Bruce Jenner debuts as a female on cover of Vanity Fair

LadyFunkenstein said:

I have read up and I disagree. Why can't you accept that I disagree from a point of rational intelligence, even if you yourself disagree with the outcome of my rationality? XX does not equal XY and I believe that counts. Perhaps you don't care about chromosomes which is your prerogative. But to tell me to read more rather than to address my coherent thoughts is very lazy. The laziness seems to be intentional.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have read up...at least on unbiased sites. I think if you had read more widely you wouldn't be so sure. I'm not. But I've read and heard enough to be pretty convinced. It's not laziness to expect you to do your own homework.

LadyFunkenstein said:

I have read up and I disagree. Why can't you accept that I disagree from a point of rational intelligence, even if you yourself disagree with the outcome of my rationality? XX does not equal XY and I believe that counts. Perhaps you don't care about chromosomes which is your prerogative. But to tell me to read more rather than to address my coherent thoughts is very lazy. The laziness seems to be intentional. I am not saying "I am right" but instead say "I disagree". Aren't I allowed to do that and still be treated with respect? How does my saying "I disagree" equate to my professing something?

What is truly disturbing about what is happening now, something you are doing, is that dissent is being squelched. Talk to me about why chromosomes don't matter instead of saying "you need to read more, stop professing." Why should I review the evidence differently?

Click to expand...

You edited after my reply so I'll respond.

I apologize that you took my comment as disrespect. That was not my intent at all. We can disagree with respect and perhaps I was more direct than was comfortable for you...my apologies for being a bit flippant.

In my reading there is a distinct difference between body dystrophic disorder, body image identification disorder, and being transgendered.

America, its values are fucked up

The WEST kills itself

The next wave of “body diversity”: Disabled by choice


POSTED AT 12:01 PM ON JUNE 2, 2015 BY ED MORRISSEY


If a person can claim gender based on their mental and emotional orientation, what other forms of “body diversity” exist? The rapid acceptance and even celebration of Caitlyn Jenner’s debut onto the social scene (and social media) may soon bring another form of body diversity into the light, or so the Canada National Post argues today. “We need to move away from pathologizing people,” says Clive Baldwin, including those who chop off their limbs or fake paralysis in order to live as disabled people. “For many, amputation is the only way forward,” the St. Thomas University, Frederickton professor tells Sarah Boesveld, and “it isn’t beyond the pale.”

Really?

When he cut off his right arm with a “very sharp power tool,” a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident.

But he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn’t bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher. …

People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.

“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.

“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.”

When I first read this, I had to double-check the references and do a little research to make sure this wasn’t something the Daily Currant had launched in the wake of Jenner’s re-emergence. Dr. Clive Baldwin appears to check out as advertised, as the Canada Research Chair in Narrative Studies at St Thomas University, Fredericton. “Narrative studies” sounds a little ambiguous as a discipline, but his website states that he lectured in the UK on mental health in social work and on dementia studies. A YouTube search for more on the topic raised videos spanning at least four years, including an unfortunate Jerry Springer segment, which Springer himself said would be the strangest segment he’d ever done. That’s a tall order, one I’d really prefer not to research, but it’s probably correct. Feel free to click the link, but I’ll pass on embedding it here.

So this is not a hoax, or at least the story isn’t. The impulse to mutilate one’s body in various ways has been known and documented for a long time, but only recently have we begun to accept it as an expression of self rather than a pathology, as Dr. Baldwin dismissively notes. The measure of the latter, though, has never been the sincerity of those impulses but their destructive nature and disconnection from reality.

This brings us to Caitlyn Jenner, of course, and other transgender people who have operations to change their gender to match their mental and emotional identity. There doesn’t seem to be much of a moral or medical difference between surgically removing one’s sexual genitalia to address gender identity issues and removing a leg, arm, or eyeballs to address “transability” issues. One can argue that there is a difference between do-it-yourself “modifications” to chop off one’s arm and a surgeon to remove male genitalia and construct artificial genitalia in its place, and there are differences. The latter has been made much safer, of course, and much more socially acceptable, but that’s only a matter of being ahead on the moral-relativity curve. Surgeons can do amputations, rob eyes of sight, and the like, just as safely as they now perform gender-reassignment surgeries.

That is, in fact, what Baldwin and others propose — to supply medical treatment not to the mental issues that drive these impulses, but to conduct drastic body modifications to cater to those impulses. It won’t be long before we start hearing arguments about the dangers of allowing people to do these amputations and the like on their own as a way to press for allowing and even demanding such surgeries, just the way some now expect taxpayers to pay for gender-reassignment surgeries for prisoners and people on public medical coverage.

Color me much less sanguine than Amanda or AP on this point. We’re celebrating the end of natural and objective truth, and turning dysfunction into virtue on the basis of celebrity. Not only that, but many people suffer from disability without much choice in the matter — my wife, for one, who lost her sight at 24 from diabetic retinopathy. This turns their challenges into sport or status symbols in a very odd manner, and mainstreaming it the way Baldwin suggests legitimizes the fetishization of their pains and struggles.

I don’t wish Caitlyn Jenner any ill will, and I have no problem addressing people by the names or pronouns they wish. That, after all, is their business. However, don’t expect me to wave flags as the parade of self-mutilation keeps processing toward eventual oblivion, regardless of whether that makes me out of step and hopelessly old-fashioned. Western society has become unmoored from objective truth in favor of anything goes, and I don’t think the end game looks terribly promising — especially with the parallel tyranny of the Tolerance Police punishing any dissent along the way.

jomar said:

Who knows, back in the day homosexuality was a mental illness and in the DSM. The Young Turks of the APA sorted it out. But if you dig into this you'll find that you are talking apples to oranges. Jenner's journey has little to do with sexual arousal/fulfillment.

Click to expand...

You're right.
excerpt from Wikipedia : "Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes,
-- but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones."

One can't debate with God (biology)

loonz

ACLU Orders People To Use Only Female Pronouns When Discussing “Caitlyn” Jenner, Using His “Birth-Assigned Sex Is An Act Of Hatred …. Linked To Brutal Violence”

CGbaVIOWQAEdK4i.jpg-large

Libs treat PC diatribes like this like it’s divine scripture.

Via ACLU:

Today Caitlyn Jenner introduced herself to the world in a fabulous Vanity Fair spread. “Call me Caitlyn,” she tells the public in this latest cover story and through her recently launched @Caitlyn**_Jenner Twitter handle.

It is important that people do actually call her Caitlyn.

Words matter and erasing the identity of trans people by calling them by their birth names and birth-assigned sex is an act of hatred — one that is inextricable from the brutal violence that so many trans people, particularly trans women of color, encounter just for existing in the world.

How we talk about trans people sets the tone for the world in which trans people live.

And because young trans people are dying by suicide and trans women of color are being murdered at alarming rates, those of us forming public narratives about trans celebrities have an obligation to tell those stories with care.

When we write about Caitlyn Jenner, her name and narrative will give enough context. There is no need to mention what her name used to be or what sex she was assigned at birth. And as writer and activist Janet Mock brilliantly explained to Piers Morgan, neither Janet nor Caitlyn were “born boys.” They were born babies and they are women — brave and fabulous women.

Busybody said:

ACLU Orders People To Use Only Female Pronouns When Discussing “Caitlyn” Jenner, Using His “Birth-Assigned Sex Is An Act Of Hatred …. Linked To Brutal Violence”

CGbaVIOWQAEdK4i.jpg-large

Libs treat PC diatribes like this like it’s divine scripture.

Via ACLU:

Today Caitlyn Jenner introduced herself to the world in a fabulous Vanity Fair spread. “Call me Caitlyn,” she tells the public in this latest cover story and through her recently launched @Caitlyn**_Jenner Twitter handle.

It is important that people do actually call her Caitlyn.

Words matter and erasing the identity of trans people by calling them by their birth names and birth-assigned sex is an act of hatred — one that is inextricable from the brutal violence that so many trans people, particularly trans women of color, encounter just for existing in the world.

How we talk about trans people sets the tone for the world in which trans people live.

And because young trans people are dying by suicide and trans women of color are being murdered at alarming rates, those of us forming public narratives about trans celebrities have an obligation to tell those stories with care.

When we write about Caitlyn Jenner, her name and narrative will give enough context. There is no need to mention what her name used to be or what sex she was assigned at birth. And as writer and activist Janet Mock brilliantly explained to Piers Morgan, neither Janet nor Caitlyn were “born boys.” They were born babies and they are women — brave and fabulous women.

Click to expand...

That bolded line, though. No, it's fucking not hatred, ffs. 1. they're still a small percentage and they're still rather new being made a big deal of rather than joked about or ridiculed 2. that acceptance isn't going to come any quicker with threats and guilt-tripping. I hate it when people do that. They pressure this idea that if you're not 100% with them and do everything they want, you're "outed" as a bigot. This name change in particular, since he's been referred to as Bruce from the start and people will still have to catch up to a conversation about it, pre-transition and post, is the equivalent of people calling Prince that when he changed it to "The Artist formally known as Prince" or calling Miley Cyrus Hannah Montana sometimes after she dropped the wig. He just fucking changed. HE'S probably not 100% used to being called Caitlyn yet.

Sad that someone spent months, fortunes, and vast reserves of emotion to change their looks and all we can talk about is their looks.

Calling a guy who thinks he's a girl a girl is like calling a guy who thinks he's Napoleon Napoleon.

Compassion is therapy, not enabling.

I went back to read your previous posts , Busybody, and I couldn't fully understand your position on this. Could you pls. make it a bit clearer? (this is not meant to be sarcastic I am serious)
I am a bit confused, since you are among the posters who wear their racism like a badge.

Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner: “I’m the new normal”


POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON JUNE 3, 2015 BY ALLAHPUNDIT




I can’t tell if he/she means that personally or culturally, i.e., “the new feminine-looking me is normal to me” or “the new feminine-looking me should be normal to you.” Big difference. At one point Jenner says, “Isn’t it great that, maybe someday, [I’ll] be normal and blend into society?”, so take that however you like. Either way, “I’m the new normal” is exactly but exactly the soundbite the media wants for its “trans is mainstream” narrative push, which technically began a year ago but never enjoyed a spokesperson as prominent as this. Jenner would win more skeptics over by claiming he/she is unconcerned with being seen as “normal,” only with being happy, as that would make no claims on what American cultural norms should be. But that wouldn’t make LGBT activists happy. It’s normalcy or bust. And Jenner needs defenders, as well as an audience for the new E! reality show about the big transition. Solution: Play to your base.

Meanwhile, Ian Tuttle and Jonathan Last are having fun with a wrinkle in progressive orthodoxy on transgenderism. If your gender is rightly classified by how you feel psychologically, not how you’re built biologically, how should we treat Jenner’s Olympic decathlon win? By lefty logic, if he felt like a woman when he won the gold, he was a woman — in which case he was competing in the wrong event, as absurd as that may seem. If he was a woman at the time, presumably the records he set should be regarded as women’s records even though they were achieved by someone with a male physiology. If you think this is a ludicrous point, note that it doesn’t originate with Tuttle and Last: They both got the idea from Wikipedia, where a few fanatic SJWs are busily trying to rewrite the Olympic record books. Actual quote from the discussion section of the entry on the women’s 400 meters, via Last:

Caitlyn Jenner ran a 47.51 at the 1976 Olympics, a best of all time for women in the event. At the time, she went by the name Bruce. I feel it would be extremely transphobic to erase her identity and belittle her accomplishments by failing to mention this time. Although the IAAF has not, and likely will not, ratify Caitlyn’s time as a world record, it deserves mention here as an all-time woman’s best.
When Last checked the entry last night, Jenner was mentioned as “the fastest woman’s performer of all time, running a time of 47.51 in 1976 while competing under the name Bruce Jenner.” That line had been removed when I looked this morning but the Wikipedia wars are doubtless just getting started. Ben Shapiro makes a nice point too about the now famous Vanity Fair cover, which is supposed to be a tribute to Jenner for defying traditional gender norms but ended up being … pretty traditional:

The photo is deliberately constructed to play off traditional notions of female beauty. The photo is a deliberate takeoff on the cheesecake photos of the 1950s. It’s intended not just to make Jenner into a woman, but a sexy woman ready to engage — hence the use of lingerie, even though Jenner has already said he doesn’t know whether he will choose to have sex with men or women or both or neither (another bizarrely accepted notion from the same folks who say that sexual orientation is inborn and never chosen). The picture does not depict the new Jenner in all his gender-fluid glory – it doesn’t show Jenner’s male crotch-bulge, or Jenner’s broad Olympic-winning physique (Jenner’s arms are conveniently placed behind the back, minimizing the arms and shoulders of the former gold medal-winner).

It turns out that when a pro-transgenderism magazine wants to convey femininity and femaleness, it falls back on all the same gender stereotypes Jenner is supposedly overcoming. It turns out, in fact, that in order for Jenner’s story to make any sort of sense – in order for a transition from gender to gender to be meaningful – there must be a Point A (male) and there must be a Point B (female). But that would require definition of Point A and Point B, any objective criteria of which would make transition from one to the other impossible.

The answer to that, I suppose, is that the public isn’t ready to accept a gender-fluid cover-girlboy; the culture’s still “transitioning” too, so for the meantime, Jenner needs to get dolled up to make people more comfortable with his new appearance. That’s the “new normal,” with the even newer “normal” of fluid gender presumably yet to come

jomar said:

You edited after my reply so I'll respond.

I apologize that you took my comment as disrespect. That was not my intent at all. We can disagree with respect and perhaps I was more direct than was comfortable for you...my apologies for being a bit flippant.

In my reading there is a distinct difference between body dystrophic disorder, body image identification disorder, and being transgendered.

Click to expand...

What are the distinct differences among the three? And why don't chromosomes matter?

I wonder if he'll do Celebrity Wife Swap.

Busybody said:

Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner: “I’m the new normal”


POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON JUNE 3, 2015 BY ALLAHPUNDIT




I can’t tell if he/she means that personally or culturally, i.e., “the new feminine-looking me is normal to me” or “the new feminine-looking me should be normal to you.” Big difference. At one point Jenner says, “Isn’t it great that, maybe someday, [I’ll] be normal and blend into society?”, so take that however you like. Either way, “I’m the new normal” is exactly but exactly the soundbite the media wants for its “trans is mainstream” narrative push, which technically began a year ago but never enjoyed a spokesperson as prominent as this. Jenner would win more skeptics over by claiming he/she is unconcerned with being seen as “normal,” only with being happy, as that would make no claims on what American cultural norms should be. But that wouldn’t make LGBT activists happy. It’s normalcy or bust. And Jenner needs defenders, as well as an audience for the new E! reality show about the big transition. Solution: Play to your base.

Meanwhile, Ian Tuttle and Jonathan Last are having fun with a wrinkle in progressive orthodoxy on transgenderism. If your gender is rightly classified by how you feel psychologically, not how you’re built biologically, how should we treat Jenner’s Olympic decathlon win? By lefty logic, if he felt like a woman when he won the gold, he was a woman — in which case he was competing in the wrong event, as absurd as that may seem. If he was a woman at the time, presumably the records he set should be regarded as women’s records even though they were achieved by someone with a male physiology. If you think this is a ludicrous point, note that it doesn’t originate with Tuttle and Last: They both got the idea from Wikipedia, where a few fanatic SJWs are busily trying to rewrite the Olympic record books. Actual quote from the discussion section of the entry on the women’s 400 meters, via Last:

Caitlyn Jenner ran a 47.51 at the 1976 Olympics, a best of all time for women in the event. At the time, she went by the name Bruce. I feel it would be extremely transphobic to erase her identity and belittle her accomplishments by failing to mention this time. Although the IAAF has not, and likely will not, ratify Caitlyn’s time as a world record, it deserves mention here as an all-time woman’s best.
When Last checked the entry last night, Jenner was mentioned as “the fastest woman’s performer of all time, running a time of 47.51 in 1976 while competing under the name Bruce Jenner.” That line had been removed when I looked this morning but the Wikipedia wars are doubtless just getting started. Ben Shapiro makes a nice point too about the now famous Vanity Fair cover, which is supposed to be a tribute to Jenner for defying traditional gender norms but ended up being … pretty traditional:

The photo is deliberately constructed to play off traditional notions of female beauty. The photo is a deliberate takeoff on the cheesecake photos of the 1950s. It’s intended not just to make Jenner into a woman, but a sexy woman ready to engage — hence the use of lingerie, even though Jenner has already said he doesn’t know whether he will choose to have sex with men or women or both or neither (another bizarrely accepted notion from the same folks who say that sexual orientation is inborn and never chosen). The picture does not depict the new Jenner in all his gender-fluid glory – it doesn’t show Jenner’s male crotch-bulge, or Jenner’s broad Olympic-winning physique (Jenner’s arms are conveniently placed behind the back, minimizing the arms and shoulders of the former gold medal-winner).

It turns out that when a pro-transgenderism magazine wants to convey femininity and femaleness, it falls back on all the same gender stereotypes Jenner is supposedly overcoming. It turns out, in fact, that in order for Jenner’s story to make any sort of sense – in order for a transition from gender to gender to be meaningful – there must be a Point A (male) and there must be a Point B (female). But that would require definition of Point A and Point B, any objective criteria of which would make transition from one to the other impossible.

The answer to that, I suppose, is that the public isn’t ready to accept a gender-fluid cover-girlboy; the culture’s still “transitioning” too, so for the meantime, Jenner needs to get dolled up to make people more comfortable with his new appearance. That’s the “new normal,” with the even newer “normal” of fluid gender presumably yet to come

Click to expand...

Olympic events are segregated by sex, not gender.

Why is it a big deal to you? It's no skin off your dick.

Church of England Considers Rewriting Liturgies To Refer To God As A “She”…

CoE

Then again, this is the CoE we’re talking about so no big surprise.

Via PNW:

Support is growing within the Church of England to rewrite its official liturgies to refer to God as a female following the selection of the first women bishops.

A growing number of priests already insert such words as “she” and “mother” informally into traditional service texts to try to make the language of worship more inclusive, it has been claimed.

But calls for a full overhaul of liturgy have already been discussed informally at a senior level.

It comes after the Transformations Steering Group, a body that meets in Lambeth Palace to examine the impact of women in ministry on the Church of England, issued a public call to the bishops to encourage more “expansive language and imagery about God.”

Hilary Cotton, chairman of Women and the Church, the group that led the campaign for female bishops, said a shift away from the traditional patriarchal language of the Book of Common Prayer is at an advanced stage in some quarters.

“The reality is, in many churches up and down the country, something more than the almost default male language about God is already used,” she said.

Busybody said:

Church of England Considers Rewriting Liturgies To Refer To God As A “She”…

CoE

Then again, this is the CoE we’re talking about so no big surprise.

Via PNW:

Support is growing within the Church of England to rewrite its official liturgies to refer to God as a female following the selection of the first women bishops.

A growing number of priests already insert such words as “she” and “mother” informally into traditional service texts to try to make the language of worship more inclusive, it has been claimed.

But calls for a full overhaul of liturgy have already been discussed informally at a senior level.

It comes after the Transformations Steering Group, a body that meets in Lambeth Palace to examine the impact of women in ministry on the Church of England, issued a public call to the bishops to encourage more “expansive language and imagery about God.”

Hilary Cotton, chairman of Women and the Church, the group that led the campaign for female bishops, said a shift away from the traditional patriarchal language of the Book of Common Prayer is at an advanced stage in some quarters.

“The reality is, in many churches up and down the country, something more than the almost default male language about God is already used,” she said.

Click to expand...

The RCC is way ahead of the CoE in that regard.

http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010807_giuliana-norwich_en.html

we might as well raise the PINK FLAG and bend over backwards and tell ISIS

FUCK US

White House: No Comment on Transgender Military Service

White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined to weigh in on whether transgender Americans should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

A reporter asked about a Thursday editorial in the New York Times urging the the government to allow transgender troops to serve openly.

The reporter asked, “Does the White House have a position?”

“We don’t,” Earnest answered

White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks about the response to the ongoing Ebola crisis during the daily press briefing, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2014, at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) AP Photo/Evan Vucci
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Earnest also declined to take a follow up question from another reporter on the topic.

The Times editorial said:

While transgender civilians in the federal work force enjoy robust legal protections from discrimination, those in the armed forces may be discharged at any moment. The Pentagon, shamefully, has yet to rescind anachronistic personnel guidelines that prohibit openly transgender people from joining in the military, labeling their condition a “paraphilia,” or perversion.

The policy has forced thousands to serve in silence, repressing an essential part of their identity. The Williams Institute at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, which researches gender issues, estimates there are about 15,500 transgender troops serving in uniform

BTW, Ole Caty still has teh Pee Pee attached

Ole Caty still has his Jenner

fucking LUNATICS

they are all LUNATICS

MSNBC Panel: Using ‘Women’ in Abortion Language ‘Excludes Trans Men’


If you’ve ever wondered whether modern progressivism could create an argument so convoluted, contradictory and esoteric that it collapses on itself, we have an answer. And it comes at the expense of feminists who believe they can fight for “women’s rights” without running afoul of their own speech police.



During “All In With Chris Hayes” on June 2, the host fostered a discussion among media representatives on the “reaction to Caitlyn Jenner” or “The Jenner Effect.” In the middle of the conversation, Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer for The Nation, suggested that using the word “women” in abortion language “excludes trans men.”

Directly before Goldberg’s comments, Huffington Post’s Gay Voices editor Michelangelo Signorile expressed hope on the “complicated issue about gender.”

“When you talk to young people about it,” he said, “they have a more of an understanding of gender as fluid, it’s not necessarily about your biology.”

“Well, yeah, I mean, among young people, you know, I've had this conversation,” Goldberg responded. “I've written about this and they’re some conflicts especially within feminism over these issues.

Seeing an opportunity, Goldberg then turned to make the conversation about abortion.

“So a lot of the younger feminists, for example at the abortions funds,” she said, “no longer want to use the word ‘woman’ in relation to abortion because it excludes trans men.” .




Agreeing, Hayes attempted to clarify the terms “gender” and “sex” for his viewers.

“Right, because when we're talking about reproductive, the physical attributes that allow one to give birth, right? That is part of category that is sex, right?” he asked. “That's a physical category. That’s not gender.”

“Right,” Goldberg agreed before continuing the argument to take the “woman” out of “abortion”:

So there's been this kind of move to remove the word ‘women’ from a lot of language around abortion, abortion funds and there's a lot of second-wave feminists – and not only second-wave feminists – who say, you know, if you kind of take, if you take women out of this, and you kind of take an understanding of patriarchy out of this, which I don’t necessarily think you have to do, but I think, yeah, there's still a lot of sort of conceptual murk to clear away, but among younger people that I’ve talked to, it almost seems amazing to them that anybody would question the need to have gender neutral language.

Wrapping up the conversation, New York Times sports columnist William Rhoden disagreed – that is, on how many agree with the “enlightened” Goldberg.

“Well, I’ve been around some people, other places not so enlightened,” he said. “I mean, and I think that we have to really be clear about that.”

In the past, for The New Yorker, Goldberg has indeed written about a feminist “move” to take the word “women” out of “abortion” – a move she proves by citing one organization.

“The members of the board of the New York Abortion Access Fund, an all-volunteer group that helps to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them, are mostly young women,” she wrote in 2014. “In May, they voted unanimously to stop using the word ‘women’ when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to exclude trans men.”

But earlier this year – in a piece published by Goldberg’s The Nation – author Katha Pollitt argued against Goldberg’s sentiments.



“I don’t see how it denies ‘the existence and humanity of trans people’ to use language that describes the vast majority of those who seek to end a pregnancy,” she wrote. “Why can’t references to people who don’t identify as women simply be added to references to women?”

According to Pollitt, including trans men in abortion language threatens the pro-choice argument.

“Once you start talking about ‘people,’ not ‘women,’ you lose what abortion means historically, symbolically and socially,” she said. “It becomes hard to understand why it isn’t simply about the right to life of the ‘unborn.’”

A feminism that refuses words like “women or “vagina,” Pollitt ranted, “is cutting the ground from under itself. “

“How do you even talk about women’s being underrepresented politically, or earning less than men, or being victims of rape and domestic violence? In an era where politics is all about identity, as a tool for organizing and claiming public space, are women about to lose theirs?” she asked. “Because after all we’re all just people now.”

Uh-oh. I think I’ll sit this one out.

A feminist herself, Pollitt authored “Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights,” which the media used as a launching-pad to spin abortion as a “moral,” “social good” last year.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-...guage-excludes-trans-men#sthash.xudWtfXv.dpuf

I sure hope teh next REPOH Pres can bring sanity back

But I doubt anyone will be able to fight the PC PUTZES

Maybe Cruz, maybe Jindal

We are doomed

Busybody said:

we might as well raise the PINK FLAG and bend over backwards and tell ISIS

FUCK US

Click to expand...

How was it for you?