Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Des-Bal]

I find your interpretation to be bizarre, but I suppose that's obvious. It's like you're looking to interpret that paragraph in the most negative way possible, and you're willing to twist meaning into knots in order to get there.

I suppose it's pointless to continue the discussion. Thank you for your time, though.

No twist necessary. It's all about balancing getting transgender people care and getting them away from stigma. That formalizes the stigma.

[Tierra Prime]

Nothing more than a strawman: I think that if a person really feels "she" is a woman, then "she" should wish to have a vagina. Otherwise "she" doesn't really feels a woman. Pure logic. Otherwise even MALES with beard and muscles can say they're "women".
That's the main problem Radical Feminists like me have with trans persons.

So, what you're saying is, women are defined by vaginas. That's pretty misogynist.

Biologically speaking, having a vagina would be important, but then brain gender is also important, and you could easily argue it is the most important factor.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I find your interpretation to be bizarre, but I suppose that's obvious. It's like you're looking to interpret that paragraph in the most negative way possible, and you're willing to twist meaning into knots in order to get there.

I suppose it's pointless to continue the discussion. Thank you for your time, though.

No twist necessary. It's all about balancing getting transgender people care and getting them away from stigma. That formalizes the stigma.

Wait, you don't think that the stigma was there beforehand? Or do you simply believe that recognizing its existence gives it more legitimacy?

[Dyakovo]

It's really not open for debate any more than the shape of the Earth is open for debate. People can try to argue the point, but it's fruitless to do so.

Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder..

Wrong.

[Luna Amore]

You mean bruce degenerate?

Read OP's first two posts.

Clearly this thread isn't worthy of a serious reply.

Also, "Bruce".

Knock it off. If you can't be civil, don't post.

You're being oppressive! You're taking away the freedom to be what I want to be! You're just bigoted human that has no right to say anything! I'm a T-Rex, even though I have hands, ears, and hair! BE MORE TOLERANT!!!!111!!!1

T-Rex, Apache Attack Helicopter, I don't care how you phrase it. That meme is trolling and it won't be tolerated.
*** Warned for trolling ***

---

This is a general reminder to everyone. The topic is Caitlyn Jenner. Not Christianity. Not the military. Stay on topic or this is getting locked.

[Grenartia]

2. Only in Leviticus, and there's a shitton of stuff in Leviticus that nobody rails against people for being a sin (as I've already pointed out).

Point out David and Jonathan

I didn't feel the time was right, but yes.

Its pretty damn hard to read the story of David and Jonathon and see it as anything BUT a story about gay love. I mean, when you say that another dude's love was greater than that of women, that's pretty awesomely gay.

[Grenartia]

Women aren't defined by whether or not they own a vagina. Try again.

Actually, that is literally the exact definition. Nothing more.

Not according to psychology.

[Talvezout]

Point out David and Jonathan

I didn't feel the time was right, but yes.

Its pretty damn hard to read the story of David and Jonathon and see it as anything BUT a story about gay love. I mean, when you say that another dude's love was greater than that of women, that's pretty awesomely gay.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... athan.html

I'll admit that I disagree with Jonathan and David being lovers, but I did find the link pretty interesting.

[Des-Bal]

Wait, you don't think that the stigma was there beforehand? Or do you simply believe that recognizing its existence gives it more legitimacy?

I think that it would be tremendously inappropriate to continue on a tangent not specifically about Caitlyn Jenner.

On that note: she looks like Jessica Lange.

[Tierra Prime]

Point out David and Jonathan

I didn't feel the time was right, but yes.

Its pretty damn hard to read the story of David and Jonathon and see it as anything BUT a story about gay love. I mean, when you say that another dude's love was greater than that of women, that's pretty awesomely gay.

Misunderstanding already vague passages (The original Hebrew apparently used words that have many meanings) is almost inherent to religions. For a long time, people thought that Egyptian paganism's 42 Laws of Maat condemned homosexuality, but upon further inspection, an Egyptian scholar who could read hieroglyphs found out the specific law was actually a prohibition on male paedophilia (It was assumed to say "I have not lain with men" but actually said "I have not lain with young boys").

[Talvezout]

Wait, you don't think that the stigma was there beforehand? Or do you simply believe that recognizing its existence gives it more legitimacy?

I think that it would be tremendously inappropriate to continue on a tangent not specifically about Caitlyn Jenner.

On that note: she looks like Jessica Lange.

Funny enough, Ms. Lange herself has commented on the resemblance.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Wait, you don't think that the stigma was there beforehand? Or do you simply believe that recognizing its existence gives it more legitimacy?

I think that it would be tremendously inappropriate to continue on a tangent not specifically about Caitlyn Jenner.

On that note: she looks like Jessica Lange.

You're not the first person to notice that.

[Geilinor]

I didn't feel the time was right, but yes.

Its pretty damn hard to read the story of David and Jonathon and see it as anything BUT a story about gay love. I mean, when you say that another dude's love was greater than that of women, that's pretty awesomely gay.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... athan.html

I'll admit that I disagree with Jonathan and David being lovers, but I did find the link pretty interesting.

We have to define "love". Either they were lovers or they "loved" in a familial sense.

[Counter Culture]

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

[Geilinor]

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

There is nothing wrong with people being able to feel good about themselves.

[Fartsniffage]

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

I hate to break it to you but there a plenty of places where it's completely legal for both individuals and the government to discriminate against trans people. Equality under the law is quite some way off....

[Counter Culture]

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

There is nothing wrong with people being able to feel good about themselves.

Except when it leads to stupid sjw stuff as we have seen in feminism like trying to ban the word bossy, and giving millions of dollars to such a movement led by "respectable" celebrities.

Trans people are people, they don't deserve special treatment or hype. Just equal treatment under the law. That they have. Bigots will always be bigots, and spending millions of dollars or putting celebrities to the cause wont change that.

[Counter Culture]

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

I hate to break it to you but there a plenty of places where it's completely legal for both individuals and the government to discriminate against trans people. Equality under the law is quite some way off....

Can you name a specific example in America?

[Des-Bal]

I hate to break it to you but there a plenty of places where it's completely legal for both individuals and the government to discriminate against trans people. Equality under the law is quite some way off....

Don't worry too much, I'm pretty sure he wrote that post in reference to feminism and the MRA movement (hence the "both") and didn't bother editing it for relevance.

[Counter Culture]

I hate to break it to you but there a plenty of places where it's completely legal for both individuals and the government to discriminate against trans people. Equality under the law is quite some way off....

Don't worry too much, I'm pretty sure he wrote that post in reference to feminism and the MRA movement (hence the "both") and didn't bother editing it for relevance.

True, but this is fairly relevant.

[Grenartia]

Words that describe Jesus:

Socialist
Jew
Wonderful

Christ confirmed for Illuminati.

Don't even start with the "Jesus is a socialist" crap.

Lets see, Jesus supported the separation of Church and State, helping the poor, free healthcare for the sick, feeding the hungry for free, etc. And I seem to recall at least one parable where a worker compensating for his boss screwing him over was depicted in a fairly positive light.

Yeah, that's pretty socialist.

A bunch of people debating an issue doesn't determine the truth. And the truth is that myself and my transgender siblings are not degenerates.

Nice bait.

Not baiting when I wasn't the one who said trans people were degenerates, nor was I the one who said it was debateable.

There's nothing in that quote that implies that. You're just drawing your own conclusion to fit your narrative.

Well, I mean, Jesus said that we should treat others how we want to be treated. That's the right thing to do.

All the more reason to affirm LGBT people and stop treating us as second class.

Yeah, we all knew he secretly charged for all those loaves and fishes, it was just left out by all the commie transcriptions in between!

Voluntarily giving does not make one a socialist. Forcefully taking from others and redistributing it does.

Nope. And before you start, the Soviet Union wasn't even close to being socialist.

Nothing more than a strawman: I think that if a person really feels "she" is a woman, then "she" should wish to have a vagina. Otherwise "she" doesn't really feels a woman. Pure logic. Otherwise even MALES with beard and muscles can say they're "women".

In practice, that's not something that happens often enough to be a real issue.

And, more often than not, tends to be fratboys and the like (including my father) blatantly doing it as a joke to mock transwomen.

What about Jesus and his Free Universal Healthcare? Healing the sick and crippled without charging a co-pay has to be socialist.

If someone has the resources and will to give everyone healthcare, and does it, that isn't socialism. If someone has the resources, and legislations are passed in which he is forced to use them for healthcare, would be socialism.

Congratulations, you have no clue what socialism is.

In practice, that's not something that happens often enough to be a real issue.

In practice, since males will suffer more and more more and more true equality will be approached, that's VERY LIKELY to happen more and more in the future. Do you wish to see males with beards and muscles, dressed as males, joining women's only spaces just only because they say "I feel I'm a woman"?

Does this guy look like he belongs in a woman's restroom? Protip: he was born with a vagina.

Does this lady look like she belongs in a men's restroom? Doesn't she seem like she's at a pretty high risk of being raped in that bathroom?

Actually, no, neither being trans nor being gay meet the requirements of a mental disorder, since they do not inherently negatively impact the person's quality of life.

How ignorant are you?

When I try to explain my argument, you take out the little pieces that suit your argument best and throw away everything that doesn't.

Stop cherrypicking.

Define cherrypicking in this context. Explain to me how the things I'm addressing is somehow misrepresenting you.

I don't know, I was pretty unhappy when women wanted to join men-only spaces just because they felt like they were equal.

That's sarcasm BTW.

Men-only spaces were designed to exclude women, women's only spaces are designed to protected women and to give us safe space, that's very different.
However, you're funny: I'm consuming half bottle of Amarula I bought at the duty free shop, with a snoring blonde female supremacist valkyrie on the background, and someone still continue to say I'm a female supremacist or something like that: they should deal with my lady, that would be very funny. Luckily (or sadly, I'm not sure) she isn't able to speak English.

If you really cared about the safety of women everywhere, then you'd have no problem with the woman pictured above using the womens room, instead of the men's room, where she was.

Lets see, only in Leviticus, which also condemns: the consumption of shellfish and bottom feeding fish (there goes nearly the entire Louisiana seafood industry), the consumption of pork, and of bacon, the consumption of meat and cheese (damn, there goes double bacon cheeseburgers) together, the agriculturally sound practice of crop rotation (welp, there goes the only thing that's kept the Dust Bowl from repeating over the last 8 decades), wearing clothes made of blended fabrics (damn, cotton-wool blends were comfortable, too), and a shitton of other stuff.

There's also a mistaken reference in Genesis, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but upon closer inspection, that's more about rape (unless you want to argue that the angels WANTED to have sex with the men of Sodom, but that would mean you'd have to also admit that God has no issue with gay people, and there's a place in heaven for them).

And Paul's words are up for debate. There's a significant case to be made that his words are being mistranslated on this subject, given that it appears the word commonly translated as "homosexuals" appears to have been entirely made up by Paul, which is odd, considering he had no need to invent a word that means "gay people", considering the word already existed in the Greek the NT was written in.

Also, treating us badly includes refusing to affirm us. I should point out I'm entirely against getting the government to force a church to accept us, but that should not be confused with not wanting non-affirming churches to see the light.

First off, it's important to remember that there are 3 different kinds of OT laws; Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. Civil laws were the don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc. These only existed to make the Israelites different from everyone else, and don't abide on everyone. Ceremonial laws were laws that pertained to sacrifices, which is unnecessary because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Moral laws are the don't murder, don't commit adultery, homosexuality, etc., and are God's moral standard and abide on everyone. As with Sodom and Gommorah, the reason for God's wrath was many things, including homosexuality. And as for Paul's words...there's no way that that's a mistranslation.

Use some fucking logic, whydontcha? Clearly, homosexuality is a civil law, since gay sex doesn't infringe on other people's rights without informed consent (unlike adultery and murder).

Again, no, Sodom wasn't about homosexuality. It was about greed, xenophobia, refusing to help the poor and needy (wow, its really beginning to sound like God's a socialist!), etc. (Ezekiel 16:49). No mention of gay sex. However, I guess attempted gang rape was kind of the icing on the cake. But comparing gang rape to consensual sex is pretty fucking stupid, so you still can't honestly claim Sodom was about gay sex.

Again, Arsenokoitai (the word most commonly translated as "homosexuals"), doesn't appear in ANY Greek writings prior to Paul. Which seems to be a pretty clear indication that he made it up. Which is rather pointless, given there was already a word in Greek for "gay person". I mean, if I want to talk about a red rubber ball, I'm not going to type "aeroialaread".

How are they cherrypicking? You only had two statements in that post that needed further debate (the "but whatever" in that vaccines cause autism quip suggests that wasn't asked for debate):The second has been answered on several occasions, and is therefore irrelevant. That leaves your first statement, which is what he addressed.

1: He's going back and picking out the long-outdated posts and putting them against me long after I've explained what they mean, choosing to ignore my actual argument in favor of the lead-up questions. If that isn't bigotry, I don't know what is.

2: Again, I've answered this before.

First, I'm not a "he". Neither am I a "she". I am a they. inb4 "not grammatically correct", singular they is a totally legitimate thing, and has legitimate contemporary and historical usage, to say nothing of the fact that "it" is dehumanizing. Second, I'm not "going back and picking out long-outdated posts". I'm reading through the thread from when I last was online. However, this thread is moving faster than I can respond, thus, I am perpetually several pages behind.

So, shut it with your persecution complex.

*Moral Laws.

Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11
It was not homosexuality that got Sodom destroyed, it was the wishing of the rape of God's Angels

That was part of it. Also included was sodomy, inhospitality, etc. It's not like everyone there was guilty of only one thing.

Only if by "sodomy" you mean attempted gang rape". Which is not at all the same thing as "consensual gay sex". Surely, you must realize this difference.

He despised their iniquities equally.

None of which was homosexuality, only rape.

Again, unless you want to argue the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom, but that kind of requires admitting the angels were gay, which requires admitting God has no problem with gay people, since the angels were on a literal mission from God, and God is omniscient. QED

None of which was homosexuality, only rape.

Jude 7 mentions that "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." It was a lot of different things.

Yeah, sexual immorality and perversion sounds like a pretty good description of gang rape. Not consensual gay sex, mind you, but rape, certainly.

What about Jesus and his Free Universal Healthcare? Healing the sick and crippled without charging a co-pay has to be socialist.

Not really. There are plenty of capitalists who advocate for that (social democrats, social liberals, etc.)

I've got news for you. Social Democrats are socialists. They advocate peaceful reform of the capitalist system into a socialist one.

Another reference to unconsented sex, in other words rape. Jude did not specifically mention homosexuality.

And please stop making the bible say what you want it to say.

The Bible mentions that angels look like men. Just look it up in Genesis, I guarantee it's there. If you are a man that is sexually attracted to men, that is homosexuality. Homosexuality was part of it.

Rape is about power, not sexual fulfillment.

Also, see above.

AGAIN, with the cherrypicking! Only this time, you're cherrypicking from an article, not from my posts.

The first paragraph:

DSM-IV notes that “… although this manual provides a classification of mental disorders, it must be admitted that no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of ‘mental disorder.’ The concept of mental disorder, like many other concepts in medicine and science, lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations. All medical conditions are defined on various levels of abstraction--for example, structural pathology (e.g., ulcerative colitis), symptom presentation (e.g., migraine), deviance from a physiological norm (e.g., hypertension), and etiology (e.g., pneumococcal pneumonia). Mental disorders have also been defined by a variety of concepts (e.g., distress, dyscontrol, disadvantage, disability, inflexibility, irrationality, syndromal pattern, etiology, and statistical deviation). Each is a useful indicator for a mental disorder, but none is equivalent to the concept, and different situations call for different definitions.”

Also, I can't spell "quote".

DSM-IV goes on, however, to note that, “Despite these caveats, the definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-III and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV.

So, what you're saying is, women are defined by vaginas. That's pretty misogynist.

Biologically speaking, women are defined by this. To insist that having one is a way of life on the other hand is mysocignistic.

No, biology and gender are separate things.

How is saying that a woman is more than whether or not she has a vagina "mysocignistic"[sic]?

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

There is nothing wrong with people being able to feel good about themselves.

Also, talking about being disenfranchised is literally the first step to proving you're disenfranchised, which is the first step to getting enfranchised.

Also, equality under the law hasn't been achieved.

There is nothing wrong with people being able to feel good about themselves.

Except when it leads to stupid sjw stuff as we have seen in feminism like trying to ban the word bossy, and giving millions of dollars to such a movement led by "respectable" celebrities.

Trans people are people, they don't deserve special treatment or hype. Just equal treatment under the law. That they have. Bigots will always be bigots, and spending millions of dollars or putting celebrities to the cause wont change that.

Try reading this, and then spewing that back at me again: http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html ... s_full.pdf

[Replevion]

I hate to break it to you but there a plenty of places where it's completely legal for both individuals and the government to discriminate against trans people. Equality under the law is quite some way off....

Can you name a specific example in America?

It is legal to discriminate against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodation in over 30 states and trans people cannot join the military.

http://transgenderlawcenter.org/equalitymap

[New Reutlingen]

(Not trying to offend, but this is what I believe, and it may very well offend. Sorry.)

My response to this and regarding transgender movement in general is this:

All these social movements are jokes. They're about making people feel good about themselves, and they're about a sense of entitlement and value all these different people think they deserve. Be an individual and take charge of your life instead of complaining about how disenfranchised you are. (not directed at OP, but directed at both, and pretty much most social movements)

No one deserves anything and no one is entitled to anything except for equality under the law. Which we have achieved.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but I don't really care. Like at all

Thank you, some one who gets it!

[Replevion]

-epicness snipped-

Gren you are awesome.

[Counter Culture]

Can you name a specific example in America?

It is legal to discriminate against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodation in over 30 states and trans people cannot join the military.

http://transgenderlawcenter.org/equalitymap

Thanks for the info, and I would recommend this quick fix

Make it illegal to discriminate against trans people, and allow trans people to join the military.

As opposed to political correctness at every turn.