Monday, June 01, 2015

From Olympian to drag queen

Vanity Fair has a cover fearing the debut of "Caitlyn Jenner."
Full size image



In related news, how about Eddie Murphy:



30 comments:

  1. Caitlyn Jenner is trans, not a drag queen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A distinction without a difference.

      Delete
    2. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      Delete
    3. Both are in rebellion against God's design

      Delete
    4. Doug, even a majority of Christians disagree with your theology on that nowadays. In short, society doesn't care.

      (Here's the part where you take a theological disagreement and use it to claim that those who disagree with you aren't *really* Christians.)

      Delete
    5. Bruce Jenner isn't *really* a woman. He's got too many "y" chromosomes.

      Delete
    6. John, imagine you visit the doctor one day. He runs some tests, and you find out you have XX male syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome). Would you start calling yourself a woman? Would you go out and buy some dresses?

      No, of course you wouldn't. Think about why that is.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps one of our resident physicians can put "xx male syndrome" into perspective; but Jenner is no aberration; he still has the standard-issue set of male "xy" chromosomes. Robert Gagnon has a FB post describing what Jenner has done to himself:

      “sex reassignment surgery” (SRS)—a benign name for what others might designate intentional mutilation or butchering—is major, painful, and expensive surgery whose results are incomplete at best. One has to go far in an effort to overturn God’s design and even then it is never complete. Typically SRS involves the surgical removal of perfectly healthy internal genitals (testes or ovaries/uterus) and radical alteration of perfectly healthy external genitalia. For male-to-female (MF) transsexuals this involves “vaginoplasty”: gutting the insides of the penis, creating a “vaginal” cavity, and constructing a “clitoris” from the head of the penis.... For MF transsexuals “transformation” also entails painful electrolysis of facial hair and sometimes also electrolysis of body hair, facial plastic surgery, voice surgery, breast implants, and silicone injections in the hips and buttocks.
      The superficial character of these attempts at physical reassignment is obvious from the fact that the chromosomal inheritance doesn’t change. Functioning internal genitalia consistent with the new sex cannot be created. The “reassigned” body does not respond by producing its own other-sex hormones (whether testosterone or estrogen). Hormone treatment, through patch, pill, or injection, is lifelong. Fertility is destroyed. For MF transsexuals the new “vagina” must be regularly dilated through the use of dildo-like plastic rods. And even after very expensive and complete procedures most transsexuals still don’t quite look, sound, and act like members of the sex to which they were allegedly reassigned.

      Delete
    8. John: Please, do me a favor. Share that post by Gagnon everywhere you can. Loudly proclaim that you share his thinking on the matter. Tell *everyone*.

      Why? Because such ranting and raving is very effective at promoting equality for trans people. It's exactly why you're losing in the court of public opinion. And no, I'm not joking. All that referring to trans people as 'sick' and 'mutilated' and putting scare quotes around everything just shows how hateful you all really are.

      Delete
    9. John Doe,
      Do yourself a favor and repent. The path to Christ is narrow. I plead with you before you find yourself on the side of the goats for eternity.

      Delete
    10. John Doe -- how do you take a clinical description like Gagnon's, and come away with "ranting and raving"? What part of that is "rant" and what part of it is "raving"?

      What about "removing healthy genitals"? The description is certainly worse, in your opinion, than the actual surgery, is that right?

      Delete
    11. John Doe,

      Is truth subject to a majority vote? You claim that John's "ranting and raving" only furthers "equality" for the transgendered. I would submit that if a "majority", as you claim, "support" transgenderism, then whether John "rants and raves" or not is a moot point.

      Delete
    12. Similarly to explicit depictions of gay sex (not abstract "when two people love each other" fluff), clinical descriptions of sex reassignment surgery elicit the cries of "you're haters" or "you rant and rave" from the secularists. It's like talking about abortion in the abstract and then showing pictures of a mutilated baby.

      Delete
  2. I wonder why there's such a deafening silence about, a lack of public support for, and zero magazine covers celebrating species dysphoria and otherkin.

    It smacks of hate and bigotry to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trent: no thanks. But even if I were to convert to Christianity, that wouldn't change my views on this. You'd further need to convince me of a specific theology.

    John: Perhaps you should read the entirety of the post you linked to:
    "sick national conspiracy"
    "mentally confused"
    "surgically mutilated"
    "twisted leftwing elite"
    "neurosis"
    "intentional mutilation or butchering"

    Yes, his post contains some clinical description. But it's not clinical description in itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you're saying we're losing because we accurately describe what is going on instead of hiding behind vague euphemisms?

      Delete
    2. If you think the above phrases are accurate descriptions and not fearmongering rhetoric, I don't know what to tell you.

      Delete
    3. John Doe,

      In part it seems that you are objecting to the language used to describe the attempt to change to another gender. It's true that Gagnon's opinion piece is not strictly "clinical" in nature, but so what? Are only clinicians able to weigh in on this subject? We are talking about a subject put forth in Vanity Fair, after all. It isn't like this is an article in the American Gynecological Society Quarterly; it's a pop piece designed for attention in the public square by the public.

      Delete
  4. @John Doe

    "In short, society doesn't care."

    Phew! Good thing society isn't the standard for what's moral or ethical.

    "It's exactly why you're losing in the court of public opinion. And no, I'm not joking."

    Why is John Doe so beholden to "public opinion"? Should "the court of public opinion" arbitrate morality or immorality? Should "the court of public opinion" arbitrate what constitutes medical or scientific facts and evidence?

    If everyone jumped off of a cliff, would John Doe do the same?

    Sheer quantity or majority numbers shouldn't dictate morality and ethics or facts and evidence.

    Votes may dictate what's legal, but what's legal is not necessarily what's moral.

    "imagine you visit the doctor one day. He runs some tests, and you find out you have XX male syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome). Would you start calling yourself a woman? Would you go out and buy some dresses? No, of course you wouldn't. Think about why that is."

    What, exactly, is the argument here? Why does John Doe simply say "think about it" without spelling out his explicit point? Why leave people guessing as to what's implied? Why make others do all the work in attempting to infer the argument? At best, John Doe is taking intellectual shortcuts.

    If John Doe has an argument for why one should regard Jenner analogously to someone with XX male syndrome, then he should make the argument.

    If John Doe has an argument for why one should regard transgenders in general to someone with XX male syndrome, then he should make the argument.

    If John Doe has an argument for why one should make wider public policy favorable to LGBTQ rights or similar based on rare genetic anomalies, then he should make the argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Newton, the stuff about chromosomes was a response to John Bugay, who insinuated that whether a person is a man is entirely dependent upon whether that person has a Y chromosome. I presented a hypothetical situation wherein he himself would (almost certainly) still consider himself a man despite lacking a Y chromosome, thus defeating his own claim.

      Anyway, maybe you don't care about popular opinion. That's fine, if all you want to do is circle the wagons and make your social/theological conservatism even more insular than it already is. But you're not going to be able to effect any real-world policy changes like that. So, again, keep up the good work.

      Delete
    2. "Newton, the stuff about chromosomes was a response to John Bugay, who insinuated that whether a person is a man is entirely dependent upon whether that person has a Y chromosome."

      No, Bugay was referring to Jenner in particular. Not other persons. Bugay said: "Bruce Jenner isn't *really* a woman. He's got too many 'y' chromosomes."

      You may not agree with Bugay, but you should at least correctly represent what he said before you criticize it.

      "I presented a hypothetical situation wherein he himself would (almost certainly) still consider himself a man despite lacking a Y chromosome, thus defeating his own claim."

      It doesn't defeat his claim against Jenner. Not unless you think Jenner's condition is analogous to someone with XX male syndrome, which as I noted above you didn't even bother to argue.

      "Anyway, maybe you don't care about popular opinion. That's fine, if all you want to do is circle the wagons and make your social/theological conservatism even more insular than it already is. But you're not going to be able to effect any real-world policy changes like that. So, again, keep up the good work."

      Really cool, bro, how you impute to others a position never taken! ;) I never said I "don't care about popular opinion." I never said I'm uninterested in attempting "to effect real-world policy changes." I was quite clear and explicit in what I said and what I meant.

      Of course, what you say here reflects on you more than it does others. It reflects your own bigotry and prejudice against those who disagree with you on this topic.

      Delete
  5. Newton said: "No, Bugay was referring to Jenner in particular. Not other persons. Bugay said: "Bruce Jenner isn't *really* a woman. He's got too many 'y' chromosomes."

    You may not agree with Bugay, but you should at least correctly represent what he said before you criticize it."

    Do you honestly expect me to believe that Bugay meant something like this? "Whether Jenner is a man depends on whether Jenner has a Y chromosome, but this doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else." Please. It's obvious that he meant that as universally applicable.

    "Of course, what you say here reflects on you more than it does others. It reflects your own bigotry and prejudice against those who disagree with you on this topic."

    Rofl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're argument is a classic fallacious denying the antecedent. Bugay was essentially saying "if you have a Y chromosome, then you are a man." That is, if you take his statement as a categorical explication of his philosophy, which would be putting too much weight on an off hand blog comment. XX male syndrome does not defeat that proposition, in any case, it merely makes the lack of a Y chromosome not a prerequisite for being a man. Note, however, that in the case of XX male syndrome, it is still genetics that determines maleness or femaleness, not some feelings about what one really is on the inside.

      Delete
    2. Nate895 said it well! To piggyback off of nate895's fine comment, what likely lies behind all this is John Doe is attempting to redefine what it means to be a man (and a woman). He's attempting to falsely dichotomize sex vs. gender. To make secular socio-cultural interpretations of masculinity and femininity adjudicating factors over medical scientific facts. Of course, not that John Doe has bothered to argue for any of this, which is what I was attempting to get him to do but (alas!) to no avail. But that's what his agenda is, one suspects.

      Delete
    3. There were some questions up above about my intentions in this comment thread.

      John Doe was fussing about whether a "trans" was really a "drag queen". Then he made a prediction: Here's the part where you take a theological disagreement and use it to claim that those who disagree with you aren't *really* Christians.

      So I took the opportunity to use John Doe's "not *really*" distinction on Jenner. After all, I think we should care about what's really going on in these discussions.

      I said: Bruce Jenner isn't *really* a woman."

      Then I qualified my distinction: "He's got too many "y" chromosomes"".

      That seems to me to be a safe medical distinction to make.


      ***

      Newton said: "No, Bugay was referring to Jenner in particular. Not other persons. Bugay said: "Bruce Jenner isn't *really* a woman. He's got too many 'y' chromosomes."

      You may not agree with Bugay, but you should at least correctly represent what he said before you criticize it."



      Then John Doe said: Do you honestly expect me to believe that Bugay meant something like this?


      Present Day John Bugay: Well, yes, I did want to refer specifically to Bruce Jenner, with normal male chromosomes, who specifically (as I mentioned in a later comment) had healthy genitals removed.

      What is really going on? In this specific case, we see the removal of healthy male genitals, some surgical "re-construction", projections of life-long treatments with female hormones. Does this really turn Bruce Jenner into a woman?


      John Doe continued: "Whether Jenner is a man depends on whether Jenner has a Y chromosome, but this doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else." Please. It's obvious that he meant that as universally applicable.

      For men who go through this sort of "surgery", under these conditions, I think that the same question can be asked.

      What is wrong with asking this question? What about it is "bigotry" or "prejudice"?

      What's really going on here?

      Delete
  6. JD said "Doug, even a majority of Christians disagree with your theology on that nowadays."

    You provide no statistical evidence of this assertion, so there is no particular reason to believe this.

    Even if it were true, it would be because of the very real statistical reality of nominal Christians - those who are biblically illiterate, uncatechized, reject the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, aren't both regular attenders and members of a church (or are members of a false church), and lack any semblance of a Christian worldview. But why should the opinions of nominal Christians, who are not worthy of the name Christian nor meaningfully defined by the name Christian, bear much weight?

    "In short, society doesn't care. "

    A naked (but rather narrow) ad populum. But that's myopic for those living in western secularist society. Perhaps we should consult the opinion of eastern, middle eastern, and African Muslims, who are outbreeding the too-selfish-to-breed secular societies of the West (if we want to count noses). After all, their opinions will likely constitute a far more existential concern in the near future- thanks to limp-wristed, Marxist leftists and secularists who refuse to put the brakes on their immigration to the West.

    "John, imagine you visit the doctor one day. He runs some tests, and you find out you have XX male syndrome"

    This is a common lazy tactic of throwing out a fact, and implicitly we are supposed to accept it as analogous to the situation at hand (the transexual disorder whereby a man with XY chromosomes self-identifies as a woman and attempts to artificially alter his anatomy and physiology to more closely resemble a woman). But there is no supporting argument to actually establish the analogy. Prima facie there is no analogy, one is a genetic disorder that "results in the X chromosome containing the normally-male SRY gene. When this X combines with a normal X..." And "XX males have two X chromosomes, with one of them containing genetic material from the Y chromosome, making them phenotypically male." The other is a mental and spiritual disorder where the subject psychologically rejects their gender identity that is established by "normal" genetics, anatomical, and phenotopic phenomena.

    The implicit (and unargued) premise behind this is that such exceptional and unusual cases somehow establish that gender is therefore determined by psychological self-identity as a rule, and therefore genetics and anatomy are not constitutive but quite dispensable to gender identity. Indeed, it is the greatest of PC sins to suggest otherwise - "I am whatever I say I am." Very postmodern indeed. "My feeeeeeeeeeeelings are paramount and unquestionable." But postmodernism is very silly, isn't it? Not fit for grown-ups.

    There is nothing, in principle, new about such extreme cases. Before the advent of genetics, the existence of hermaphrodites was always a known reality. This creates an ethical gray area to be sure, at least on account of limited scientific understanding, but hardly motivated anyone to chuck the objective biological basis of gender identity (and rightly so) in favor of subjective self-identification.

    As many have pointed out, it is quite trivial to cite many different examples of delusional and mentally-ill people who self-identify contrary to or at least have dysphorias against what they in fact are (such as xenomelia). The transexual advocates have not bothered to argue and establish what the principled difference is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JD also said "If you think the above phrases are accurate descriptions and not fearmongering rhetoric, I don't know what to tell you. "

    Emotionally-charged, perhaps, but language that employs negative connotations hardly constitutes fearmongering on its own. The problem is that in your godless, secular world there is no place for righteous disgust, and in the minds of the shameless there is no tolerance for shame. I see no reason why we should be held to that standard, which is no standard at all. If God exists and has embedded his law into nature, it is only fitting and right that we be repulsed-even viscerally so-by the perversion and rejection of God's good order and creation. And therefore we can call a spade a spade.

    Newton said "He's attempting to falsely dichotomize sex vs. gender."

    Ah, yes, the modern feminists have preferred this new category of "gender" to replace "sex." Gender is the postmodern wax nose they fashion for their purposes, and they cut the cord between this category and physical sex. Why should we lend credence to this novel ethical posture that is 3 seconds old in relation to the history of humanity?

    ReplyDelete
  8. John Doe has a history of making false claims and not making much of an effort to argue for what he's said. Here's a thread in which he identified himself as polyamorous. Notice how many counterarguments he ignored. And notice that his polyamory, much like his rejection of Christianity, is opposed by most Americans. (See here and here, for example.) Yet, he keeps appealing to popularity in opinion polls in this thread, presumably American opinion polls. (Why not worldwide polling? Because he doesn't like the results?) I guess somebody as irrational and unethical as John Doe is willing to keep changing his standards from one discussion to another.

    Notice, too, that John Doe criticizes NAMBLA and their support for pedophilia in the other thread linked above. What a bigot. Since pedophilia apparently is more accepted now than it was in the past, shouldn't we conclude that there's a social trend toward accepting pedophilia and get on the bandwagon, as John Doe has suggested we do with transgenderism?

    When is John Doe going to document his claim that a majority of Christians don't think that transgenders and drag queens are in rebellion against God's design? I'd like to see his documentation. He has none.

    If we're being "hateful" by opposing transgenderism or by using language about it that people like John Doe think is too strong, then are people like John Doe being hateful against us when he uses such strong language to criticize us? When homosexuals refer to us as "bigots", "hateful", "intolerant", etc. are they thereby showing hatred toward us?

    ReplyDelete
  9. John Doe, just to clarify, is it your view that Bruce a.k.a. Caitlyn Jenner is a woman?

    ReplyDelete