Search Box

Monday, June 1, 2015

Caitlyn


I know we live in more liberated times, and I'm glad for that.

I don't think gays or lesbians or other sexual minorities should have to live in the closet.

I think everybody should feel free to be themselves, as long as they're not physically harming anyone else.

And I sympathize with people who don't feel comfortable in their own skins, I honestly do.

But it's hard to look at that picture of the transformed Bruce Jenner and not feel just a little…..ill.

A lot of celebrities are Tweeting positive, encouraging messages about Caitlyn, but they seem to be doing so to demonstrate their own virtue.

It also seems that Vanity Fair, despite its sympathetic words about Jenner, is trying to profit from that cover shot the same way circuses used to profit from the bearded ladies and midgets in their freak shows.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree that it does feel a little ill but i think these people, having to hide how they feel inside and finally coming out after probably many years, just feel like looking like a 'woman' woman, not like an average one. I had a transgender female friend who posted a half-topless photo sometime after the surgery, something i don't imagine regular men do -unless they're into working out. That's how i perceive it.

As for Vanity Fair, i totally agree.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I'm sure you're right about people being proud of their new appearance, as their "real" selves. And I honestly sympathize with that. But I also can't help my visceral reaction.

Anonymous said...

http://takimag.com/article/world_war_t_steve_sailer/print#axzz3buDTyrfK


Sailer on these sad freaks.

You should write on how politics beyond homosexuality not being a mental disorder anymore. The apa was pressured into in decades ago. Unit the 80 s you would see shrinks saying flat out it was a clear abnormality.

Anonymous said...

http://takimag.com/article/world_war_t_steve_sailer/print#axzz3buDTyrfK


Sailer on these sad freaks.

You should write on how politics beyond homosexuality not being a mental disorder anymore. The apa was pressured into in decades ago. Unit the 80 s you would see shrinks saying flat out it was a clear abnormality.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Just read it, great article, thanks. Yes, the Left doesn't like it when any of theirs are looked at too closely.

I'm actually way more liberal on the whole gay thing than most of the HBD crowd. I've always seen gay marriage as a matter of equality, and always tell anyone who asks that I'm for it for the same reason I'm against affirmative action: because i'm for equal rights. I'm not even sure how much of an abnormality it is; throughout history, there has always been a pretty consistent portion of the population who are attracted to their own sex. And a lot of them have been productive citizens, and more than a few geniuses have been homosexual (Michelangelo, Da Vince, etc).

That said, I'm certainly not averse to exploring the different rates of mental illness between straights and gays. And as I said recently, I do think that the higher rate of domestic violence among lesbians is a statistic that ought to see more air time. Plus, if people like Anders Lubitz (the Germanwings pilot) and Brian Bostian (the fellow who was responsible for that Amtrak train going 105 mph in a 50 mph zone) caused those disasters in part because of their homosexuality, that ought to be explored too. If that transexual Army traitor (I'm drawing a blank on his name) betrayed his country partly because of his sexuality, as his lawyer suggested, that fact ought to be held up to the cold light of day, too. But, sometimes it's hard to separate the sexuality from the stigma, and hard to figure out if these guys did what they did because of their feelings of alienation or if it was something more intrinsic to their sexuality. I just don't know.

Anonymous said...

Think "Caitlyn" will be on the Wheaties again?

John Craig said...

Ha!!

Steven said...

That picture is just a minor curiosity to me. It doesn't disgust me at all. I'm generally understanding when it comes to people who feel they were born in the wrong body but I do wonder if this is a genuine case. Did he feel that way from childhood?

By the way, there are studies which apparently show that people who are more easily disgusted are more likely to be conservative.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/24/disgust-breeding-conservatism

I think it might be a generational thing. I've noticed some older men who have sincerely accepted homosexuality intellectually but have some aversion when faced with it. Seeing men kissing doesn't turn me on but it doesn't really disgust me either...maybe because I've grown up with more acceptance of it than your generation did?

John Craig said...

Steven --
Just read study, I'm not sure I buy that being-next-to-the-hand-sanitizer correlation. Disgust is a tricky thing to measure. I think you're right about the generation gap in reactions, though. Baby Boomers (and before) grew up with different attitudes, without today's constant drumbeat of gay-friendly propaganda. When I first learned about homosexuality, and when I had a pass made at me by a man when i was 14, I felt sort of sick afterward. And while I think that at least part of that is instinctive (there is a good evolutionary reason for people to react that way to homosexuality), I also think that some of it may actually be social standards, too.

Also, some of it is just a matter of getting used to it. I've known enough gays, and have liked enough of them, that their company is not at all off-putting to me, in fact there are plenty of them whose company I enjoy. As far as watching them kiss, I still feel a little bit of a jolt at that, but it's less than it used to be. Also, bear in mind, having a grown man make a pass at you when you're a boy is entirely different from finding out that a long time school friend has turned out to be gay. The latter evokes sympathy, the former a feeling of creepiness.

Steven said...

I was at a train station on Christmas eve once (the main one in my city), there were not many people around, and a man casually said to me, as if he was asking the time, "will you fuck me, mate?" It must be creepier or scarier when you are 14 though.

I have some aversion to the idea of kissing a man myself but I can watch it without it really bothering me.

When I was a kid, homosexuality was never mentioned in school (I went to catholic schools) and it wasn't on tv nearly as much as it is now but it was much more accepted than in the past. I reasoned that gay people did't choose their sexuality any more than I did and that they weren't hurting anyone. While I was fine with the idea of gay marriage, gay adoption was something I was much more hesitant and unsure about. I find it strange that in Britain, gay adoption was legalised before gay marriage. I thought adoption would be a step further. Where do you stand on it?

John Craig said...

Steven --
I pretty much agree with you. If you look at these issues as questions of fairness, then you have to be for gay marriage. But is it fair for a kid to be adopted into a gamily with two fathers, or two mothers? Even if the stigma has largely disappeared, that kid is still going to be mercilessly taunted by his peers growing up. And who knows what sorts of psychological effects there are to missing a parent of one of the genders? I don't know, I don't really have a fully formed opinion on that one. I know there are plenty of gay couples who have children through in vitro, and I've never had any objection to that. But as far as adoption, I just don't know.

Steven said...

Yeah I have the exact same concerns. On the other hand, its probably better to have loving gay parents than none at all, science seems to be pointing towards shared (home) environment not being that significant to how you turn out, and a precedent in nature is provided by bird species that have some same sex pairings and the 'gay couple' look after an egg together (perhaps its mother died), indicating this could be a legitimate function of gay couples.

So I'm not sure and I'm not 100% comfortable with it but I've been coming around to it.

Anonymous said...

John,

I just want to know what Johnny thinks about it, his comments must have been priceless...

Mad Dog

John Craig said...

Mad Dog --
His comments are only fit for email, I'll send you one.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Some women where I work were talking about how beautiful Jenner looked and I thought, "Huh???"

Do you think women see feminine beauty the way sociopaths see morality or something - as a form whose rules can be grasped logically rather than a visceral feeling like men experience it?

John Craig said...

Jokah --
I think you're right. With men, they know within a sec on whether a woman would pass the classic test (would they "do" her). Women are more influenced by things like, is the hair nice, is the makeup well applied, how stylish is the dress. Plus I think the women you heard were probably also partly expressing their surprise that Jenner didn't look as hideously freakish as they might thane expected.

Remnant said...

I’ve been meaning to comment on the Bruce Jenner thing, but any thoughts I formulate in my head seem to me so obvious as to not bear mentioning. Then I realized that this is really the point of this Orwellian farce: the SJWs, media and entertainment industries that are foisting this upon us are relying on that reluctance to point out the obvious in order to shift the public consciousness on the issue. If the media can acclimate society to repressing their natural reactions to things, they can continue to lead society in unnatural directions. So stating the obvious is our duty. An analogy will explain why it feels so strange to have to do so in this case. Suppose my daughter bursts into the room, starts hopping around and saying “ribbit”, and then turns to me and says “Daddy, I’m a frog!!” If I then turn to the house guests who happen to be present and earnestly explain to them that my daughter is in fact a human being and that she is just pretending to be a frog as she finds it amusing etc etc etc., I expect that my guests would consider me, not my daughter, the weird one. And this analogy may not go far enough, because Jenner has so little to do with any of us. It’s more like if I walked by a playground, see a little girl pretending to be a frog, and then walked over to a bunch of total strangers in the vicinity and explained to them that the girl is really a human being etc etc. That’s the meshuggah world we live in right now! Those who state the obvious appear crazy!

With that prelude, let me point out the following:

1. The moment Jenner was conceived, the very first Jennerian (!) cell contained … drum roll please … one X and one Y chromosome. Each cell into which it then subdivided, and each of the approximately TEN TRILLION cells currently comprising his body today, continue to contain one X and one Y chromosome. There is, thus, no biological evidence or support for the concept that he is a woman. We are asked to accept that he is a woman based merely on his bare assertion and on nothing else. Why is this assertion privileged by the public over all biological and physiological evidence to the contrary? If the DNA evidence doesn’t matter, can we also claim to be a race we are not? How about asserting that one does not have a disease dictated purely by DNA or cellular mutations (e.g. sickle-cell anemia)? If assertions are all we need muster to change reality, why do we need a criminal justice system? When a perp asserts he is innocent, is that not sufficient? Why are newspapers so skeptical and conservative in referring to perps as “alleged perpetrators” or “suspects”? If physical evidence can be overridden by a mere assertion, why are they not “innocent men” and “falsely accused men”. (Remember, according to these people, Jenner has NEVER been a man; likewise, doesn’t the perp’s assertion change history retroactively too? Why not?)

(end part 1)

Remnant said...

(cont from part 1)

2. The only different between the Jenner of two days ago and today is that he has changed his name. That, plus the above-mentioned bare assertion. I don’t want to hear about his surgeries – shaving his Adam’s apple, facial adjustments, etc. – those are known as “cosmetic” surgeries. Cosmetic, as in appearance. If I take my mashed potatoes and shape them into the form of a banana, will the world accept that it has become a banana? Notice that when a woman has “breast augmentation surgery”, they are known in common parlance as “fake boobs”. Got that? Fake boobs, not real boobs. If Jenner takes the further step of cutting off his balls (which I highly doubt he will), he will then become what is known as a “eunuch”. They have existed in various cultures for thousands of years, and they are not women. I repeat: women are not simply male eunuchs. Is this a controversial statement? And it he then further undergoes surgery to rejigger the shape of his genitals and have doctors poke a new hole in his pelvis area, he will then be …. repeat after me … a “mutilated eunuch”. Not a woman, a mutilated eunuch. Still clear? Do we all understand that a mutilated eunuch and a woman are not the same thing? Am I presenting controversial ideas? To me it’s all as obvious as the weather.

3. Jenner likes to wear earrings, apply lipstick and rouge and to paint his toenails. He also likes to wear women’s clothing. This phenomenon is known as “cross-dressing” or “transvestitism”. Sorry to do this people, but I’m going to ask: Do we all understand that a cross-dressing man is not the same thing as a woman? (And for those who aren’t good at extrapolating, I’ll even draw the preceding two points together: A eunuch who cross dresses is also not the same thing as a woman.)

Again, it is almost embarrassing to have to point all of this out.

Now, what is so wrong about what has been going on is not really Jenner himself. I agree with John, that Jenner is essentially a pitiable or simply grotesque figure. Harmless eccentrics have always existed and should largely be humored or left alone. But we are not being asked merely to humor him, and WE are not being left alone: he is being forced down our throats as something we must endorse and celebrate. He is being used as a propaganda piece to brainwash us and our children into accepting that something bizarre and marginal is normal and wonderful. The issue is the institutions – media, journalistic, entertainment, academic and even governmental – that want us to accept these lies, and that promote these lies themselves. The same journalists whose very vocation is founded upon questioning and skepticism are acting as mouthpieces and bullhorns for outright untruths. Liberals who pride themselves on being part of the “reality-based community” and “pro-science”, and who mock conservatives as being the opposite, are denying biological realities and taking the fantasies and delusions of disturbed individuals as having some kind of sacred and inviolable authority. And the SJWs enforce this with totalitarian viciousness: people have had to shut down their own Twitter accounts for posting innocuous statements like “He’ll always be Bruce to me.” This is the nadir of a twisted and decadent age.

Let me add one other point, that John is, to my knowledge, the first and only person to have explicitly made: that is Jenner’s possible (likely?) use of “gear” back in his athlete days and the relationship this may have had to his subsequent descent into “gender confusion”. This is, in my view, the elephant in the room. And, again, where the fuck are the journalists on this? Has ANYONE made this point in the mainstream press? Why the fuck not? Steve Sailer has implied he thinks the same thing in a recent post, but again only John has explicitly asked the question. Sailer recently wrote, in a post titled “What celebrity will enlist next in World War T?: “I was thinking Jose Canseco or Sammy Sosa. Who knows what kind of endocrine systems they have left …”

Remnant said...

A few thoughts on the question of homosexuality raised in the comments above. I disagree both with the views expressed that homosexuality in something like its current form existed throughout history, and about the relative neutral nature of granting homosexual rights, such as marriage.

On the first question, I believe we have tended to retroactively superimpose modern homosexual culture onto the past. The Greeks were “gay”, Chinese emperors were “gay”, various famous European artists were “gay”, Oscar Wilde was “gay”, bringing to mind in each case the modern phenomenon of out-and-out gay identity. Homosexuality in the ancient world and even in most historical periods was not an identity. It was essentially a behavior. To the extent it was more than behavior, it tended to be a segmented and discrete (as in partial or detached, not discreet as in private) part of one, not a defining characteristic. Greek homosexuality was a highly formalized practice: older men mentoring younger men with some, usually minor, physical component (older man always the top). As for later European culture, it was usually a form of infatuation or obsession, almost a fetish, but one that did not define the entire identity of a person. This is certainly true of Oscar Wilde. He was a happily married man with two sons he adored. He valued and loved his family. The incident between Wilde and Alfred Douglas is very much in the Greek mold, and it was not even something that appeared to have been very physical if at all. Wilde was infatuated and distracted by a youth. Read his De Profundis to gain as sense of what the relationship was actually like. Wilde was not “gay”. A very similar thing is depicted in Mann’s “Death in Venice”. Again, the phenomenon of homosexuality in history was a totally different one from the modern culture in which someone’s “gayness” is a defining and key aspect of their being. To the extent that there were explicitly "gay" cultures in the past, it was usually in decadent eras and was part and parcel of their decline.

On the question of homosexual marriage and rights generally, I also strongly disagree. The granting of these rights demeans and undermines bedrock institutions of civilization going back to pre-history. It is also extremely destabilizing to the minds of children. It is outright evil to me that young children are being indoctrinated into believing, and even encouraged to adopt themselves, the idea that being homosexual as a total identity is a normal and healthy thing. How many parents have seen their lineages come to an end because a child, who in another age may have married, had children, and perhaps engaged in extra-marital dalliances or experiments, instead adopts a totalizing homosexual identity? I’m sure it has happened and is happening today. The movement that has brought this about is evil, in my view. A recent poll showed that Americans estimate the homosexual and “transgender” population at 25% whereas the reality is that it is less than 4%, and probably even smaller than that. This shows the power of this propaganda: ordinary Americans vastly overestimate its normalcy. So I do not see the granting of “equal rights” to homosexuals as a neutral or positive thing.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
Where do I start? I agree pretty much completely with your first two comments. As a matter of fact, I'm going to put them up as a post, since they summarize the current zeitgeist so well. If you don't mind, I'm going to edit slightly: I'm going to cut out the last paragraph, which is sort of a separate thought, and even though Steve Sailer now seems to agree (he saw and actually commented on that original post), I've actually backed off a touch on that theory. (I agree, it should get more airtime though.) Jenner now claims he has felt female from an early age, like 5. I have no reason to disbelieve him, though who knows, and I still suspect the harm the steroids did to his system had some influence.

Anyway, great comment; it's almost a little embarrassing that you and Gardner and a few others have written comments which far surpass my posts, but it's also gratifying to have such smart people come here.

I disagree with your last comment (obviously, since it's me you're disagreeing with) and will respond to that here next.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
On the question of homosexuality's history: I agree, being "a homosexual" wasn't alway a firm identity the way it is now. The Spartans saw it as an exercise in male bonding, and most of those warriors had wives as well. And yes, sexuality is fluid, as exemplified by all the guys in jail who are heterosexual but who "settle for" what they can get while locked up. I also agree that present day homosexual CULTURE didn't exist in the old days. What I said above was:

"I'm not even sure how much of an abnormality it is; throughout history, there has always been a pretty consistent portion of the population who are attracted to their own sex. And a lot of them have been productive citizens, and more than a few geniuses have been homosexual (Michelangelo, Da Vince, etc)."

I was talking about sexuality, not culture, and I think that it's true that in every generation, there are a certain (small) percentage of people who are primarily attracted to those of their own gender. And the fact that there are bisexuals, or different cultures, doesn't negate that.

BTW, I'm not so sure that Wilde is a good example of someone falsely accused of being gay. Everything about him: those soft cheeks, full lips, doughy build, and arch sense of humor all scream "gay" to me. I'm sure he managed to have sex with his wife a few times, and who knows, maybe more, but adoring his sons is also not proof of sexual orientation.

As far as gay marriage, I just don't see it as being a threat to heterosexual marriage. Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi have now tied the knot. That hasn't affected my marriage in the least. The only "threats" to my marriage are, frankly, my wife and me.

I agree with you about the propaganda though. Homosexuality should be accepted, and not prosecuted, but not celebrated. That 25% number you quoted is very telling.

Remnant said...

John,

Thank you for appreciating the comment. I agree with your editorializing: the last paragraph was a separate point. And also I used expletives in it, which I don't usually do, and which would not have seemed appropriate on your front page.

But as for the point I (well really you) made in that paragraph, it is one that deserves more public airing. I generally do not like attributing motives or thoughts to other people since none of us is a mind-reader; nevertheless, Jenner's claim to have had these thoughts since he was 5 years old strikes me as self-deluding. There are plenty of "memories" we have that are incorrect, self-justifying and so forth. See Kurosawa's Rashomon. We are worse witnesses than we think we are; and when it comes to something like this, the (unconscious) incentive to self-justify is strong.

So I think your thesis about his possible steroid use deserves more consideration. Also, the real point here is that plausible theories like that are precisely the purview of any journalist worth his title, it's their bread and butter, or should be.

Any journalist worth his (or her!) salt would ask Jenner two questions: 1. Did you use performance enhancing drugs in your career? 2. If yes, given what we know about PEDs interference with the human hormonal system, do you think it is possible that such use and the documented complications that can result from such use contributed to your predilection to identify as a woman? Even if Jenner answers in the negative and/or denies the relationship, simply asking the questions gives the public information they should have. It's like when an attorney in examining a witness asks a question the attorney knows will be denied simply in order to get a plausible (but deniable) idea on record. Instead, we get "journalists" whose idea of an interview is to ask Jenner "So, when did you first know you were a woman?" That's not journalism, that's promotional assistance.

Remnant said...

On the homosexual issue, we are probably less far apart than is apparent. To be clear: I do not deny the existence of innate homosexuality. There obviously are people who, for whatever reason, are strongly and exclusively sexually attracted to the same sex. My view is that such people are (and have always been) a much smaller proportion of the population than we have been led to believe, and that more of them are -- with the right environment, support and incentives -- more likely to pursue a mainstream and straight existence. And I am not just talking about that absurd poll. I mean that many of the people who now identify as gay have been influenced by environmental factors and cultural factors, maybe even family issues, would not have turned out homosexual in another cultural milieu. Look at China or Japan or Malaysia or Africa or India, or any number of still more traditional societies: there are many fewer gays. Are we really to believe that the repressive cultures and social mores are keeping some huge number of people in the closet in those countries? I simply don't buy it.

What we are seeing in America and Western Europe is the result of decadence, feminization, revolt and other social factors. The propaganda that has been going on for decades now contributes to increased homosexuality that, I would argue, would not have been "repressed" but simply would not have been. So another way to state it is that my main point above was not that "gay culture" or gay people didn't exist in the past, but that modern gay culture (1) has in fact increased the number of people who (wrongly) identify as gay and (2) skews our view of what homosexuality meant throughout most of human history largely in the service of furthering point (1).

On gay marriage, I guess we just disagree. It may not affect individual unions such as yours. But it certainly affects the perception of the institution of marriage by the young, which is having measurable effects on straight people's behavior. And this is to say nothing of the other potential deleterious effects, such as gay adoption as a front for child abuse (documented).

I think gays should be tolerated and empathized with, and treated as one treats anyone else. But on the question of how we order our society, marginal peoples should not be dictating the norms. With the SJWs, including gays, that is exactly what is happening.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
You could be right about Jenner lying, or being deluded about how early he remembers wanting to be a woman, and I think that his steroid use definitely had an effect. But I'm just saying that the psychological underpinnings started earlier than 1976.

Couldn't agree more about the way journalists treat Jenner. Those are the questions they should ask, along with the one that Jova suggested (after the Christine Jorgensen post): have you changed your genitalia yet, and if not, do you plan to?

I'm not so sure there are fewer people who are homosexually inclined in more traditional cultures, my guess is that those so inclined are just more closeted. Look at the US now vs. in, say, 1925. Are there more natural gays now than then? There are certainly more who are open about it, which might give that impression. In 1925 you didn't see flamboyant gays walking around on the streets of Manhattan. But I doubt human nature has changed so much.

As far as sexuality being a choice, think of it this way: could you just work up a boner over another guy if you wanted to? I couldn't. Maybe if I were in jail for a few years that would change. And, who knows, maybe I'm just psychologically repressing it somehow. But I know who I was attracted to and whom I found magical from an early age, and I'm talking first grade, and it was girls. And I don't think I had been "programmed" against homosexuality at that point.

Wow, hadn't realized that gay adoption was a front for child abuse. I stated in an earlier comment that I was agnostic on the issue, but if that's the case, then I'm against it.

Pavonine99 said...

Remnant (and John)

Regarding the point on gay adoption as a front for child abuse- there are also documented cases of heterosexual couples adopting children for abusive purposes. Organized religion can be/is used as a front for abuse. Ordinary respectability can be/is used as a front for abuse. Anything and everything can be perverted for nefarious purposes, so I'm not really seeing the argument here.

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
I guess the answer is to see numbers on each. If,as Remnant implies, the numbers are higher for gay couples, then that has to be taken into account.

Pavonine99 said...


If it is true that gay adopters are x times more likely to molest children than the general population, it's still difficult to make the case that gay adoption should be discouraged on that account, since it looks like the majority are non-abusers regardless.

Regarding Jenner- I don't seem to have a strong reaction one way or the other. I agree with other comments that no amount of surgery can really change someone's original sex, but I also can't say that transgendered people disgust me or signal a decline in public morality (Personally, I regard "public morality" as an oxymoron anyway).

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
I'd liken the gay adoption question to the boy scout troop masters question. The BSA resisted having gay troop leaders for a long time, and I understand why. They've had to either fight or settle over 2000 lawsuits in the past over molestation claims. Why open themselves up to even more? Certainly the vast majority of gay troop masters wouldn't molest kids. But, if they're much more likely to, is it worth the risk? I know that logic doesn't fly these days, but it's a reasonable question.

Remnant said...

I was going to make the point about numbers and percentages but John beat me too it. Pedophilia is a phenomenon that is disproportionately male homosexual, so it is not an idle issue.

Pavonine99 said...

I see your point, but all the statistical evidence I've seen suggests otherwise. Most child abusers don't seek out adult relationships of any kind, or are heterosexual in their adult relationships, so someone on the gay scene or in a committed homosexual relationship is unlikely to pose a threat to children.

Anonymous said...

How is it that Bruce Jenner went from a life long fame whore and creep who has never contributed anything positive to anyone to a hero because he had a sex change?