September 17, 2019

"I can’t believe you’re here, wow. You’ve got balls, girl"/"Remember when your picture was on Wheaties boxes back when people could still look at you when they eat?"

"Let’s face it. No one wants to be here. The person who went to the greatest lengths to not show up tonight was Bruce Jenner"/"You goddamn hypocrite. You’re, like, against gay marriage. You voted for Trump. You’re like the Auntie Tom of the trans community."

Things said about Caitlin Jenner at the Alec Baldwin roast, quoted in "Caitlyn Jenner Was Savagely Mocked at the ‘Roast of Alec Baldwin’… And Then Again Afterwards" (Decider).

Here's Jenner's response:


"If I can find the courage to be who I am, then you can too. If you have a problem with that, then you can suck my dick — if you can find it!!!."

52 comments:

DarkHelmet said...

Personally, I'm ready for transgenderism to not be a thing any more.

rhhardin said...

He looks like a guy in a dress.

wendybar said...

Once again, the tolerant left show how tolerant they really are.

henry said...

mental health problems should be addressed, not encouraged. And someone should tend to Jenner, too.

Sebastian said...

Why is Bruce, speaking like Bruce, looking like Bruce, wearing a dress and longish hair?

Bay Area Guy said...

Bruce, yes, you do have a right to dress up as a woman to try to look like your 3 stepdaughters in a reality tv show, but it's weird, and we, the public, don't have to play "make-believe" with you.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

I think it’s great. Suspension of disbelief as bizarre and widespread as the tranny thing will necessarily have to crumble from the edges. It’s like witchcraft in the 17th century or something. Once it’s OK to mock trannies for political reasons, it’s OK to mock trannies, period. Then maybe we can get serious about mental illness in this country.

rhhardin said...

I'd suggest a cloak of invisibility for future appearances.

I understand, but I have told you before that I am the principal
Yes
and I cannot be seen with my students' parents.
But, Jane, how can you be seen with me when I'm wearing the cloak of invisibility?

17 Again (2009)

Ann Althouse said...

I think it's nice that Caitlin Jenner doesn't put on a special "feminine" voice. Just speak straightforwardly. It's bad to put on a masculine or a feminine voice!

Ann Althouse said...

But what is a "feminine" voice? I have had the unnerving experience of hearing my own voice (a taped lecture) on a tape recorder with a dying battery. Because the tone got lower to the level of a typical man's voice, the style of my speech became noticeable in a new way and I sounded like an offensively stereotypical enactment of a gay man! I wondered: Where the hell did that come from? I don't hear it in my voice played at normal speed.

Kevin said...

I am so baffled by the idea that gay or trans people can't be Republican. There isn't anything about what you do with your genitals that suddenly makes you pro-high taxation, pro-centralized government, and anti-defense spending. Is there? Have I somehow missed the magic thing one does with one's genitals that does that?

rhhardin said...

Voice distinguishes men from women and children.

rhhardin said...

Listen to a meeting of all women and there is a longing for a man's voice.

Char Char Binks said...

Jenner had Adam's apple reduction surgery, and it seems like that should affect the voice.

Wince said...

Ann Althouse said...
But what is a "feminine" voice?

I detected both an old man's voice and mannerism in this interview of economist Deirdre McCloskey, exemplified in this highly unfair, out-of-context quote.

"Heh... Everything's fine... Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain... Shut-up."

rhhardin said...

Why isn't he in women's swimming

Lucien said...

I was glad not to hear any expressions of hurt or trauma, but just a friendly "Fuck you", in the true spirit of Roasts.

Phil 314 said...

I want to know how well he/she would do in the 2020 heptathlon competition.

Known Unknown said...

All's fair in love and roasts. I was just watching some of this yesterday but sincerely missed what Greg Giraldo (the true Roast Master, not Jeff Ross -- piker) would have for this.

Rick.T. said...

"I think it's nice that Caitlin Jenner doesn't put on a special "feminine" voice."

I'm not understanding "nice."

mccullough said...

Jenner’s dick is being passed around a dorm at Yale hoping to be touched by a future Supreme Court Justice.

Phidippus said...

Pop culture. So uplifting.

Phidippus said...

I heard that he offered to give his balls to Obama.

richlb said...

That's not funny!!

Rory said...

Bea Arthur has it.

Bay Area Guy said...

Looking forward to when Bruce can edify us on the trials and tribulations of menopause.

SDaly said...

I think it's nice that Caitlin Jenner doesn't put on a special "feminine" voice. Just speak straightforwardly. It's bad to put on a masculine or a feminine voice!

If he's going to wear feminine clothes, he might aw well put the effort into a feminine voice.

Jupiter said...

"If you have a problem with that, then you can suck my dick..."

I'm not sure who all these people are, or why they're so pissed off at each other, although they certainly don't sound very likable. But isn't it homophobic to express your contempt for someone by telling him to suck your dick? Asking, of course, for a friend, or at least a close associate.

Yancey Ward said...

Jenner's penis was pushed into his critics' mouths.

Jupiter said...

"It's bad to put on a masculine or a feminine voice!"

Let me guess. Gender appropriation!

But then why is it not bad to put on a feminine dress? I'm confident you have a logical explanation.

rehajm said...

The platform Jenner has and yet, hatred because...Trump.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Another post about which IDGAS...

If we had Tags for the commenters to use to tag their comments, I'd have to make an IDGAS tag. Been using it a lot lately. Almost always with respect to the Professor's obsessive posts on gays and transsexuals.

I just don't get the obsession.

Aggie said...

Blogger rhhardin said...

He looks like a guy in a dress.

That's because he IS a guy in a dress. And his post-critique comments only reinforce that.

n.n said...

From transgender/homosexual to transgender/neo-sexual and other biologically and socially divergent orientations outside of the rainbow congruence, the sociopolitical construct ("=") is notoriously Pro-Choice.

johns said...

"I detected both an old man's voice and mannerism in this interview of economist Deirdre McCloskey"

Ann, I was a student of Donald McCloskey. i listened to Deirdre's voice that you linked, and I cannot hear even a hint of Donald's voice.

Ken B said...

I agree with Althouse, don’t put on a voice.
There is an actress I loathe — loathe the way Althouse loathes The Babylon Bee's satire — named Shirley Henderson who has, I thought, a breathy Betty-boop voice. Had it in everything I saw her in. It was put on! I saw her speak normally — no apologies for the word — once. That breathy little girl voice is awful
!

Todd said...

"If I can find the courage to be who I am, then you can too. If you have a problem with that, then you can suck my dick — if you can find it!!!.

Not that difficult a thing, I believe it is still between your legs where the Lord originally put it.

Tomcc said...

Comedy Central? False advertising.

Mark said...

Here's a question or two for the trans-enablers --

What is a woman?

(And none of this circular, "A person is a woman if she determines she is.")

Mark said...

By far, the best amicus brief submitted in the Supreme Court transgender case is the one from the Women's Liberation Front.

From the brief --

Legally redefining “female” as anyone who claims to be female results in the erasure of female people as a class. If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman, and sex-based protections in the law have no meaning whatsoever. . . .
The decision below essentially compels employers to engage in sex-role stereotyping, which this Court has expressly held violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). It proclaims that women and girls are no longer recognized under federal law as a discrete category worthy of civil rights protection, but men and boys who claim to have a female “gender identity” are. If allowed to stand, it will mark a truly fundamental shift in American law and policy that strips women of their right to privacy, threatens their physical safety, undercuts the means by which women can achieve professional and educational equality, and ultimately works to erase women and girls under the law. . . .
Simply, Aimee Stephens is a man. He wanted to wear a skirt while at work, and his “gender identity” argument is an ideology that dictates that people who wear skirts must be women, precisely the type of sex-stereotyping forbidden by Price Waterhouse.
Unfortunately, Aimee Stephens did not simply challenge whether a sex-specific dress code for funeral home employees constitutes illegal sex-stereotyping under Price Waterhouse, which would have presented a much simpler issue. Instead, he has bootstrapped that much simpler claim into an attempt to revolutionize the legal meaning of “male” and “female” by redefining the fundamental meaning of the term “sex” under federal civil rights law.


Who'd have ever thunk that a bunch of radical leftist feminists would be the sanest group in the room??

Mark said...

Another excerpt from the WLF brief, which I apologize for length, but their argument is so right on that it deserves full consideration --

The words “assigned at birth” were initially in- tended to signify the assignment of sex to an infant whose sex was not immediately obvious because of ambiguity in observed genitalia – individuals with a dis- order of sexual development. No party to this litigation argues that Respondent Aimee Stephens has a disorder of sexual development. He simply wishes to be acknowledged as female, without providing any evidence that he is, in fact, female. The phrase “assigned at birth” has been entirely co-opted by a movement that seeks to use it to erase the physical differences between men and women, and thereby erase the category of women and girls as a group worthy of civil rights protection.
In reality, sex is observed and recorded (not “assigned”) at birth by qualified medical professionals, and it is an exceedingly accurate categorization: an infant’s sex is easily identifiable based on external genitalia and other factors in 99.982% of all cases; the miniscule fraction of individuals who have “intersex” characteristics (those individuals with disorders of sexual development) are also either male or female; in vanishingly rare cases individuals are born with such a mix of characteristics that it is difficult to characterize – but they still do not constitute a third reproductive class.
In stark contrast to sex, “gender” and “gender identity” refer to stereotypical roles, personalities, behavioral traits, and clothing fashions that are socially imposed on men and women, in a system that operates to oppress women in particular. “Gender identity” is simply a belief system, invented and embraced by a small subset of society, which claims that a person’s affinity for sex stereotypes is innate.


Applying it here -- to be blunt about it, the person formerly known as Bruce Jenner is and always will be a man.

bagoh20 said...

"I think it's nice that Caitlin Jenner doesn't put on a special "feminine" voice. Just speak straightforwardly. It's bad to put on a masculine or a feminine voice!"

So, you can look like a woman, but don't sound like one? Seems like an inconsistent position. How about just one fake breast, a pussy and a set of balls? That's open-minded.

Ralph L said...

Not that difficult a thing, I believe it is still between your legs where the Lord originally put it.

To quote Inspector Clouseau, "Not anymore!"

Bill Owens said...

And once again the fog of lefty mind games is lifted. 'Trans-activism' is a fraud. Jenner takes the barbs for supporting Trump/GOP. No sympathy for Jenner based on being the world's most famous tranny. The 'host' was even able to get away with an insult about Jenner's genitalia.

stevew said...

Want to hear a bad fake voice? Listen to Gwenyth Paltrow do her faux English affectation.

I forget, did Bruce have the surgery? The rules about who gets to be a true transgender, or black, based on their politics would be funny if it weren't so obviously ridiculous.

Wince said...

As the Althouse post title suggests, doesn't Jenner take more crap for conservatism than transgender status.

What's the trans issue with Trump? I can only think of one. While it may be too broad to exclude all trans people from military service, it probably makes sense to wait until they sort the issue out (as the military does with a host of medical and psychological conditions) rather than pay to have them sort it out while in the military.

johns said...
"I detected both an old man's voice and mannerism in this interview of economist Deirdre McCloskey"

Ann, I was a student of Donald McCloskey. i listened to Deirdre's voice that you linked, and I cannot hear even a hint of Donald's voice.


I said "detected" an "old man's voice and mannerism", which might be different than the voice of a younger Donald because of both gender transformation and age.

It's the mannerisms that I think are hard to shed, more the older male mannerisms of an earlier generation.

For example, notice how McClockey says the word "heh" and "fine".

Amadeus 48 said...

We have a mental condition here. The only real question is how to treat it.

Paul Doty said...

That's Shakespearean but Trump sure is vulgar.

Leland said...

Waiting for the NYT to call for Jenner's impeachment.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

What a truly lovely and refined culture.

Baldanders said...

Jupiter says:

"I'm not sure who all these people are, or why they're so pissed off at each other, although they certainly don't sound very likable. But isn't it homophobic to express your contempt for someone by telling him to suck your dick? Asking, of course, for a friend, or at least a close associate."

Not sure how much you're joking (a lot, I presume,) but this is sort of the crux of the issue. I don't think very many people actually _hate_ the transgendered (I'm sure there are some, but there are always some, right?)

On the other hand, my experience with the transgendered is that they often want not just tolerance and civility, but to entirely re-order _my_ understanding of sex, an understanding that is as significant for me as theirs is for them.

I have been accused of bigotry for not allowing a trans-woman to perform fellatio on me- of course the fact I thought of him (I think I can use that pronoun now, since he eventually returned to being male and grew a beard) as a man was a factor.

It's not as if I'd automatically allow any woman to do so either. But, tbh, I would never have agreed to that with any trans-woman. Who gets to suck my dick is such a personal decision that I am inclined to take very skeptically anyone who claims to have the right to interfere in that decision. If that makes me a bigot I will be a bigot.

Roasting Caitlin is a step in the right direction- humour is how we show acceptance, inclusion in the tribe, after all. And I think most Americans are tolerant enough at this point that we're fine with treating Catilin as a woman, in public. Far from hating her, we wish her well. Roasting her, making dick jokes about her, is a sign of that.

But I have young female relatives, and I don't want penises, or assigned-at-birth men for that matter, in their changing rooms. I'm not interested in having sex with trans-women, either, and I think I'm entitled to decide who I want to have sex with.

I'll go farther than that- I don't hate transgender women (I've rather liked the few I've met, and we've got along swimmingly aside from the offers of fellatio, which I am good at brushing aside anyway) but I will insist that my understanding of sex is as important to me as yours is to you, and that I am as entitled to mine as you are to yours.

Baldanders said...

'Legally redefining “female” as anyone who claims to be female results in the erasure of female people as a class. If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman,'

You'd certainly have to re-think some case law under this standard.