The debate "Bruce Jenner is a man" was started by
an anonymous person on
September 14, 2015, 7:43 am.
62 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Ryan posted 1 argument, sloanstar1000 posted 6 arguments, bigB posted 3 arguments, goldfox1987 posted 11 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 17 arguments, bigB posted 12 arguments to the disagreers part.
sloanstar1000, AstroSpace, Ryan, Neaa, Hellrazor, Bodaciouslady16, bigB, goldfox1987, brokuk20, josejose, kayla, abby1212, hogan, The_lamp, Specimen, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Me123, Zooei96, SirJakeR, Hitmenjr, pajrc1234, HowdyDoody03, stevenchen, arethaarlynn12, josevazquez244, debaterjr, TonganCaillou, AngryBlogger, rob5998, franciscotrejo, Band_Nerd_24, AlenaMaisel, StarSoul, NaggingNut and 28 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Yuki_Amayane, Katana_MC, steven_kh, Skeetc15, gouthamabi, lolly1706, Aletin, curlyyxx, Monster and 11 visitors disagree.
biologically speaking, Bruce Jenner is indeed a man, so therefore the title of this idotic post is correct and I agree with it.
He now doesn't "feel" like a woman anymore. Kinda reinforces the idea that he couldn't fight his own natural bodily functions. Basically it was a "phase" for him
I say agree if you are taking biologically, disagree to identifying as one.
You say they are screaming for all of those things, next they will want to be able to vote, on not be considered property! What kind of horrible monsters want to be treated with respect?
Why would I needed to show that history has treated them any better than it has people of other races, or women?
not a political movement? are you serious? because the LGBT crowd hasn't been screaming discrimination at louder and louder tones and demanding supremacy at the expense of cultural norms and the beliefs of people (I offer the demand for special bathrooms, demanding rhe removal of the words husband and wife from federal documents, requiring 'trans' students to use whatever bathroom they desire at schools no matter what the reat of the community and culture require) and this is a small smattering of demands that are easy to find in major news sources like abc and cnn.
likewise, I am still waiting for some evidence from anywhere to show that trans is not only an established concept in time and history, but was also culturally accepted at any other time.
I don't see why that is funny to you. If you claim to be a man, why would I accuse you of lying?
Also, transgendered people do not have an ideology. It is not a religion or a political movement, it is a group of people who share a common attribute. That is like questioning the male ideology.
I am aware that there are other influences on development. What you fail to provide any evidence of is how those influence ls could cause someone to become transgendered. You simply make that assumption and treat it as a fact.
You likewise assume that a child can not independently choose to be another gender without some outside influence causing it, without providing a shred of evidence to show that this is more than your uninformed opinion. The same argument has been made about homosexuality, but research has shown that this is not true. I cannot definitively say that transgendered people are that way from birth, but neither can you claim that knowledge without some form of proof.
you know dave, the funny thing to me is that while I have tried different approaches and examples for my opinion, I haven't read anything on why you believe that this transgender ideology is real. if history is not to be used as a teacher and cultural norms both present and past are no road marker, and religious beliefs are old hat, then by what measure is the trans ideology right?
not to mention that you are totally not understanding that there are many influences that we are exposed to outside and inside the home. media, peer pressure, celebraties and religious figures play a huge role in influencing the minds of all people.
not to mention the fact that you are taking my argument about "fixing" trans issue and applying it to all birth defects is a false argument at best
Again you state that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong without providing any evidence to support such a claim. Where does your certainty that gender disphoria is learned? If this were true, there should be no transgendered people from traditional families, which is inaccurate.
You say that the idea that we can fix what we are supposed to be is wrong at best but again do not back up your claim. Do you feel we should withhold prosthetics? Should we deny hearing aids and glasses as God obviously made them the way they are? We constantly try to fix people's problems so that they can live happier, healthier lives, so obviously the idea is not as wrong as you portray it.
Depression and suicide are higher in any section of the population that faces discrimination. Why would you find it surprising that people who feel that they have no support from society have high rates of mental illness? It is hard to be at peace when religious people constantly condemn you and even other communities that face discrimination do not support you.
our appearance is not who we are. and transgender is not a birth defect. a child does not independently choose to be another gender without influence from somewhere. it is a sickness. the idea that we can "fix" what we are "supposed to be" is wrong at best. if it really was the best then why is the rate of psychological issues, suicide, and depression so much higher in the trans community? shouldnt they be at peace? the problem is not that we are born the wrong gender, the problem is one of the heart
You state that we do not get to decide who we are, but you fail to ever explain why. We create our identity every day through our appearance, behavior and attitudes and it is that identity that governs how people interact with us.
If we cannot change who we are, what makes you believe that transgendered people are not correct in their belief that they were born with the wrong gender? People are born without limbs and we do not say that they should live with it because that is how God made them. We create prosthetics to help them be who they should be and not let an accident of birth dictate their life. Why is it unreasonable that transgendered people are likewise afflicted, just in a less visible way?
its not about what we want, it is about who we are. and that is not something we get to decide when it comes to gender identity. hair color, eye color, etc doea not change our identity, unlike gender reassignment, thus the reason for bringing up the difficulty.
beyond that, I can wish to be called a unicorn and insist that I am one to the degree of walking on all fours and eating grass. does this mean I am one because I want it? no. same thing goes with this idea we can change our gender because we want to and surgically we say we are able to.
btw I know my example sounds silly, it was meant to. just like saying I don't want to be a man anymore, I'm now a woman. only difference is if I did the unicorn thing you would send me to a sanitarium
gold, at no point did I insult you, I was just proving a point that you're being a hypocrite on this issue. you don't want to be called a woman, and it should be respected. why should Caitlyn not be given same respect? It's that simple.
The degree of difficulty in changing is irrelevant to the fact that it can be changed. I never indicated that I thought gender reassignment was rapid or easy or done on a whim, I was responding to bigB who said that these things are determined by biology. I was illustrating that all of these previously fixed attributes are now changeable, which you agree they are.
Please either keep up with the conversation or do not interject irrelevant arguments. It takes away from those trying to make valid points.
hair, eye, and skin color are still identities under the overall of male or female. changing them on a whim is one thing and does not define a person, gender and gender identity is not in the same category. it cannot be changed on a whim, it takes several (last time I knew) surgeries, continuous hormone therapy, physiological assistance for years. this is not a whim and not easy or minor to a persons identity.
and sloan, while I appreciate the insults, truth is truth no matter what, good bad and ugly. we are so focused on feelings in our culture we have sacrificed truth for feelings and now its almost a crime to speak truth. its not frustration, but dedication to truth.
Traditionally they did as we had no method of changing them. Now we can change hair colour on a whim, and many other previously fixed attributes are now changeable. It is only logical that other parts of identity would become more fluid as well.
I'm led to believe that biology has everything to do with determining who a person is, such a person hair color, shade of skin tone (all factors in evolution and adaptation, whole different subject)
But if we are capable of recognizing someone as a man regardless of a particular right of passage, that means that being a man is determined by society, not biology. The biology has not changed much if at all in the last thousand years, but manhood has. This means that while biological factors are connected to being a man, they are not the determining factors.
Ok; In modern society we should define someone by there biological identities. You're right culture's have different ideas of manhood or womanhood. However as time has changed cultures have changed, (i.e. a boy killing an animal to become a man)
As they are not factors when you perceive someone, they cannot be factors determining whether you consider them a man or woman. Being a man is a status that is determined by society. Some cultures consider boys to be men at 10-12, others not until 21. This is different from being male or female as these are genetic and biological factors.
Hey I'm arguing cause I enjoy a good argument, I don't mean anything on a personal basis what so ever. So if I offended you in anyway I apologize.... Now with that said, no I wouldn't check hormones in any situation, no one would do that. At first glance you can see what he/she is.
Somebody who can not have children doesn't mean the sex hormones are gone. The pituitary gland is still making hormones (the anterior lob). How does the definition of a man/women revert back to a social issue? When a child comes of age they hit puberty which is biological. How can the hormones and the chromosomes not have a factor in how we define someone as a male/female (man/woman)?
big, you didn't understand my point. my point was it's not about biology it's about respecting someone's wishes. you can talk about hormone levels all day doesn't change the fact that that is not the point of the debate when considering gender identity. the reason why I said I would call gold a woman was because he wasn't respecting other people's wishes not to be called what they want. the point really wasn't that complicated.
is your question including cross dressers?
Yes, they happen to the body without hormone therapy. However in no way does the release of hormones in the body impact whether someone perceives you as a man or woman. In no was do biological functions that are invisible to the human eye impact a social construct, which it has already been agreed is what man and woman are.
I will extend the same question to you as I did Gold. If you say someone walking down the street, how do you define them as a man or woman? Do you check their hormone levels, or judge based on physical and behavioral evidence?
when someone hits puberty the sex hormones (gonadotropin) is released in the body. it stems from the anterior pituitary gland. LH and FSH are released for the production of gametes thus a teenager becomes an adult. you can't change what your body produces naturally. these are not "invisible biological functions" it's what happens in the human body
So people who are barren are neither male or female as they can never bear children?
We have accepted that genetically he is male, but that is a different conversation. You are using invisible biological functions to define a social construct, which is inherently flawed since these cues would not be visible when categorizing someone as a man or woman.
Jenner ' s body produces the LH hormone which is associated with the production of sperm, he can inject himself with estrogen hormones and have a feminine effect, that does not negate the fact the he has to fight his natural production of his male sex hormones.... thus he is a man and that can never change
Sloan you can't refer to gold as her because that would negate the whole argument of being respectful and calling someone as they wish. Now, a teenage girl who just started her menstrual cycle would be referred to as a woman because she can begin to have children. Mr. Jenner can not be defined as a woman because he has never been able to produce eggs or the hormone prolactin, he can never bear children
Gold, so you're saying you would automatically know that Caitlyn was transgender, even in the hypothetical situation laid out by psychdave in which you actually don't know that she is? try to pay attention.
The only issue here is whether or not you want to respect the wishes of a person that wants to be referred to as a "her" instead of a "he".
Gold, you say that you wouldn't respect that wish, and just cause an even more awkward situation by pointing it out, why? What makes you so damn frustrated that you can't just call her Caitlyn?
You probably prefer to be called a "he" (assuming you're a male). I'll just refer to you as a "her" from now on, just to level things out, sound fair?
my greeting, should I ever meet jenner would be, "good day, mr. jenner." now, the points raised are taken from history, yes, we have not always been the wisest, but that does not mean the use of history is in error.
let me toss the burden of proof back at you, by what standard do you see the ability of a person to decide for themselves what gender and what title they are to be in conflict with their own genes?
Your first point is valid, but irrelevant. Medical differences like those you describe are based on male and female, but those have no bearing on social or cultural status. You have already agreed than man is a changeable cultural construct while male is an unchangeable genetic structure, so this line of argument has already been rendered moot.
You second point is based on the biased belief that this is a misguided idea. Throughout history those with disabilities were regarded as cursed or punished by God (or the Gods). Women were thought to be feeble minded through most of history and people of other races and cultures were often regarded as subhuman. Medical progress allowed is to understand developmental and intellectual disability, and cultural progress allowed us to start realizing that our sexist, racist and xenophobic beliefs were unfounded. We still are far from perfect, but we are making progress. Saying "nowhere in history did people believe this" is irrelevant to whether it is accurate.
Your third point seems to be a rehash of your first, with the same assumptions and no new evidence beyond your expression of certainty that your belief is irrefutable fact.
Finally, you question my basis for man and woman being independent of male and female, and and yet you still have not answered my previous question. If you saw Caitlin Jenner walking down the street, knowing none of the back story, would you assume her to me a man? When you interact with someone and describe them as a man or woman, do you perform a DNA test, or judge based on physical and behavioral evidence?
I classify everyone first and foremost by gender, him/her. after that I classify them by personal interaction and intelligence. but I digress.
where I get the prerequisite is this, the most fundamental form of classification of any individual starts with species, then gender, then assorted phenotypes. the basis of all things that medically sets norms for symptoms, homeostasis, and treatment are based on gender (women have a different body fat to weight ratio for a norm, different heart rate norms, different overall physical fetures ie hip design).
secondly, it is only in very modern history that there has ever been this misguided idea that you are not the gender you are born to. name one other time period when this idea was not only offered, bur promoted.
thirdly, as the most basic differentiator of our species (male or female) biology has set apart for each to fulfill a specific function for the propagation of the species. this is a natural fact and law, no matter what we want or wish.
that all being said, on what basis is there that male and female are not prerequisites of man and woman.
Where in your argument is genetic male a prerequisite for being a man? You assume it is when explaining how you define a man based on cultural norm, but why is that necessary? When you see someone on the street, you assign them to various groups based on appearance and behavior. If you saw Caitlin Jenner walking down the street, knowing none of the back story, how would you classify her?
agreed, definitions of being a man change, genetics don't
ok so you would define a man as someone who is strong, honest and hardworking a reliable person (the cultural/social term of a man)
becoming a man is a culturally fluid term. we can say that a soldier is a man even if he is only 18 while a 26 year old high school drop out who sleeps on his moms couch would not. there is not universal definition of manhood. male is universal to those born with xy chromosomes.
male or female are defined by chromosomes. mab or woman is defined by the culture and a persons place in it. but the prerequisite of a man is the male chromosome. the prerequisite of a woman is the female chromosome.
and isn't the terminology of man/woman slang for male/female
the two week old born with a xy chromosome will become a man one day. how would you define a man or woman? what definition would you give it
trying to identify as a woman while being genetically a man is like trying to say you identify as an alien because you were born with only 3 fingers. you may be a male or female based on genes. while not being a man in attitude, wish, or desire, this does not automatically mean you become woman. to be a woman the prerequisite is to be female. to be a man the prerequisite is to be male. just because you do not identify as something, does not automatically make you something else.
so to simply answer your question, no, not everyone born with xy chromosomes is a man. but that does not automatically make you a woman. that would be a logical fallacy
lol way to completely sidestep dave's point big... please answer his question, I'm interested in your actual answer
is a 30 year old male in a modern society considered a man or a boy?
Is a 2 week old with an XY chromosome a man?
I will ask a simple question. Is every person with XY chromosome a man?
But the topic is not about male or female, it is about man and woman. Genetically, she is male. Culturally and socially she is a woman.
exactly right dave, problem is that while we are born with a specific genome, people seem to believe they can choose to change that. not only is this both genetically impossible, but also a practical personal misunderstanding about who and what it is to be to be male or female
I believe the distinction that you all seem to be missing is between being male and being a man. Male is a genetic trait. Man is a cultural and social attribute.
how is that an argument? A person is either born with a double chromosome of the same kind (xx/female) or they have two chromosomes (xy/male); there is no grey area. Now someone who is having a "gender identity" change CAN NOT swap his/her chromosomes that they are born with.
some people are just incapable of understanding the more complex issues surrounding gender identity. I realize that many on here are young and ignorant, but that says more about how their parents think and act than anything else, which is depressing.
Jenner is a man regardless if he decided to have a sex change operation. He was born with XY chromosome, you can't take that away. it's science
First of all, if you believe in God, you either believe he makes mistakes, or he purposefully made child leukemia and parasites that bury into your skin... So that argument falls directly on it's face. Not to mention there's no evidence that God made anything.
Secondly, it's not about male parts or female parts, we ALL know Caitlyn has a penis. But she prefers to identify as a female. It's about gender identification.
It doesn't hurt me to say "her" instead of "him", and it shouldn't bother you unless you are insecure. Most people who hit disagree would probably call "Bruce" Caitlyn to her face to avoid conflict anyway, it's a stupid contention.
God doesn't not make any mistakes! If you are born with man "parts" you will always be a man!
here we go again