Jenner Woman of the Year

tempo_n_groove said:

Prince Of Dorkness said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For the record...

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.

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

For the record...

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...

tempo_n_groove said:

When he can carry a baby then he will indeed be a woman.

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Prince Of Dorkness said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Prince Of Dorkness said:

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.

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Prince Of Dorkness said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

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.

oftenreading said:

PP193448 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

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.

Dogs don't have social media... There no dog book (Facebook) or barker (Twitter).

They do have pee mail, though.