Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Replevion]

No, it really doesn't. Remember what I said about hyperbole?
None of those examples demonstrate an institution actively trying to kill trans folk.

I never said "actively", though. And just to clear the air, you do not have to actively try to kill somebody in order to be responsible for killing them. Again, I bring up the example of stranding somebody in the desert with inadequate (or no) supplies.

Ninja'd you...

[Dyakovo]

No, it really doesn't. Remember what I said about hyperbole?
None of those examples demonstrate an institution actively trying to kill trans folk.

So unless they're literally gunning them down, you don't think refusing care and/or food and shelter causing trans people to die while cis people are given whatever they need demonstrates an institutional effort to kill trans people? Maybe I can dump you in a frozen wasteland then, after all, I won't kill you, the exposure will. Clean hands by your standard.

Basically, yes. Some people dying due to discriminatory practices does not mean that the institutions responsible are actually trying to kill those discriminated against (though it also doesn't mean they aren't - they might be). I get that anti-trans discrimination is endemic and can result in people dying. So not saying their hands are clean, but sure, continue making everyone who doesn't buy into the hyperbolic bullshit out to be your enemy. You'll eventually prove yourself right.

[Ifreann]

No, it really doesn't. Remember what I said about hyperbole?
None of those examples demonstrate an institution actively trying to kill trans folk.

So unless they're literally gunning them down, you don't think refusing care and/or food and shelter causing trans people to die while cis people are given whatever they need demonstrates an institutional effort to kill trans people?

Of course it doesn't. Refusing to help someone doesn't imply a desire for their death. Not caring is a perfectly possible motivation.

Maybe I can dump you in a frozen wasteland then, after all, I won't kill you, the exposure will. Clean hands by your standards.

Drawing a distinction between trying to kill someone and failing to help them doesn't imply that the latter is morally acceptable.

[Dyakovo]

No, it really doesn't. Remember what I said about hyperbole?
None of those examples demonstrate an institution actively trying to kill trans folk.

I never said "actively", though. And just to clear the air, you do not have to actively try to kill somebody in order to be responsible for killing them. Again, I bring up the example of stranding somebody in the desert with inadequate (or no) supplies.

That's what saying someone/something means though. "Trying to kill someone" and "not caring if someone lives or dies" are two different things. Now, if the person/agency that doesn't care if you live or die is nominally responsible for your well-being, then the latter is at least nearly as horrible as the former, but it still isn't the same thing.

[Replevion]

So unless they're literally gunning them down, you don't think refusing care and/or food and shelter causing trans people to die while cis people are given whatever they need demonstrates an institutional effort to kill trans people?

Of course it doesn't. Refusing to help someone doesn't imply a desire for their death. Not caring is a perfectly possible motivation.

You're deliberately omitting the double standard. It's ok not to care, except when your institution's literal purpose is to care, but you conveniently don't care because trans people's lives don't matter and so they die. The 'not caring' is clearly motivated by prejudice because trans people are the only ones excepted/excluded in this manner, and the consequence/outcome is inevitable death that was probably preventable. This is not a muddled matter.

[Dyakovo]

Of course it doesn't. Refusing to help someone doesn't imply a desire for their death. Not caring is a perfectly possible motivation.

You're deliberately omitting the double standard. It's ok not to care, except when your institution's literal purpose is to care, but you conveniently don't care because trans people's lives don't matter and so they die. The 'not caring' is clearly motivated by prejudice because trans people are the only ones excepted/excluded in this manner, and the consequence/outcome is inevitable death that was probably preventable. This is not a muddled matter.

Iffy omitted mention of the double standard because it's irrelevant to the point he was making.

[Replevion]

You're deliberately omitting the double standard. It's ok not to care, except when your institution's literal purpose is to care, but you conveniently don't care because trans people's lives don't matter and so they die. The 'not caring' is clearly motivated by prejudice because trans people are the only ones excepted/excluded in this manner, and the consequence/outcome is inevitable death that was probably preventable. This is not a muddled matter.

Iffy omitted mention of the double standard because it's irrelevant to the point he was making.

And that point is wrong, demonstrated by the full picture. The omission is key to the failure of the point.

[Dyakovo]

Iffy omitted mention of the double standard because it's irrelevant to the point he was making.

And that point is wrong, demonstrated by the full picture. The omission is key to the failure of the point.

No, it really isn't. "Not caring if you die" is not the same thing as "wanting you dead".

[Luminesa]

I'm afraid I have never met a transgender veteran. Well, if I meet a transgender veteran, I will tell them, "Thank you for serving our country." And then give them a hug/handshake. Just like I tell any other veteran.

Any possibility that you might follow up by explaining to them how you think their rights as a transgender person aren't really that important compared to all the other things America has to deal with?

I wouldn't talk about it. Honestly, I'm not gonna go up to someone and ask them if they are transgender. That's like going up to someone and asking them, "So, did you have sex last night?" It's just...not something you ask in public.

Besides, in the U.S., transgender people have all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are considered citizens. When the military goes out to fight, they defend transgender people along with all the other people in this country they protect. They can vote like anybody else, as long as they are the right age, of course. Transgender people are human beings, with their own worries, concerns, hopes, dreams, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and so on. Just like anyone else.

All in all, transgender people are already equal to any other people. Just because I disagree with getting a sex-change does not mean I consider them any more or less human than I am. We are equal. I will say 'hi' to a transgender person the same way I will say 'hi' to anyone else. I will talk to a transgender person just like I talk to anyone else.

Pardon my confusion, but what other rights would a transgender person want?

[Luminesa]

Wanting to "change" gender = A genetic or psychological disorder. It's against the laws of nature. Do you ever see a dog running around, wanting to be a nother gender? No. It's a disorder. If people feel weird about Bruce wanting to be a woman, then allow them to be. It's no third gender, it's no "secondary gender" after you've born. You're born and the genes make you what you are.
This is what people do with personal freedom. Gender operations...
So yes, he's always Bruce. Changing his name and a few operations will never change that.
Transgendered people do not need to be protected or priviliged. They're a disorder and should rather start behaving in a natural way. Is it that hard for a man to wear jeans and a shirt? No, it's not. What he feels like "on the inside" is irrelevant. He should rather be ashamed of wanting to be a woman than to express himself. Same with a woman that "feels like a man."
People that's incapable of adopting the society we live in deserve to be harassed, bullied and so on. It's one thing to be socially weak, at least those people stay quiet and they're not standing out. People like Bruce or "Wurst" or whatever that abomination's name is on the other hand, need psycgological help.

Things I disagree with, here:

1.) The person is not the disorder. That's like telling someone who has the flu, "You are the sickness!" It's cruel.

2.) Nobody deserves to be bullied or harassed. Somebody in a situation like that doesn't deserve to be bullied, especially since it's such a fragile situation. While they might need the psychological help, bullying them will only hurt them more. Sure, I might not be a fan of the Kardashians or the Jenners, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bully them.

3.) It's not that simple, to simply stop thinking like that. Like I have been saying, at the root of wanting a sex change are some deep-seated, confusing psychological things that are not at all easy to re-wire or untangle.

[Replevion]

And that point is wrong, demonstrated by the full picture. The omission is key to the failure of the point.

No, it really isn't. "Not caring if you die" is not the same thing as "wanting you dead".

It is when it is the literal purpose of the institution and its agents to care about/for and save people, and the decision not to fulfill that stated and generally acted upon purpose is predicated upon simple, bald prejudice.

I can't believe I'm even having to make this argument.

[New Babylonia]

No, it really isn't. "Not caring if you die" is not the same thing as "wanting you dead".

It is when it is the literal purpose of the institution and its agents to care about/for and save people, and the decision not to fulfill that stated and generally acted upon purpose is predicated upon simple, bald prejudice.

I can't believe I'm even having to make this argument.

Welcome to NSG when dealing with its most noted and annoying veterans, i guess.

[Replevion]

Besides, in the U.S., transgender people have all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are considered citizens. When the military goes out to fight, they defend transgender people along with all the other people in this country they protect.

Ironic that they can't enlist in the armed forces themselves at present.

Pardon my confusion, but what other rights would a transgender person want?

Equal access to employment, housing, public accommodation, health care, and general safety?

Granted current cases have been going the right direction with Titles VII and IX of the CRA (e.g. Lusardi), but it's going to take a lot more work and case law before it's the real lived life of people and not just a pleasant legal theory.

Edit: Not to mention that if we get a GOP administration in 2016 all the fragile advances of the last few years can be walked back practically at a stroke.

[Replevion]

Wanting to "change" gender = A genetic or psychological disorder. It's against the laws of nature. Do you ever see a dog running around, wanting to be a nother gender? No. It's a disorder. If people feel weird about Bruce wanting to be a woman, then allow them to be. It's no third gender, it's no "secondary gender" after you've born. You're born and the genes make you what you are.
This is what people do with personal freedom. Gender operations...
So yes, he's always Bruce. Changing his name and a few operations will never change that.
Transgendered people do not need to be protected or priviliged. They're a disorder and should rather start behaving in a natural way. Is it that hard for a man to wear jeans and a shirt? No, it's not. What he feels like "on the inside" is irrelevant. He should rather be ashamed of wanting to be a woman than to express himself. Same with a woman that "feels like a man."
People that's incapable of adopting the society we live in deserve to be harassed, bullied and so on. It's one thing to be socially weak, at least those people stay quiet and they're not standing out. People like Bruce or "Wurst" or whatever that abomination's name is on the other hand, need psycgological help.

Things I disagree with, here:

1.) The person is not the disorder. That's like telling someone who has the flu, "You are the sickness!" It's cruel.

2.) Nobody deserves to be bullied or harassed. Somebody in a situation like that doesn't deserve to be bullied, especially since it's such a fragile situation. While they might need the psychological help, bullying them will only hurt them more. Sure, I might not be a fan of the Kardashians or the Jenners, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bully them.

3.) It's not that simple, to simply stop thinking like that. Like I have been saying, at the root of wanting a sex change are some deep-seated, confusing psychological things that are not at all easy to re-wire or untangle.

And it's often more than psychological. It's often the result of physical differences in fetal development catalyzed by atypical hormonal releases by the mother: http://www.functionalneurology.com/inde ... ticle=3373

We physically have the brains of the opposite sex according to peer-reviewed neurological research.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Any possibility that you might follow up by explaining to them how you think their rights as a transgender person aren't really that important compared to all the other things America has to deal with?

I wouldn't talk about it. Honestly, I'm not gonna go up to someone and ask them if they are transgender. That's like going up to someone and asking them, "So, did you have sex last night?" It's just...not something you ask in public.

Besides, in the U.S., transgender people have all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are considered citizens. When the military goes out to fight, they defend transgender people along with all the other people in this country they protect. They can vote like anybody else, as long as they are the right age, of course. Transgender people are human beings, with their own worries, concerns, hopes, dreams, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and so on. Just like anyone else.

All in all, transgender people are already equal to any other people. Just because I disagree with getting a sex-change does not mean I consider them any more or less human than I am. We are equal. I will say 'hi' to a transgender person the same way I will say 'hi' to anyone else. I will talk to a transgender person just like I talk to anyone else.

Pardon my confusion, but what other rights would a transgender person want?

Just because a right is given by law doesn't mean society respects that right.

For instance, you are far more likely to be hired and recognized in certain circles just by your name being anglicized over being foreign still. "But everyone has a right to be hired without being discriminated against" you might say, and yes, the law prevents people from being blatant bigots, doesn't mean they don't engage in casual bigotry nevertheless.

[Talvezout]

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.

This, so much this.

[Luminesa]

I wouldn't talk about it. Honestly, I'm not gonna go up to someone and ask them if they are transgender. That's like going up to someone and asking them, "So, did you have sex last night?" It's just...not something you ask in public.

Besides, in the U.S., transgender people have all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are considered citizens. When the military goes out to fight, they defend transgender people along with all the other people in this country they protect. They can vote like anybody else, as long as they are the right age, of course. Transgender people are human beings, with their own worries, concerns, hopes, dreams, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and so on. Just like anyone else.

All in all, transgender people are already equal to any other people. Just because I disagree with getting a sex-change does not mean I consider them any more or less human than I am. We are equal. I will say 'hi' to a transgender person the same way I will say 'hi' to anyone else. I will talk to a transgender person just like I talk to anyone else.

Pardon my confusion, but what other rights would a transgender person want?

Just because a right is given by law doesn't mean society respects that right.

For instance, you are far more likely to be hired and recognized in certain circles just by your name being anglicized over being foreign still. "But everyone has a right to be hired without being discriminated against" you might say, and yes, the law prevents people from being blatant bigots, doesn't mean they don't engage in casual bigotry nevertheless.

Hi, Soldati!

I see... Like, if one girl's name is Brandy, and another girl's name is Hikari, Brandy is more likely to get hired than Hikari?

[Replevion]

Just because a right is given by law doesn't mean society respects that right.

For instance, you are far more likely to be hired and recognized in certain circles just by your name being anglicized over being foreign still. "But everyone has a right to be hired without being discriminated against" you might say, and yes, the law prevents people from being blatant bigots, doesn't mean they don't engage in casual bigotry nevertheless.

Hi, Soldati!

I see... Like, if one girl's name is Brandy, and another girl's name is Hikari, Brandy is more likely to get hired than Hikari?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

[Luminesa]

Besides, in the U.S., transgender people have all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are considered citizens. When the military goes out to fight, they defend transgender people along with all the other people in this country they protect.

Ironic that they can't enlist in the armed forces themselves at present.

Pardon my confusion, but what other rights would a transgender person want?

Equal access to employment, housing, public accommodation, health care, and general safety?

Granted current cases have been going the right direction with Titles VII and IX of the CRA (e.g. Lusardi), but it's going to take a lot more work and case law before it's the real lived life of people and not just a pleasant legal theory.

Edit: Not to mention that if we get a GOP administration in 2016 all the fragile advances of the last few years can be walked back practically at a stroke.

I think the thing about the armed forces not allowing transgender people to enlist is mainly because of, again, all the psychological stuff that comes from being transgender. This is just my theory, but when a person is struggling with something as complicated as their sexuality, not to mention having gone through a sex change...that's a lot to deal with. And I'm not sure if that would be good to try and carry all that out onto a battlefield, where people are dying around you in violent ways, adding to the stress. Like, when people bring up Kristen Beck on this thread, one has to remember that she was still a 'he' when she was in the Navy. She got the sexual operation after she was discharged. I'm not saying she's weak or anything-far from it, that Purple Heart is proof. But I would imagine that if she were to have had the sex change while she was a Navy SEAL, it would certainly not make her job any easier. I mean, being a SEAL is already dangerous and challenging by itself. Imagine having to adjust to a sex change surgery at the same time...

The part about housing sounds weird. Everyone should be entitled to a house-shelter is a basic right! But could you explain the rest-employment, health care, public accommodation, general safety?

Now, as far as the GOP goes...yes, I'm Republican. I'll go ahead and say that. My problem with the GOP is that they can't agree on anything, and now over a dozen people are running under the Republican ticket for 2016. I'm just sitting here like, "...Okay, maybe a good 3/4 of you need to drop out right now." Also, I feel the GOP at the moment is very wishy-washy...like, it could be stronger. But everyone is too busy trying to beat each other to get the spot.

But I digress. What can I say, politics can be quite aggravating, regardless of the side one is on.

Could you possibly explain some of said advancements, by the way?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hi, Soldati!

I see... Like, if one girl's name is Brandy, and another girl's name is Hikari, Brandy is more likely to get hired than Hikari?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

To expand, the same happens in other cultures. In certain cultures is so bad to the point that, if you get to be hired or even included in a circle of acquaintances, expect for your name to be converted to one that closely matches yours in their language.

It certainly has happened to me with fellow Hispanics where my actual name (Charles) has been "latinized" to Carlos.

It certainly is a bit of a casual disregard and it makes me feel a bit awkward being called Carlos over Charles at times. If people who are Hispanic cannot pronounce it I just tell them "Charlie" (or charrli when spoken); which is something most people can say.

[Ifreann]

Of course it doesn't. Refusing to help someone doesn't imply a desire for their death. Not caring is a perfectly possible motivation.

You're deliberately omitting the double standard. It's ok not to care, except when your institution's literal purpose is to care, but you conveniently don't care because trans people's lives don't matter and so they die. The 'not caring' is clearly motivated by prejudice because trans people are the only ones excepted/excluded in this manner, and the consequence/outcome is inevitable death that was probably preventable.

As noted by Dya, none of this is relevant to my point. I am aware that in this context that refusal is motivated by transphobia, and that the institutions in question have a duty to help people, and that the lack of that help will leave people dead. Nonetheless, refusing to help trans people does not necessarily mean that the institutions in question are trying to kill trans people.

If I ran someone over in a car, was I trying to kill them? Possibly. It's also possible that I was driving without due regard for the lives of those around me.

This is not a muddled matter.

I would have thought not, but here we are.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ironic that they can't enlist in the armed forces themselves at present.



Equal access to employment, housing, public accommodation, health care, and general safety?

Granted current cases have been going the right direction with Titles VII and IX of the CRA (e.g. Lusardi), but it's going to take a lot more work and case law before it's the real lived life of people and not just a pleasant legal theory.

Edit: Not to mention that if we get a GOP administration in 2016 all the fragile advances of the last few years can be walked back practically at a stroke.

I think the thing about the armed forces not allowing transgender people to enlist is mainly because of, again, all the psychological stuff that comes from being transgender. This is just my theory, but when a person is struggling with something as complicated as their sexuality, not to mention having gone through a sex change...that's a lot to deal with. And I'm not sure if that would be good to try and carry all that out onto a battlefield, where people are dying around you in violent ways, adding to the stress. Like, when people bring up Kristen Beck on this thread, one has to remember that she was still a 'he' when she was in the Navy. She got the sexual operation after she was discharged. I'm not saying she's weak or anything-far from it, that Purple Heart is proof. But I would imagine that if she were to have had the sex change while she was a Navy SEAL, it would certainly not make her job any easier. I mean, being a SEAL is already dangerous and challenging by itself. Imagine having to adjust to a sex change surgery at the same time...

The part about housing sounds weird. Everyone should be entitled to a house-shelter is a basic right! But could you explain the rest-employment, health care, public accommodation, general safety?

Now, as far as the GOP goes...yes, I'm Republican. I'll go ahead and say that. My problem with the GOP is that they can't agree on anything, and now over a dozen people are running under the Republican ticket for 2016. I'm just sitting here like, "...Okay, maybe a good 3/4 of you need to drop out right now." Also, I feel the GOP at the moment is very wishy-washy...like, it could be stronger. But everyone is too busy trying to beat each other to get the spot.

But I digress. What can I say, politics can be quite aggravating, regardless of the side one is on.

Could you possibly explain some of said advancements, by the way?

Employment: Not every employer will hire a transgender person. Simply because it either will mess with the office dynamics or because they can see the costs of insurance piling up for such a person.

Health Care: Generally only very few insurance companies cover transgenders.

Public accomodation: Not every business has zero issues with transgenders using facilities of their "opposite" sex. If you are a man transitioning into a woman most business owners won't allow you to use the woman's restroom, and with a woman the opposite.

General Safety: Transgenders are quite harassed nowadays. Just because you and I don't experience harassment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Dutch Mualenia]

I think the thing about the armed forces not allowing transgender people to enlist is mainly because of, again, all the psychological stuff that comes from being transgender. This is just my theory, but when a person is struggling with something as complicated as their sexuality, not to mention having gone through a sex change...that's a lot to deal with. And I'm not sure if that would be good to try and carry all that out onto a battlefield, where people are dying around you in violent ways, adding to the stress. Like, when people bring up Kristen Beck on this thread, one has to remember that she was still a 'he' when she was in the Navy. She got the sexual operation after she was discharged. I'm not saying she's weak or anything-far from it, that Purple Heart is proof. But I would imagine that if she were to have had the sex change while she was a Navy SEAL, it would certainly not make her job any easier. I mean, being a SEAL is already dangerous and challenging by itself. Imagine having to adjust to a sex change surgery at the same time...

The part about housing sounds weird. Everyone should be entitled to a house-shelter is a basic right! But could you explain the rest-employment, health care, public accommodation, general safety?

Now, as far as the GOP goes...yes, I'm Republican. I'll go ahead and say that. My problem with the GOP is that they can't agree on anything, and now over a dozen people are running under the Republican ticket for 2016. I'm just sitting here like, "...Okay, maybe a good 3/4 of you need to drop out right now." Also, I feel the GOP at the moment is very wishy-washy...like, it could be stronger. But everyone is too busy trying to beat each other to get the spot.

But I digress. What can I say, politics can be quite aggravating, regardless of the side one is on.

Could you possibly explain some of said advancements, by the way?

Employment: Not every employer will hire a transgender person. Simply because it either will mess with the office dynamics or because they can see the costs of insurance piling up for such a person.

Health Care: Generally only very few insurance companies cover transgenders.

Public accomodation: Not every business has zero issues with transgenders using facilities of their "opposite" sex. If you are a man transitioning into a woman most business owners won't allow you to use the woman's restroom, and with a woman the opposite.

General Safety: Transgenders are quite harassed nowadays. Just because you and I don't experience harassment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And how do you want to solve it, by screwing up the rights of all other groups?
As a gothic, I'm harassed almost everyday and the possibility for a job is scarce, but it's not like I should just scream aloud and blame everyone else for it.

Also, yes, being a transgender is a choice, asmuch as wearing a hijab and being a Gothic is.

[Herrebrugh]

Employment: Not every employer will hire a transgender person. Simply because it either will mess with the office dynamics or because they can see the costs of insurance piling up for such a person.

Health Care: Generally only very few insurance companies cover transgenders.

Public accomodation: Not every business has zero issues with transgenders using facilities of their "opposite" sex. If you are a man transitioning into a woman most business owners won't allow you to use the woman's restroom, and with a woman the opposite.

General Safety: Transgenders are quite harassed nowadays. Just because you and I don't experience harassment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And how do you want to solve it, by screwing up the rights of all other groups?
As a gothic, I'm harassed almost everyday and the possibility for a job is scarce, but it's not like I should just scream aloud and blame everyone else for it.

Also, yes, transgenderism is a choice, asmuch as wearing a hijab and being a Gothic is.

Do you even know what transgenderism is?

[Dutch Mualenia]

And how do you want to solve it, by screwing up the rights of all other groups?
As a gothic, I'm harassed almost everyday and the possibility for a job is scarce, but it's not like I should just scream aloud and blame everyone else for it.

Also, yes, transgenderism is a choice, asmuch as wearing a hijab and being a Gothic is.

Do you even know what transgenderism is?

Edited, wrote the wrong word.