Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Replevion]

Pics or didn't happen, right?

I love this picture of you.

In fact, I'm reminded of Homura Akemi from one of my favourite anime. Long story short: she's a badass.

Thanks much... though be warned feeding my vanity may precipitate more pictures.

And oh, what I wouldn't give to have real, waist+ length anime hair... I did have a wig like that. I need to get new ones.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You're saying that we should have equal sympathy for gang members killed in a firefight and unarmed children shot down in the hallways of their schools?

No I'm sayingm that group identity isn't really that important. Thus no group deserves any more protection than that which is afforded to any one of its members.

When they are being killed and discriminated against because they are a part of said group, it very much is fucking important.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're saying that we should have equal sympathy for gang members killed in a firefight and unarmed children shot down in the hallways of their schools?

No I'm sayingm that group identity isn't really that important. Thus no group deserves any more protection than that which is afforded to any one of its members.

Right, except that hate crime legislation doesn't just protect one group. Black people who attack white folks based upon their race can be charged with hate crimes. Gay or bi people who attack straight people for being straight can be charged with the same. That goes for other classes as well. However, you've historically shown yourself challenged at comprehending context and how things play out in the real world, so I admit that I'm skeptical as to whether or not it's worth my time to continue this conversation.

[Nature-Spirits]

I love this picture of you.

In fact, I'm reminded of Homura Akemi from one of my favourite anime. Long story short: she's a badass.

Thanks much... though be warned feeding my vanity may precipitate more pictures.

And oh, what I wouldn't give to have real, waist+ length anime hair... I did have a wig like that. I need to get new ones.

It's true though.

I would love to have hair like that. So many things you could do with it....

@Llamalandia: Your arguments are, frankly, pretty ridiculous. To the extent that I've put you on my ignore list, in fact. If you want to be treated as a proper debater, please go and educate yourself on what you're debating. When you can demonstrate that you have sufficient knowledge to make sound arguments, please try again.

[Llamalandia]

No I'm sayingm that group identity isn't really that important. Thus no group deserves any more protection than that which is afforded to any one of its members.

Right, except that hate crime legislation doesn't just protect one group. Black people who attack white folks based upon their race can be charged with hate crimes. Gay or bi people who attack straight people for being straight can be charged with the same. That goes for other classes as well. However, you've historically shown yourself challenged at comprehending context and how things play out in the real world, so I admit that I'm skeptical as to whether or not it's worth my time to continue this conversation.

I don't normally post pictures but I'll make an exception here. Dang it size limits.

Just follow the link this pretty covers it.

http://www.dailyfailcenter.com/289178

[Bloodbath Generation]

Just a quick one-shot digression:

-Caitlyn is now a female, and that is her name now, not "Bruce". Also, Caitlyn is a female name, so using "he/him" pronouns are not necessary.

-Respecting transgender people is not "catering" nor is it any less deserving than respect for anyone else. Change is hard to accept and adapt to, yes, but consider how much a typical transgender person, especially youth, has underwent. They have gone through so much time, money and other obstacles to accept themselves; the least you can do is accept them as well and move on. These are men and women just like the rest of us, not a freakshow or oddity. If you find yourself not liking a trans person, make it for reasons you would dislike anyone else, not because of who they are and have become.

-Trans people are not a threat to any person or institution. The only reason people perceive them as such is because discrimination and violence against them is brushed under the rug or sensationalized to such a degree that mockery and intolerance is commonplace. Unless you personally experience violence, harrasment, abuse, etc. from a trans individual, you are not threatened, only transphobic.

- Despite all the taunting and predjudice thrown against Caitlyn Jenner, it could be said that she has it easy. Many trans people are lucky to live as old as her. According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 41% of people who identify as transgender or gender non-comforming have attempted suicide at least once, with the number rising to 78% when one is a victim of violence (physical, emotional/verbal or sexual) while in school. Trans persons have staggeringly higher risks compared to the general population of homelessness, poverty, murder and discrimination, among other issues. While this can't be solved easily, acceptance and tolerance is the first step to helping trans men and women lead a safe, healthy life as many of their fellow citizens are privileged to have.

---

I know I can't change everyone's mindsets, if any, and I do sound a bit idealistic in hoping for social harmony and acceptance of everyone everywhere. All I ask of you is to take a moment, hear both sides (those against the trans community, and trans people themselves, especially African-American or Hispanic persons) and see where you find yourself.

[Dyakovo]

No I'm sayingm that group identity isn't really that important. Thus no group deserves any more protection than that which is afforded to any one of its members.

When they are being killed and discriminated against because they are a part of said group, it very much is fucking important.

Not to mention the detail that it's really fucking easy to say group identity doesn't matter when the group you're in is the most privileged one in the society...

[Prussia-Steinbach]

When they are being killed and discriminated against because they are a part of said group, it very much is fucking important.

Not to mention the detail that it's really fucking easy to say group identity doesn't matter when the group you're in is the most privileged one in the society...

Most people who say that are.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Right, except that hate crime legislation doesn't just protect one group. Black people who attack white folks based upon their race can be charged with hate crimes. Gay or bi people who attack straight people for being straight can be charged with the same. That goes for other classes as well. However, you've historically shown yourself challenged at comprehending context and how things play out in the real world, so I admit that I'm skeptical as to whether or not it's worth my time to continue this conversation.

I don't normally post pictures but I'll make an exception here. Dang it size limits.

Just follow the link this pretty covers it.

http://www.dailyfailcenter.com/289178

i saw that episode. It was stupid. Reason?

Gay people are not treated differently from straight people when it comes to hate crimes. Nor are black people treated differently from white people. As I have already stated, if a straight person is attacked due to his sexual orientation by gay people, they would be charged with a hate crime. If a white person is attacked due to his skin color by a black person, the attacker would be charged with a hate crime. Parker and Stone can be amusing, but they dropped the ball here and spread misinformation.

[Dyakovo]

Not to mention the detail that it's really fucking easy to say group identity doesn't matter when the group you're in is the most privileged one in the society...

Most people who say that are.

I'll admit that I personally don't find group identity to be that important (but then, I'm part of the aforementioned group - cishet white male). However, I recognize that what holds true for me does not necessarily hold true for others.

[Kelinfort]

What about stopping hate crimes committed against transgender people? Is that catering? Or preventing discrimination?

Catering! All crimes should be prevented if possible* and giving special priority to one group over others is inherently wrong. The motivation of a crime shouldn't matter nearly as much if at all relative the actual damage or potential damage from that crime.

Where did I imply that? Hate crimes against any group must be illegal and investigated with a special look at the motives. If that's catering, I'm an alien.

[Llamalandia]

I don't normally post pictures but I'll make an exception here. Dang it size limits.

Just follow the link this pretty covers it.

http://www.dailyfailcenter.com/289178

i saw that episode. It was stupid. Reason?

Gay people are not treated differently from straight people when it comes to hate crimes. Nor are black people treated differently from white people. As I have already stated, if a straight person is attacked due to his sexual orientation by gay people, they would be charged with a hate crime. If a white person is attacked due to his skin color by a black person, the attacker would be charged with a hate crime. Parker and Stone can be amusing, but they dropped the ball here and spread misinformation.

Well with respect how often are black on white hate crimes actually charged as such? I mean, I don't have stats in front of me, but we all know how this really works. Plus the problem is it also nets murders who might be casual racists but weren't actualy motivated by their racism in the killing. That is the problem with trying to prove a person's intent it is often quite difficult.

[Llamalandia]

Catering! All crimes should be prevented if possible* and giving special priority to one group over others is inherently wrong. The motivation of a crime shouldn't matter nearly as much if at all relative the actual damage or potential damage from that crime.

Where did I imply that? Hate crimes against any group must be illegal and investigated with a special look at the motives. If that's catering, I'm an alien.

Ok so, we should tell regular murder victims families that we are expending more resources looking for the killer of an lgbt because we think it may be a hate crime? I'm sure that will make them happy. How about we just devote the same number of resources and have the same punishments for the same crimes regardless of group Indentities.

[Wulfenia]

It's the "God-fearin" part that's more the wrong part.

Pics or didn't happen, right?

I'm not sure whether to be attracted, intimidated, or both.

Going to go with the third option.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

i saw that episode. It was stupid. Reason?

Gay people are not treated differently from straight people when it comes to hate crimes. Nor are black people treated differently from white people. As I have already stated, if a straight person is attacked due to his sexual orientation by gay people, they would be charged with a hate crime. If a white person is attacked due to his skin color by a black person, the attacker would be charged with a hate crime. Parker and Stone can be amusing, but they dropped the ball here and spread misinformation.

Well with respect how often are black on white hate crimes actually charged as such? I mean, I don't have stats in front of me, but we all know how this really works. Plus the problem is it also nets murders who might be casual racists but weren't actualy motivated by their racism in the killing. That is the problem with trying to prove a person's intent it is often quite difficult.

I don't know the numbers. However, the law is clear that it does not only apply to minority groups or other historically oppressed groups. Therefore, your original point (or, rather, Trey Parker and Matt Stone's point) is inaccurate. "We all know how this works" isn't a valid argument.

[Kelinfort]

Where did I imply that? Hate crimes against any group must be illegal and investigated with a special look at the motives. If that's catering, I'm an alien.

Ok so, we should tell regular murder victims families that we are expending more resources looking for the killer of an lgbt because we think it may be a hate crime? I'm sure that will make them happy. How about we just devote the same number of resources and have the same punishments for the same crimes regardless of group Indentities.

This is a false equivalency. Point to where I said more resources. I surely don't have to tell you that a hate crime doesn't require hundreds more spent on a separate case, do I? I never implied anything else of the sort.

As for sentencing, motives matter. If a killer is compassionate and the killing was done during a point when they were emotionally incapacitated, they should receive a lighter sentence than a person who kills another out of hatred for a group and voice that sentiment. Are you really that shortsighted to demand same sentences for the same crime? Seriously, your argument comes off as whining that other groups somehow have it better. They don't.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Where did I imply that? Hate crimes against any group must be illegal and investigated with a special look at the motives. If that's catering, I'm an alien.

Ok so, we should tell regular murder victims families that we are expending more resources looking for the killer of an lgbt because we think it may be a hate crime? I'm sure that will make them happy. How about we just devote the same number of resources and have the same punishments for the same crimes regardless of group Indentities.

Who says that more resources are expended in the search? The hate crime charges apply to sentencing, not to the initial investigation. Publicity and political pressure from above may cause more resources to be expended on one investigation over another, but the existence of hate crime laws has nothing to do with that.

[Llamalandia]

Ok so, we should tell regular murder victims families that we are expending more resources looking for the killer of an lgbt because we think it may be a hate crime? I'm sure that will make them happy. How about we just devote the same number of resources and have the same punishments for the same crimes regardless of group Indentities.

Who says that more resources are expended in the search? The hate crime charges apply to sentencing, not to the initial investigation. Publicity and political pressure from above may cause more resources to be expended on one investigation over another, but the existence of hate crime laws has nothing to do with that.

Makes it easier for those groups to assert their pressure. Especially when media starts asking whether such and such is being pursued as a hate crime investigation. It clearly shows where the focus is going to be. Plus it can often mean outside agency involvement and extra help from state and fib sources that may not be as readily available in other investigations.

[Llamalandia]

Ok so, we should tell regular murder victims families that we are expending more resources looking for the killer of an lgbt because we think it may be a hate crime? I'm sure that will make them happy. How about we just devote the same number of resources and have the same punishments for the same crimes regardless of group Indentities.

This is a false equivalency. Point to where I said more resources. I surely don't have to tell you that a hate crime doesn't require hundreds more spent on a separate case, do I? I never implied anything else of the sort.

As for sentencing, motives matter. If a killer is compassionate and the killing was done during a point when they were emotionally incapacitated, they should receive a lighter sentence than a person who kills another out of hatred for a group and voice that sentiment. Are you really that shortsighted to demand same sentences for the same crime? Seriously, your argument comes off as whining that other groups somehow have it better. They don't.

My point is hate is hate. If you hate your best friend because he slept with your wife and you kill him, is that hate any less real or powerful than hating someone based o being lgbt and killing them on account of that hate?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Who says that more resources are expended in the search? The hate crime charges apply to sentencing, not to the initial investigation. Publicity and political pressure from above may cause more resources to be expended on one investigation over another, but the existence of hate crime laws has nothing to do with that.

Makes it easier for those groups to assert their pressure. Especially when media starts asking whether such and such is being pursued as a hate crime investigation. It clearly shows where the focus is going to be. Plus it can often mean outside agency involvement and extra help from state and fib sources that may not be as readily available in other investigations.

And sometimes these investigations get swept under the rug, or the victim is blamed for "inviting" the attack, or idiotic "gay panic" defenses are allowed. Life is unfair. We do what we can to balance it out, but whining over "special treatment" when entire communities are being threatened isn't a constructive approach.

[Llamalandia]

Makes it easier for those groups to assert their pressure. Especially when media starts asking whether such and such is being pursued as a hate crime investigation. It clearly shows where the focus is going to be. Plus it can often mean outside agency involvement and extra help from state and fib sources that may not be as readily available in other investigations.

And sometimes these investigations get swept under the rug, or the victim is blamed for "inviting" the attack, or idiotic "gay panic" defenses are allowed. Life is unfair. We do what we can to balance it out, but whining over "special treatment" when entire communities are being threatened isn't a constructive approach.

Well entire communities aren't literally being threatened for one thing, at least not by anyone or any organization that has the power to make good on such threats. Again, though, I can't condone treating members of a group differently for the purpose of crime prevention or sentencing etc.
also I kinda though gay panic defense wasn't really allowed anymore am I wrong on this? Just curious.

[Kelinfort]

This is a false equivalency. Point to where I said more resources. I surely don't have to tell you that a hate crime doesn't require hundreds more spent on a separate case, do I? I never implied anything else of the sort.

As for sentencing, motives matter. If a killer is compassionate and the killing was done during a point when they were emotionally incapacitated, they should receive a lighter sentence than a person who kills another out of hatred for a group and voice that sentiment. Are you really that shortsighted to demand same sentences for the same crime? Seriously, your argument comes off as whining that other groups somehow have it better. They don't.

My point is hate is hate. If you hate your best friend because he slept with your wife and you kill him, is that hate any less real or powerful than hating someone based o being lgbt and killing them on account of that hate?

Yes, actually. Hating a group solely for being a group is definitely more heinous than a single act of killing. If a black murders a white purely out of hate of whites, they should receive a harsher sentence than murdering a person simply because you don't like them.

[Grenartia]

1. Considering that's the logical progression of your statement...

1. No, it's not the "logical" progression: it's just inflating it, with a logigal fallacy.
Example:
Chessmistress: "having a vagina is an important part of being woman"
Grenartia: "you're saying a vagina defines a woman"
IT'S LIKE
Chessmistress: "a steering wheel is an important part of a car"
Grenartia: "you're saying a steering wheel defines a car"
See? Pure logical fallacy...

2. And your opinion is wrong.

2. And your opinion is wrong.

3. "Male features" don't grant you male privilege.

3. It depends by the situation, you're right that many times, maybe even most times, "male features" don't grant you male privilege. But again: logical fallacy, I didn't write male features WILLINGLY retained by trans persons are absolutely related to male privilege.

4. Except, you know, the transgirls who grow up as girls (Jazz Jennings comes to mind). And bleeding ain't at all the defining characteristic of being a woman.

4. Wrong, menstrual cycle is a very important feature when it comes to being a woman: it has a deep influence on us.

5. It seems to me that you're just using a definition of womanhood tailored on your personal exigences: there's nothing bad doing so, but you cannot say definitions of other people are wrong.

1. No, its more like saying "if you don't have or want a vagina, you aren't a woman, because a vagina is critical to being a woman". When, in all reality, its more like whether or not you have leather seats in the car.

2. My opinion isn't based in the sexist ideology of biological essentialism.

3. You sure as fucking hell implied it. And when I called you out on it, you're dropping it like a bad cell phone plan.

4. More biological essentialism, I see.

5. And I say you're projecting.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And sometimes these investigations get swept under the rug, or the victim is blamed for "inviting" the attack, or idiotic "gay panic" defenses are allowed. Life is unfair. We do what we can to balance it out, but whining over "special treatment" when entire communities are being threatened isn't a constructive approach.

Well entire communities aren't literally being threatened for one thing, at least not by anyone or any organization that has the power to make good on such threats. Again, though, I can't condone treating members of a group differently for the purpose of crime prevention or sentencing etc.
also I kinda though gay panic defense wasn't really allowed anymore am I wrong on this? Just curious.

I've already explained how an attack on an individual over certain traits is an attack on anyone who shares those traits. When Matthew Shepherd was killed for being gay, his killers weren't just saying "This man doesn't deserve to live", but "Gay people don't deserve to live". When James Byrd was dragged to his death behind a pickup, his attackers weren't saying "We hate this man and want him to die," but rather "Black people deserve to die." That's an attack on a community. That's terrorizing a community. It's actually a worse crime than killing a person, because you're killing a person in order to send a message to a group, and to cause terror within that group. It's objectively a greater crime.

[Grenartia]

What if a soldier transitioned? At what point would their heroism evaporate?

Then I'd support them for being a soldier. Not being a transgender.

She is also an Olympic hero, and is holding her foot in the door for trans people who are less well off to demand changes to the broken system.

Also, if you're only going to respect a soldier, meet hero Kristin Beck, a former US Navy SEAL (highly decorated, I might add) who also just so happens to be transgender.

Again, I'd applaud them for being a SEAL, not being a transgender.

She's not "a transgender", she IS transgender.

And there's nothing wrong with being trans. And, given how almost every fucking institution in society is trying to kill us, I'd say standing up and still being who you are is something to fucking be applauded for.