way. ANd that its discriminatory if the law doesn't treat you the way that you feel."
Have you not read anything I have written here? Where did I say I am a woman? The law treats me as female because I have female identity; same as any other woman. The law doesn't distinguish between us. I have legally recognized female identity because I fulfilled the requirements for that identity. Same as any other woman. How I feel counts for nothing in the eyes of the law.
Sheesh.
I understand there is a segment of the population who believes that being is subordinate to genitals. And they insist it's not the genitals I possess that count, but the genitals I was born with; the ones that ended up as medical waste thirty-something years ago.
I get it.
I thought I could share some personal experience learned through sixty plus years on the planet and thus impart a bit of perspective to an otherwise abstract, media hyped, and rare situation.
I was wrong. This thread did provide folks with opportunity to post their snark bites and cast judgment on a condition totally remote to their experience.
My interest in sharing further has been satisfied.
Alex: "Drago - you're a self caricature at this point"
A powerful retort to the observation that western leftists love lecturing western Christians about homosexuality while simultaneously ignoring, downplaying and criticizing anyone who happens to notice that the lefts beloved islamists stay quite busy executing homosexuals.
Well played Alex. Well played.
< "And whetehr you saying you are a woman makes the law have to treat you that way. ANd that its discriminatory if the law doesn't treat you the way that you feel."
Have you not read anything I have written here? Where did I say I am a woman? The law treats me as female because I have female identity; same as any other woman.<
Hmmm..pardon folks if they can't follow that.
Hoyden asks:
" Where did I say I am a woman?"
I don't know if you did but you keep saying you are "female".
I see woman and female as synonymous in this discussion. Can you explain the difference?
JOhn Henry
The fastest male runner can kick the fastest females ass in most races.
More than that. 15-20 years ago I saw an analysis of the then most recent Olympics.
They looked at 30-40 measured sports (running, jumping, throwing, swimming and so on) where men and women competed under the same conditions. There was not a single sport where the winning woman had a better performance than the worst performing man.
So Hoyden,
can you explain just why society should treat you as a woman/female when you are clearly neither. Objectively, not based on how you feel or present.
Why should an event like the Michigan Womyn's festival (Name?) not be permitted to exclude anyone who was not born a woman?
Can society know who you were, and more especially what you might have been up to, before you became a female/woman? Stacy McCain has posted on some cases of sex offenders becoming women and their predatory history disappearing.
I suspect that his is very rare and don't suspect you in any way. When you apply for a job, do they get full info on your pre-woman/female life? Or is this shielded to protect you from discrimination?
John Henry
Hoydon says: "Where did I say I am a woman? "
then in the very next sentence...
"The law treats me as female because I have female identity; same asany other woman"
When you refer to "any other woman", the plain inference is that you are also a woman. QED.
Thanks for playing.
The fastest male runner can kick the fastest females ass in most races.
It's bigger than that. If you recalculate olympic records with men and women in the same gender-blind pool of competitors, men won pretty much everything.
In fact, if everyone were pooled into a unisex competition, no woman has ever held the 100m, 200m, or 400m world record.
hoydon wrote: This is America; you can believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do within legal limits. At least that's how I live my life.
Bravo! Live your life as you see fit within the law by all means. Just don't for one minute think your rights and freedom of conscience trump mine.
"Just don't for one minute think your rights and freedom of conscience trump mine."
Where did I say my rights and freedom of conscience trump yours? Don't impute motives to me that I never claimed.
"When you refer to "any other woman", the plain inference is that you are also a woman."
The law makes no distinction between women; some individuals do that.
"I see woman and female as synonymous in this discussion. Can you explain the difference?"
I understand female is a legal designation and woman is a generic designation. Some folks believe in the concept of "woman-born woman" and in that context I am not a woman. The legal distinction of female is essentially "not male" includes me.
"Why should an event like the Michigan Womyn's festival (Name?) not be permitted to exclude anyone who was not born a woman?"
They can and they do. This is America. Some folks disagree and hence there is a persistent controversy. I read they changed their policy this year; their last year before pulling the plug.
"Can society know who you were, and more especially what you might have been up to, before you became a female/woman?"
Not easily. My original birth certificate is sealed; even I can't see it. OTOH if I ran for office I am sure Obama and sundry Democrats could unseal it for all to see.
"I suspect that his is very rare and don't suspect you in any way. When you apply for a job, do they get full info on your pre-woman/female life? Or is this shielded to protect you from discrimination?"
No they don't. A few know; the company I worked for when I transitioned, and another when I applied for a secret clearance. All were very supportive and happy to have me on the team.
By my estimate about 1/3 of folks know by seeing me, 1/3 don't know, and 1/3 had suspicion. Discrimination may occur but never overtly. I have not had what I consider a harder time finding work than any other person. I suspect I encounter sexism; females are not as competent as males. I like to let employers know what I know and know what I don't know. It makes the relationship easieer.
Tedium, thy name is transvestism.
Hoyden wrote:
The law treats me as female because I have female identity; same as any other woman. The law doesn't distinguish between us. I have legally recognized female identity because I fulfilled the requirements for that identity. Same as any other woman. How I feel counts for nothing in the eyes of the law.
the laws treats women as women who are biologically female. The law should distinguish between you because you are a male transgender, not a woman. (Based on biology)
First off, Hoyden: Are you Lazlo? If so, you have really topped yourself. Bravo, well done.
I think you are who you say you are but you also don't seem to have posted much in the past.
But to get to the real point, you said:
Not easily. My original birth certificate is sealed;
What a deal that is. Sounds even better than Witness protection program or a presidential pardon.
So you could have committed all sorts of violent crimes in the past, including crimes against women and children, and I have to let you into my workplace without knowing?
Fuck you. No way I would ever hire you or anyone I might suspect of being transgendered. If I can't know who you are and what your history is, there is no way I could let you into any workplace I have any say in.
I have a moral and legal duty to protect my employees from harm. If I can't know your past, I can't do that.
Beyond that, if you are not going to be honest with me about your past, including all your pertinent records and history how could I ever trust you as an employee on anything else?
I might make an exception if you told me, as a potential employee, who you were in the past so I could check. Sounds like you don't want to do that.
Why should you get special treatment like this just because you cut your dick off?
If I ever get into legal trouble, perhaps I will "transition". At my age my dick isn't getting that much use much anyway.
I wonder how may bites of the apple I might get? If I got into trouble as a woman, could I transition back into a man and get another clean slate?
John Henry
"Where did I say my rights and freedom of conscience trump yours?"
The right and freedom to hide your past trumps pretty much everything else.
Including our rights and freedoms.
John Henry
John Henry, You have the last word. Nothing I can add to it except I am grateful you are not typical.
"Autogynephilia (— "love of oneself as a woman") is a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman ..."
It has a lot more explanatory power regarding a masculine man who expresses an interest in "transitioning to female" than the "I'm really a woman in a man's body" theory that Santorum has apparently bought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology
Hoyden, I wish you well but you would be one of those hard cases that make bad law. I think it's better that there are not too many of you to deal with, because WTF. I'm sorry no one was able to find a cure in time. I'm sure that the kindest questions I could ask would be unspeakably tawdry and vulgar so I shall not ask them. I hope you haven't hurt anyone but yourself.
ST,
I don't know why you think she's so smart.
>>"Autogynephilia (— "love of oneself as a woman") is a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman ..."
That's gotta be the quintessential definition of a Pyrrhic victory. All you gotta do to turn the thought or image of himself as a woman is to slice his penis like a peeled banana and stuff the remains back inside.
How many men do you know who would do this?
Can you count to zero?
It's fascinating the way Non's attempt to pathologize what they do not understand, or in their hubris claim to understand.
hoyden wrote:
How many men do you know who would do this?
Can you count to zero?
How many men do I know who think they are a woman trapped in a mans body and want to have their penis surgically removed and shaped into a vagina?
Quelle surprise. I changed my mind.
John Henry:
"Fuck you. No way I would ever hire you or anyone I might suspect of being transgendered."
I call that Win-Win.
"Beyond that, if you are not going to be honest with me about your past, including all your pertinent records and history how could I ever trust you as an employee on anything else?"
Since I would have zero intention of having sex with you, you have zero reason to know about my medical history. Just how much do you think you are entitled to know about any employee?
"Why should you get special treatment like this just because you cut your dick off?"
I did not write the rules.
"If I ever get into legal trouble, perhaps I will "transition".
Your fixation with getting away with stuff is yours, not mine. From your perspective I've just wasted a primo opportunity.
"The right and freedom to hide your past trumps pretty much everything else."
Go ahead and lobby for exception to confidential medical records for transsexuals. Maybe you can get DHS to set up a "transsexual database", or have us all tattooed on our forehead so that you can know who we are.
The saddest part of this thread is that I respected many of your perspectives. Now that I see your less than shiny side, I will take pause.
"How many men do I know who think they are a woman trapped in a mans body..."
That's your interpretation. I never said that. I will share that a child, before I learned how to suppress my feelings, I knew I would have been happier as a girl.
I made the best of being dealt a bad hand.
Unknown: ' I'm sure that the kindest questions I could ask would be unspeakably tawdry and vulgar so I shall not ask them.
Unknown, I didn't get where I am without having to answer the hard questions multiple times to multiple audiences.
I tell folks that there are no questions that cannot be asked, and I have yet to refuse to answer a sincerely presented question.
I do dislike "tourists" who are looking for a cheap thrill.
All my closet skeletons are in the living room.
Lots of old fogies in here who wish it were the 1950s and put Jenner in a crazy house.
To you old farts - your time is over.
Viva la Revolucion!
Wow. I am in an argument with guys. I have never done that, even in grade school.
There is no upside to this.
Adieu.
Alex, shh, grownups are talking.
Hoyden, if I understand correctly the fake vagina, or fake penis for those going the other way, is scarcely functional. Is yours somewhat or fully usable or do you stick to sodomy? Why didn't you just stick with TV? Who if anyone do you have sex with? How could a real man (I don't mean a macho man stereotype, just a normal hetero bio man) be willing to have sex with you when he could have a real woman? How would you rate the success of your operation? How convincing are you? Would you feel the need to warn the man in advance or can you fool him? Did you have sex with men pre-op? Am I wrong and do you have sex with women instead...or also?
A less vile question. Who told you men are all stoic non-feelers and must be so?
I understand there is a segment of the population who believes that being is subordinate to genitals.
You do apparently. You are the one insisting that because you have cut off your penis and created an artificial vagina, you are now a woman.
Genetically, you are now, have always been, and will always be, a man.
Even tough you feel like a woman, even tough you resemble a woman, you are simply a troubled man who has had some very drastic plastic surgery.
I don't hate you. I hope you find peace.
Hoyden,
An employer really doesn't, or shouldn't anyway, care about your medical history. I certainly would not.
What I do care about is where you worked before. references. Have you ever been convicted of a crime. And so on..
And you say an employer has no right to this information?
Again I say "Fuck you". What employer would want to hire anyone with no checkable background?
Why would you think they should? Regardless of what privileges the law may give you.
"But I had nothing to do with the law" you might say. True enough but the law doesn't prevent you from sharing your information with any potential employer. Do you?
Good luck with your career as a pastless person.
John Henry
Hoyden accuses me of being a hater, I think.
I am a liberal (in the classical sense) and extremely pro-choice. Your body, your choice. You can do with it whatever you want including modifying it in any way.
When you start affecting me, with the erasure of your past, I do have a concern.
Do what you want with your body but be honest about it.
Another question, Hoyden: How much did the taxpayers have to chip in for your operation?
John Henry
Disparaging other people's genitals is a traditional guy thing, as if their own God-given and infinitely deserving of respect, are so much more superior. Guys talking about sex and genitals all the time was one of the more droll aspects of the male role.
Regardless of how well my own look and perform, I have no complaint and I am grateful to have them.
Similarly any opinion others have about my gender and sex; I don't care what you think. I understand now how futile it was for me to think I could share my personal experience and not have that experience disparaged and dismissed.
There are a very small number of people who do not want to hear from a happy ex-transsexual. Ex- because I no longer wish to change my sex. Because they do not want to hear, they will not hear anything I have to say that conflicts with their view. I have no doubt that whatever else I may share would be similarly disparaged and dismissed, so why bother?
Be that as it may.
John Henry, you call yourself "liberal (in the classical sense) and extremely pro-choice". I understand that is what you believe. I will clarify a few things that are supported by a factual record. As an avowed "liberal (in the classical sense)" you are interested in facts?
"What I do care about is where you worked before. references. Have you ever been convicted of a crime. .. And you say an employer has no right to this information? ... Again I say "Fuck you". What employer would want to hire anyone with no checkable background?"
You really have a serious reading comprehension problem. I said the employer has to respect medical privacy. I said nothing about background. I have a 30+ year employment resume without any gaps. I sent documentation to the companies I worked prior to transition explaining my situation. I have full references and at one time held a secret clearance. I return your uncalled for "Fuck you".
"How much did the taxpayers have to chip in for your operation?"
Zero. Can you comprehend that? It's not cheap but it's a bargain at twice the price.
The surgery took about 4 hours and was the easy part. Undoing all the defenses, connecting with my feelings, regaining my identity and individuality, and relearning how to embrace my female nature that I deep-sixed as a child, took about 20 years.
I didn't go though all of that so I could argue with people about the nature of my existence.
This thread has been useful however as a reminder of what attitudes can be lurking in the dominant culture.
Well, you encouraged the questions and I asked them with sincerity and without ill will. You certainly don't have to answer them, however. You certainly haven't.
By the way you may have just been in poor company, that's not the experience of many men.
Unknown, I don't mind answering your questions.
Genital sex was never a goal for me so functionality in that regard is irrelevant. I still can orgasm. I understood the limitations of surgery and the possibility that I may never be in a relationship. If I ever get involved with someone then they will know anything and everything about me; "fooling" someone is not an option.
The whole milleau of sex, romance, and relationship has always been perplexing. The mores of male behaviour in relation to women were totally foreign to me. I've been mildly interested in the "campus rape" controvery because out of that I learned about "affirmative consent". That was what I would have felt comfortable engaging another person but 30-40 years ago the concept did not exist.
No one told me men had to be stoic non-feelers. I learned that growing up as a way to protect myself from the predations I saw heaped upon boys who evinced even the slightest bit of female behavior. At age 5 or 6 I remember thinking, I will never let that happen to me. I learned that feelings were irrelevant to success in the male role, and in any case whatever I was feeling was not congruent with masculinity.
Over the years I have mellowed in my thinking towards men and male socialization. I realize I was the one who did not fit. In my career I work mainly with men. A gift of growing up in the male role was learning how to interact with men; eyeball to eyeball as equals.
Thanks for you contributions, Hoyden.
You are welcome, Ann.
Thank you for providing an opportunity to explore this topic in the context of a larger and putatively heterosexual community.
This is a new experience for me. In GLBTQXYZZY communities these issues have been hashed to death and my take is that they are fine with us in the abstract, but they would rather we don't show up at their potlucks.
There have been interesting parallels, intersections, and divergences in the style, content, and topic interest.
Post a Comment