Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Grenartia]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

One side of me says its unnatural, while the other side thinks it should be acceptable.

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

[Grenartia]

So found in nature means you are talking about homo sapiens?

Not necessarily, but the fact that transgenderism is caused by a difference in someone's brain means that it's logical for it to be present in other animals as well.

The fact that lesser species don't really have as developed intricate gender roles as humans means it may not be possible to identify it, however.

Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population.

[The Orson Empire]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

One side of me says its unnatural, while the other side thinks it should be acceptable.

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

Yes, I realize that now.

[Mondoncon]

And reacting to people on the fence about an issue with aggressive terms like "your opinion doesn't matter" only serves to continue the divide which could otherwise be bettered by tolerance and education.

Valid point. I get worked up sometimes.

It's fine to feel strongly about the issue, that's a good thing. Just try to apply it in the most productive way

[Llamalandia]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

One side of me says its unnatural, while the other side thinks it should be acceptable.

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

That of course assumes the naturalistic fallacy is really a fallacy though. It might be or it perhaps we are just supposed to live in nature making use only of are bodies and instincts.

[Llamalandia]

Not necessarily, but the fact that transgenderism is caused by a difference in someone's brain means that it's logical for it to be present in other animals as well.

The fact that lesser species don't really have as developed intricate gender roles as humans means it may not be possible to identify it, however.

Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population.

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population.

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

It's a theory with firm logical backing. The source is the logical thought process.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

That of course assumes the naturalistic fallacy is really a fallacy though. It might be or it perhaps we are just supposed to live in nature making use only of are bodies and instincts.

If it wasn't a fallacy it wouldn't be known as a fallacy to everyone with any experience in philosophical ethics.

[Llamalandia]

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

It's a theory with firm logical backing. The source is the logical thought process.

Ok then a source on the theory at least please. I mean hell Descartes claimed to have proved the existence of God via logical thought process alone, (I'm paraphrasing of course) doesn't mean he actually did.

[Llamalandia]

That of course assumes the naturalistic fallacy is really a fallacy though. It might be or it perhaps we are just supposed to live in nature making use only of are bodies and instincts.

If it wasn't a fallacy it wouldn't be known as a fallacy to everyone with any experience in philosophical ethics.

Don't you mean logic? Pretty sure that is the domain of philosophy under which fallacious reasoning falls.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's a theory with firm logical backing. The source is the logical thought process.

Ok then a source on the theory at least please. I mean hell Descartes claimed to have proved the existence of God via logical thought process alone, (I'm paraphrasing of course) doesn't mean he actually did.

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

If it wasn't a fallacy it wouldn't be known as a fallacy to everyone with any experience in philosophical ethics.

Don't you mean logic? Pretty sure that is the domain of philosophy under which fallacious reasoning falls.

No.

[Grenartia]

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

That of course assumes the naturalistic fallacy is really a fallacy though. It might be or it perhaps we are just supposed to live in nature making use only of are bodies and instincts.

Maybe I'd have less trouble believing you if you abandoned all of the following: Nationstates, Facebook (if you're there), the entirety of the internet in general, computers, electricity, houses, any shelter whatsoever, clothing, modern food (i.e., you've got to catch and kill what you need to eat), and language.

[Grave_n_idle]

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

That of course assumes the naturalistic fallacy is really a fallacy though. It might be or it perhaps we are just supposed to live in nature making use only of are bodies and instincts.

We are 'supposed to', in what way?

What metric are we measuring it against? It seems to me that our gregarious and inquisitive nature has made us what we are - if we are 'supposed to' be anything... isn't this it?

[Seangoli]

Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population.

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

*high fives*

[Replevion]

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

[Benian Republic]

Not all, Suddam husseins iraq had greatly improved the lives of Iraqis and most people quite liked him. Mussolini was quite loved by a great number of Italians and let's not forget Peron who showed the Argentinians they could be proud even as an empire stood on their grounds.

Cults of personality and mild improvement from hell are not that impressive or good.

Do you see the state it's in now... It was a hell lot better under him.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Cults of personality and mild improvement from hell are not that impressive or good.

Do you see the state it's in now... It was a hell lot better under him.

Doesn't make it good. Democracies were far better off during the same time period.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Drake Bell, from the beloved tv show, Drake and Josh turns out to be transphobic cis scum!!!

So, we all know that Caitlyn Jenner, a beautiful woman and former athlete, has been a woman for some time now. Drake Bell, a rabid, bitter transphobe tweeted "I'm still calling you Bruce." My response to that is how fucking dare he!

Caitlyn is a beautiful woman, one who was never truly a man, a woman who is free. Free from herself, free from societal bigotry, and free of a penis, apparently. How dare Drake suggest that someone who wanted to be a woman should still be called Bruce???!!!

I, as an unrepentant fighter for equality, am putting my foot down. Clearly, we must boycott Drake and Josh, boycott any perfume ads starring Drake, and perhaps send him to court for his vicious hate speech. The media seems to largely agree with me.

Mod Edit: Merged threads and edited title

Are you joking, or were you hacked?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You are aware that "its unnatural" is literally the naturalistic fallacy, right?

That of course assumes the naturalistic fallacy is really a fallacy though. It might be or it perhaps we are just supposed to live in nature making use only of are bodies and instincts.

If you're using a computer to type that out, then you don't get to make that argument without being a total hypocrite.

[The Northern Kingdoms]

I respect Drake Bell's opinion, and I also support Bruce Jenner being Caitlyn Jenner.

[Grenartia]

Ok then a source on the theory at least please. I mean hell Descartes claimed to have proved the existence of God via logical thought process alone, (I'm paraphrasing of course) doesn't mean he actually did.

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

Well, Llama does have an extensive history of failing to grasp seemingly simple statements and claims, even with evidence, and even when confronted with past quotes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

This was a beautiful put down.

My hat down to you, sir.

[Grenartia]

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

Thank you. That was actually the exact case I was thinking of when I typed what I said.

I should note, however, that I'm not a "he" (or a "she"), but rather a "they".

Also, I'd like to dive deeper into what you were saying about humans never having been natural. In your professional opinion, where is the dividing line, in our evolutionary history, where we cease to be 'natural'?