For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
I've known many women who couldn't carry a baby. Having babies is not the defining quality of women.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
is anyone here truly 'upset' over Brucw winning the woman of the year?
I've chimed in that I think she's a poor choice- which I still believe. But ultimately... I don't give a shit.
F**k... a thread pops up that's slightly engaging... people contribute their sentiments that are not entirely unreasonable... and get branded for doing so.
I'm thankful for the contrary position in discussion just as I'm thankful for the quality opponent in sport: they both have exceptional value for those willing to see that.
This is not an agreement forum. Outside of the excessive... opposing views should be encouraged and to some degree... respected.
is anyone here truly 'upset' over Brucw winning the woman of the year?
I've chimed in that I think she's a poor choice- which I still believe. But ultimately... I don't give a shit.
F**k... a thread pops up that's slightly engaging... people contribute their sentiments that are not entirely unreasonable... and get branded for doing so.
I'm thankful for the contrary position in discussion just as I'm thankful for the quality opponent in sport: they both have exceptional value for those willing to see that.
This is not an agreement forum. Outside of the excessive... opposing views should be encouraged and to some degree... respected.
Based on your sentence structure, I think there's some drink involved. So, regardless of how you feel about gender identification, let's hear what you've been drinking...
PoD brings up several good points...(good to see you around again BTW )
If one wants to be accepted as being 'true to themselves', then put your money where your mouth is. Yes, Jenner is a woman, but I doubt she would be standing next to me fighting for women's rights...a'la family planning services in Texas.
There are many people who are fighting for their identity, where is their award? Honestly, Glamour is a hypocritical fashion mag. I have subscribed to it in my younger years, in the front it is all about 'be proud of who you are' 'unique people rock!' and then on the very last page, they have a fashion shaming article...photos of women in public flaunting their individual style and being mocked, 'don't be a fashion disaster!'. It's like the popular girl in school making fun of the loner outcast kids, but then turning around and being besties with the girl who is developmentally disabled.
The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.
is anyone here truly 'upset' over Brucw winning the woman of the year?
I've chimed in that I think she's a poor choice- which I still believe. But ultimately... I don't give a shit.
F**k... a thread pops up that's slightly engaging... people contribute their sentiments that are not entirely unreasonable... and get branded for doing so.
I'm thankful for the contrary position in discussion just as I'm thankful for the quality opponent in sport: they both have exceptional value for those willing to see that.
This is not an agreement forum. Outside of the excessive... opposing views should be encouraged and to some degree... respected.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
This idea is clumsy and not well-thought out. Fertility has nothing to do with gender.
is anyone here truly 'upset' over Brucw winning the woman of the year?
I've chimed in that I think she's a poor choice- which I still believe. But ultimately... I don't give a shit.
F**k... a thread pops up that's slightly engaging... people contribute their sentiments that are not entirely unreasonable... and get branded for doing so.
I'm thankful for the contrary position in discussion just as I'm thankful for the quality opponent in sport: they both have exceptional value for those willing to see that.
This is not an agreement forum. Outside of the excessive... opposing views should be encouraged and to some degree... respected.
Based on your sentence structure, I think there's some drink involved. So, regardless of how you feel about gender identification, let's hear what you've been drinking...
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
so to you, a woman is just a baby maker?
Wow. That's... Pretty horrifying.
I'm kind of fascinated by reactions of some straight men who seem VERY threatened by this. Like a star athlete coming out as Trans somehow deminishes their own masculinity somehow.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
so to you, a woman is just a baby maker?
Wow. That's... Pretty horrifying.
I'm kind of fascinated by reactions of some straight men who seem VERY threatened by this. Like a star athlete coming out as Trans somehow deminishes their own masculinity somehow.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
I've known many women who couldn't carry a baby. Having babies is not the defining quality of women.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
This idea is clumsy and not well-thought out. Fertility has nothing to do with gender.
All 3 of you have taken my comment wayyyyyyy out of context… All 3 of you put a spin on what I said to make your own points and make me sound like a jerk. Thanks.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
so to you, a woman is just a baby maker?
Wow. That's... Pretty horrifying.
I'm kind of fascinated by reactions of some straight men who seem VERY threatened by this. Like a star athlete coming out as Trans somehow deminishes their own masculinity somehow.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
I've known many women who couldn't carry a baby. Having babies is not the defining quality of women.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
This idea is clumsy and not well-thought out. Fertility has nothing to do with gender.
All 3 of you have taken my comment wayyyyyyy out of context… All 3 of you put a spin on what I said to make your own points and make me sound like a jerk. Thanks.
So I'll ask the question to all 3 of you.
What makes Caitlyn Jenner a woman?
You have to find yourself clarification on what gender means, vs sex in the biological sense. Often people who struggle with understanding what transgendered is are the ones who have a rigid view, where if you have a penis you're a man, and if you have a vagina, you're a woman. Rather than seeking to learn more and expand their understanding of something that's been with people since people have been people, they dig in by being more rigid in their definitions, and come up with half baked theories about the mental health of the individual. I see older people struggle with the trans issue way more than younger people. If you spend much time with someone who's transgendered, it makes more sense, and you relate to the person as the gender they identify as, not their biology.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
so to you, a woman is just a baby maker?
Wow. That's... Pretty horrifying.
I'm kind of fascinated by reactions of some straight men who seem VERY threatened by this. Like a star athlete coming out as Trans somehow deminishes their own masculinity somehow.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
I've known many women who couldn't carry a baby. Having babies is not the defining quality of women.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
This idea is clumsy and not well-thought out. Fertility has nothing to do with gender.
All 3 of you have taken my comment wayyyyyyy out of context… All 3 of you put a spin on what I said to make your own points and make me sound like a jerk. Thanks.
So I'll ask the question to all 3 of you.
What makes Caitlyn Jenner a woman?
You have to find yourself clarification on what gender means, vs sex in the biological sense. Often people who struggle with understanding what transgendered is are the ones who have a rigid view, where if you have a penis you're a man, and if you have a vagina, you're a woman. Rather than seeking to learn more and expand their understanding of something that's been with people since people have been people, they dig in by being more rigid in their definitions, and come up with half baked theories about the mental health of the individual. I see older people struggle with the trans issue way more than younger people. If you spend much time with someone who's transgendered, it makes more sense, and you relate to the person as the gender they identify as, not their biology.
I just did a whole bunch of reading on this and the progressive thought is "if the person considers themselves a woman then embrace that".
So even though I don't see Jenner as a woman in the true sense of the word I need to consider he/she as a woman.
OK.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt so I'm out.
no, that's really not a "good read." That's another absurd article that tries to compare gender and race.. saying that since a white guy can't turn black, a man can't turn into a woman. And... nobody is saying that a man can "turn into a woman."
A trans person has always had the internal identity of the opposite sex from the one they were born. It's a very well documented, well studied but poorly understood mental condition. If Caitlyn Jenner truly feels that she's a woman... that THAT is her real identity and the body she's in is the wrong one... I don't see how it harms anyone to allow her to be who she feels that she is.
If I'm expected to respect a Christian's belief in what I personally think are juvenile fairy tales... then YOU should be expected to respect her belief that she is - at the very heart of her being - female.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
so to you, a woman is just a baby maker?
Wow. That's... Pretty horrifying.
I'm kind of fascinated by reactions of some straight men who seem VERY threatened by this. Like a star athlete coming out as Trans somehow deminishes their own masculinity somehow.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
I've known many women who couldn't carry a baby. Having babies is not the defining quality of women.
For the record.... Caitlyn Jenner is still a complete asshole.
She's still a selfish, ultra-rich, clueless Republican fuck head.
She's still a desperate attention whore. She's still a sociopathic reality show "star."
She's still a pampered rich jerk who hasn't had to work for much of anything since the 70s.
But she IS a woman.
Is she woman of the year? No. She's not. She hasn't championed a single women's issue, she doesn't support women's rights and in fact votes against women's rights since, not having to worry about being raped and forced to carry her rapist's child... will vote for a bigger tax cut for herself and will blame poor people for being poor. The gay community hates her. She's a useless, selfish Republican and doesn't deserve "Woman Of The Year."
But... she IS a woman.
When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.
This idea is clumsy and not well-thought out. Fertility has nothing to do with gender.
All 3 of you have taken my comment wayyyyyyy out of context… All 3 of you put a spin on what I said to make your own points and make me sound like a jerk. Thanks.
So I'll ask the question to all 3 of you.
What makes Caitlyn Jenner a woman?
You have to find yourself clarification on what gender means, vs sex in the biological sense. Often people who struggle with understanding what transgendered is are the ones who have a rigid view, where if you have a penis you're a man, and if you have a vagina, you're a woman. Rather than seeking to learn more and expand their understanding of something that's been with people since people have been people, they dig in by being more rigid in their definitions, and come up with half baked theories about the mental health of the individual. I see older people struggle with the trans issue way more than younger people. If you spend much time with someone who's transgendered, it makes more sense, and you relate to the person as the gender they identify as, not their biology.
I just did a whole bunch of reading on this and the progressive thought is "if the person considers themselves a woman then embrace that".
So even though I don't see Jenner as a woman in the true sense of the word I need to consider he/she as a woman.
OK.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt so I'm out.
At a minimum out of basic respect, yes, you refer to Caitlin Jenner as a woman. Out of a greater sense to want to develop yourself into a better human being, you broaden your current definition of what makes someone a woman or a man, and that gender identity is on a continuum.
Really... if you think about it... if we didn't concern ourselves with characteristics that do nothing other than to distinguish, categorize and subdivide the human population... this would be a non-issue.
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
Really... if you think about it... if we didn't concern ourselves with characteristics that do nothing other than to distinguish, categorize and subdivide the human population... this would be a non-issue.
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
Dogs don't have social media... There's no dog book (Facebook) or barker (Twitter).
Really... if you think about it... if we didn't concern ourselves with characteristics that do nothing other than to distinguish, categorize and subdivide the human population... this would be a non-issue.
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
Dogs don't have social media... There no dog book (Facebook) or barker (Twitter).
They do have pee mail, though.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Really... if you think about it... if we didn't concern ourselves with characteristics that do nothing other than to distinguish, categorize and subdivide the human population... this would be a non-issue.
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
Dogs don't have social media... There no dog book (Facebook) or barker (Twitter).
Really... if you think about it... if we didn't concern ourselves with characteristics that do nothing other than to distinguish, categorize and subdivide the human population... this would be a non-issue.
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
Dogs don't have social media... There no dog book (Facebook) or barker (Twitter).
They do have pee mail, though.
I left you some pee on your shrub. Check it out when you get the chance.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Really... if you think about it... if we didn't concern ourselves with characteristics that do nothing other than to distinguish, categorize and subdivide the human population... this would be a non-issue.
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
Dogs don't have social media... There no dog book (Facebook) or barker (Twitter).
They do have pee mail, though.
I blame the Blue Haze for it taking me a minute (or three) to get this
As an aside, somewhat related, how some people shit over Imagine? Like the recent oddly-angry thread that got shut down. The perception of daisies in rifles, love-beads (any kind of beads, actually), naivete...it's really not about that from this little corner of the my world. It really is about living life in peace. You do it, I'll do it. Surely we can extend such humanness toward each other?
I've seen many quote the golden rule, and then piss on it.
bruce is a male not a female. he dresses as a woman. he may be feminine. he may take meds that enhance his breasts. dude's a guy w/ a samurai sword in his pocket. his innerness may feel womanly & that's fine & stuff. bruce isn't a full on woman at all & never will be. i am sorry but that's the way it is.
bruce is a male not a female. he dresses as a woman. he may be feminine. he may take meds that enhance his breasts. dude's a guy w/ a samurai sword in his pocket. his innerness may feel womanly & that's fine & stuff. bruce isn't a full on woman at all & never will be. i am sorry but that's the way it is.
Brace yourself for the volley of eggs and rotten tomatoes.
In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:
In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:
Sorry. I pasted the wrong thing....something I was looking at earlier.
This is more clear.
The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2] In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender,[1] or intersex.
The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.[3][4] Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not.
Among scientists, the term sex differences (as compared to gender differences) is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.[5][6]
Comments
is anyone here truly 'upset' over Brucw winning the woman of the year?
I've chimed in that I think she's a poor choice- which I still believe. But ultimately... I don't give a shit.
F**k... a thread pops up that's slightly engaging... people contribute their sentiments that are not entirely unreasonable... and get branded for doing so.
I'm thankful for the contrary position in discussion just as I'm thankful for the quality opponent in sport: they both have exceptional value for those willing to see that.
This is not an agreement forum. Outside of the excessive... opposing views should be encouraged and to some degree... respected.
If one wants to be accepted as being 'true to themselves', then put your money where your mouth is. Yes, Jenner is a woman, but I doubt she would be standing next to me fighting for women's rights...a'la family planning services in Texas.
There are many people who are fighting for their identity, where is their award? Honestly, Glamour is a hypocritical fashion mag. I have subscribed to it in my younger years, in the front it is all about 'be proud of who you are' 'unique people rock!' and then on the very last page, they have a fashion shaming article...photos of women in public flaunting their individual style and being mocked, 'don't be a fashion disaster!'. It's like the popular girl in school making fun of the loner outcast kids, but then turning around and being besties with the girl who is developmentally disabled.
- Christopher McCandless
Busted.
Craft beer last night. More than the usual!
I'm really glad to see PoD hasn't left as well: a very intelligent and passionate contributor.
Wow. That's... Pretty horrifying.
I'm kind of fascinated by reactions of some straight men who seem VERY threatened by this. Like a star athlete coming out as Trans somehow deminishes their own masculinity somehow.
So I'll ask the question to all 3 of you.
What makes Caitlyn Jenner a woman?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0
So even though I don't see Jenner as a woman in the true sense of the word I need to consider he/she as a woman.
OK.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt so I'm out.
A trans person has always had the internal identity of the opposite sex from the one they were born. It's a very well documented, well studied but poorly understood mental condition. If Caitlyn Jenner truly feels that she's a woman... that THAT is her real identity and the body she's in is the wrong one... I don't see how it harms anyone to allow her to be who she feels that she is.
If I'm expected to respect a Christian's belief in what I personally think are juvenile fairy tales... then YOU should be expected to respect her belief that she is - at the very heart of her being - female.
Man? Woman? Christian? Muslim? Atheist? American? Chinese? Tall? Fat?
I used to laugh at the dogs that used to gather into packs at our cabin at the lake. Multiple visitors would come and the pack would grow larger with each new mutt. There'd be Pomeranians, German Shepherds, Bulldogs, Poodles, and all sorts of others. A pecking order would inevitably establish itself, but I know that now to be based on survival instincts (follow the lead dog when facing a threat).
But those dogs were all dogs. They really didn't seem to differentiate outside of establishing the alpha. They had an awesome time together despite many of them not having any experience with the others.
I understand our innate instincts geared towards collecting assets and resources while guarding them from others (war... reluctance to accept Syrian refugees)... but I don't get our need to differentiate on a social basis.
As an aside, somewhat related, how some people shit over Imagine? Like the recent oddly-angry thread that got shut down. The perception of daisies in rifles, love-beads (any kind of beads, actually), naivete...it's really not about that from this little corner of
themy world. It really is about living life in peace. You do it, I'll do it. Surely we can extend such humanness toward each other?I've seen many quote the golden rule, and then piss on it.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
www.headstonesband.com
Here, I will give you a hint.
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
thank you for your help in schooling me some
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
bracing
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:
This is more clear.
The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2] In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender,[1] or intersex.
The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.[3][4] Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not.
Among scientists, the term sex differences (as compared to gender differences) is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction