Guess he won’t be wearing heels anytime soonJune 8, 2015 Tim WorstallSex81 CommentsBruce Jenner is 6 ft 2 apparently….. previousThe Guardian tackles the vital issuesnextBelgium defies France with euro coin marking Napoleon defeat 81 thoughts on “Guess he won’t be wearing heels anytime soon” So Much for Subtlety June 8, 2015 at 9:59 am I look forward to him competing for the US Women’s Team in the next Olympics. Now they have let a clapped out version of the Decathlon take place for women. I expect he is in with a chance. In 1976 he scored 8618. The current women’s record holder Austra Skujytė scored 8366 back in 2005. Martin Audley June 8, 2015 at 10:00 am Caitlyn Jenner, Tim. Steve June 8, 2015 at 10:21 am Bruce Transjenner. I sneeze in threes June 8, 2015 at 11:03 am Steve wind t internet again. I sneeze in threes June 8, 2015 at 11:03 am Wins the Dave June 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm Seriously, Tim, are you being deliberately offensive? So Much for Subtlety June 8, 2015 at 12:57 pm Martin Audley – “Caitlyn Jenner, Tim.” Really? You know, deep down inside I have never been happy. If I keep acting out it is because I can’t admit the truth to myself. I know that I have been living a lie all these years. I need to accept the fact that actually I am not an elderly White male. All those Tribe Called Quest CDs must actually mean something. Today I would like to say it loud, say it proud and come out as Black. I am throwing away my slave name. From now on, I would prefer you to refer to me as So Much For Shaneequa. Umm, there is an X in there somewhere. So of course now I intend to hook up with a round the way girl. Fight the power! Interested June 8, 2015 at 1:30 pm Dave, I think on an earlier thread you were cutting about the place calling people ‘cunts’. Seriously, Dave, were you being deliberately offensive? #innocentface Radders June 8, 2015 at 1:32 pm I, too, am Black. Negritude has nothing to do with skin colour; it’s a state of mind, a sense of being, a striving for belonging. That I was born with nordic / alpine European physical characteristics is an accident of nature. My soul is Black. My brothers, do I not feel the cruel welts from the rod of servitude, the pain of iron and taste of blood around my throat and wrists from your brutal confinement? Is my tribal spirit not crushed by the savage conformity of your ghost race? The very rhythm of my heart like the pulse of my native forests, a drum and bass backtrack to my true being? From now on you will please call me Kunta X Watkins. Jim June 8, 2015 at 1:49 pm I’ve always known I was born to play cricket for England. Due to a freak accident of genetics I was born without the talent to actually achieve this. However I would now like to declare that I am indeed an ex-England cricketer, that I played in 87 Tests, and scored 5439 runs at an average of 32, and took 215 wickets at an average of 26. And that forever the 1989 Ashes series is known as Jim’s Ashes, on account of how I won the Urn virtually single handedly. I would appreciate it if Wisden could be amended to take this all into account. Rob June 8, 2015 at 1:55 pm You won the ashes for Australia then, Jim? Jim June 8, 2015 at 2:05 pm @Rob: no of course not, but I assume that if I can demand that I be now considered a former Test cricketer I think I can also demand that the utter abomination of the 1989 Ashes series (one where England didn’t win a single days play IMO let alone come anywhere near winning a match) be expunged from the record and my heroic performances be inserted instead? Tim Worstall June 8, 2015 at 2:07 pm Yes bloke in france June 8, 2015 at 3:00 pm The tabloids and the victims call it “sex change” For some reason the people who actually do the cutting and splicing call it “gender reassignment”. That’s a clue, Dave. john77 June 8, 2015 at 3:16 pm Why can’t s/he wear high heels just because s/he is 6’2″? Anecdata alert: when I was in my thirties I was average height for a man and a very attractive blonde friend (not a girlfriend, just a friend who was a girl) 4″ taller than I wore high heels as often as not* – adjusting the increase in average height (since then and USA vs UK) would make her taller than “Caitlyn” Jenner. *more often in public, less often when working out of sight Squander Two June 8, 2015 at 3:24 pm Whatever one may think about sex changes, are people here seriously arguing against the right to change your fucking name? Libertarianism, eh? Jesus wept. john77 June 8, 2015 at 4:08 pm @ S2 In my country, a person may call him/herself what he/she wants unless it is pursuit to fraud. If the individual in question has executed the US equivalent of a Deed Poll then his/her name is now “Caitlyn” or whatever else s/he has chosen. I put “Caitlyn” in inverted commas because I don’t know what his/her name now is. That was not judgemental – it was trying to avoid making a judgement based on ignorance. I was not trying to upset you – I grew up with the concept that individuals could choose a name that differed from their birth certificate, not just among those that appeared on it – among my parents’ friends were “George”, christened Jerzy, “Peter”, christened Cyril Frank, and in the house between them, “Jean”, whose original name was unmemorable (well, I can’t remember it, although I was told it once by mother who knew it and still called her Jean) – her husband had told his mother that he was going to marry a girl called Jean so his wife was called Jean – not just by her mother-in-law but by everyone. Bloke in Wales June 8, 2015 at 4:24 pm are people here seriously arguing against the right to change your fucking name? I didn’t notice anyone arguing that (but I can’t be arsed to read the comments again to double check!) However, given the ‘right’ to change one’s name, isn’t it also the ‘right’ of everyone else to use a descriptive name that causes least confusion? Not just in the case of Bruce Jenner, but eg TAFKAP rather than a logo, or Mao Tse Tung rather than 毛主席. Squander Two June 8, 2015 at 4:34 pm > I didn’t notice anyone arguing that (but I can’t be arsed to read the comments again to double check!) SMFS and Radders explicitly compared changing one’s name to a white person claiming to be black. Squander Two June 8, 2015 at 4:35 pm > isn’t it also the ‘right’ of everyone else to use a descriptive name that causes least confusion? Calling people what they prefer to be called is basic politeness. Squander Two June 8, 2015 at 4:38 pm J77, > In my country, a person may call him/herself what he/she wants unless it is pursuit to fraud. If the individual in question has executed the US equivalent of a Deed Poll then his/her name is now “Caitlyn” or whatever else s/he has chosen. It never ceases to amaze me how a country whose entire self-mythology is built on freedom from government is populated entirely by people who don’t do a damn thing without the state’s permission. The form you get filled out for a change of name is a reflection of what your name actually is. You’re not applying to the state for permission; you’re informing them of what is already the case. Monty June 8, 2015 at 4:52 pm Jenner has every right to change his name to anything he wants, and to re-invent himself as anything he wants. What he does nor have the right to do, is police the way he is referred to by others. And ultimately, that’s what all this hype is about, isn’t it? A goodthinkful online flashmob seeking out offenders who fail to conform to the “narrative” that this father of six is, and always was, actually a woman. john77 June 8, 2015 at 4:57 pm @ Monty Jenner is NOT policing the way in which others refer to him/her. It is the “liberal media” that are doing so. john77 June 8, 2015 at 5:09 pm @ S2 My country is called England (because I am not good enough to compete for Wales – I am not good enough to compete for England, either). I was making the point that i do not know US law. Actually the Deed Poll is asking the government for permission to use your name in legal documents – for anything else it has no impact. Squander Two June 8, 2015 at 5:38 pm J77, Ah, I see. Sorry, I’m sure you can see how it looked like you were implying you were American from a certain angle. Although, as ever, I probably shouldn’t try thinking on Mondays. Anyway, you’re wrong about deed poll. You may call yourself whatever you want in the UK, including in legal documents, and the government will happily use that name, deed poll or not. Deed poll is helpful when getting a passport in your new name, but not actually necessary. Bloke in Wales June 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm Calling people what they prefer to be called is basic politeness. Unless Jenner is himself reading these comments, then no-one here is calling him anything impolite. john77 June 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm @S2 Maybe it’s changed but when I was I was young people did need to have a Deed Poll before using their chosen, but not born, name in legal documents. My second aunt-by-marriage changed her name by Deed Poll before the birth of her first child while waiting for my uncle to get a divorce on grounds of adultery from his first wife (my late lamented namesake was born while uncle was in Egypt with the 8th Army) john77 June 8, 2015 at 5:55 pm @ S2 Yeah, I tend to expect people to read me as a greying British mongrel, so I don’t bother to make it clear. Apologies Tim Newman June 8, 2015 at 5:56 pm Calling people what they prefer to be called is basic politeness. Usually, yes. But in this case, referring to him/her by the girl’s name Caitlyn implies an acceptance of the fact that he has actually changed sex, which a lot of people don’t accept. The insistence that he/she now be called Caitlyn smacks of an attempt to force everyone to accept he has changed his sex: this case is not simply a matter of somebody wishing to change their name. The closets parallel I can think of is somebody giving himself a Jewish name because it is good for business (whether this ever happened outside a Guy Ritchie film I don’t know). I could understand why Jews would be unhappy about going along with the name change. john77 June 8, 2015 at 6:27 pm @ Tim Newman A few years ago I did some work for a nice guy called Mark, except in legal documents where he was called Mordecai: his parents had read thje book of Esther. Lots of girls are called Kim, which is a boy’s name. I never watch Guy Ritchie films because none have ever reached the standard that my wife sets before asking me to waste my time doimg so. Andrew M June 8, 2015 at 6:29 pm “Calling people what they prefer to be called is basic politeness.” I have reservations about that. Politeness is mutual: I agree to call you by your chosen name, but only if you haven’t chosen a name which imposes an unreasonable burden on others. If your parents named you Emileigh instead of Emily then you have my sympathy, but if it’s your own choice then you’re just asking for trouble. Tim Newman June 8, 2015 at 6:41 pm A few years ago I did some work for a nice guy called Mark, except in legal documents where he was called Mordecai: his parents had read thje book of Esther. Yes, but that’s not quite the same thing. If a Lebanese Christian arrived at a business conference in Saudi Arabia and introduced himself as Mohammed when his name was actually Patrick, he is implying that he is a Muslim. Is it impolite to question his preferred handle and the motivations behind it? The idea everyone should unquestionably accept somebody else’s adopted name out of politeness is an odd one, I find. All you’ve done is give an example where there would be no reason not to, and we can all think of a hundred of those. Tim Newman June 8, 2015 at 6:46 pm By the way, slightly off topic, but one of the things I find most excruciatingly annoying about the uber-posh British is their habit of giving their daughters silly nicknames when they’re babies/toddlers which the daughter then retains until adulthood. I find it smacks of attention-seeking. ukliberty June 8, 2015 at 6:49 pm I agree to call you by your chosen name, but only if you haven’t chosen a name which imposes an unreasonable burden on others Such a burden, calling someone “Caitlyn” instead of “Bruce.” Ian B June 8, 2015 at 6:57 pm If Bruce wants to be called Caitlyn from now on, whatever. I think the reaction is just against this claim that the reality of his nature is female. The Daily Mail, for instance, captioned a photo today as “revealed his true self” and this is going to cause obvious annoyance among people with a different view on the ontology of sex. If people want to change their appearance, that is of no concern to me. I have problems when I am ordered to believe something about reality that I do not believe to be true. Rather like religion; if people believe in God, that’s not my concern. If they tell me I am obligated to believe in God, I get annoyed. ukliberty June 8, 2015 at 7:22 pm Now, this was a burdensome name: Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorffwelchevoralternwarengewissenhaftschaferswessenschafewarenwohlgepflegeundsorgfaltigkeitbeschutzenvorangreifendurchihrraubgierigfeindewelchevoralternzwolfhunderttausendjahresvorandieerscheinenvonderersteerdemenschderraumschiffgenachtmittungsteinundsiebeniridiumelektrischmotorsgebrauchlichtalsseinursprungvonkraftgestartseinlangefahrthinzwischensternartigraumaufdersuchennachbarschaftdersternwelchegehabtbewohnbarplanetenkreisedrehensichundwohinderneuerassevonverstandigmenschlichkeitkonntefortpflanzenundsicherfreuenanlebenslanglichfreudeundruhemitnichteinfurchtvorangreifenvorandererintelligentgeschopfsvonhinzwischensternartigraum, Senior Monty June 8, 2015 at 7:39 pm The Caitlin mob are clamouring to impose acceptance that the guy has changed what he actually IS. (Some of the most insistent are even demanding that change of fact to be retrospective, ie he was always a woman.) I object to being coerced into saying I believe or accept a nonsense. If he wakes up tomorrow morning and declares himself a Canada Goose, he will still be a bloke. And if somebody shoots him in the afternoon it’ll still be homicide, not hunting out of season. The qwertys are getting carried away having re-defined, so they think, the word “marriage”. Now they think it worth trying to redefine the rest of the vocabulary to suit themselves. We don’t have to even acknowledge that, let alone accept it. They are welcome to their own little world, but they don’t get to re-define anyone else’s. Ljh June 8, 2015 at 8:18 pm At 65 I hope Jenner will be able to remember its new handle. In dotage it’s the most recent events and people that slip the memory while ancient connections persist almost to the end. This could constitute a reasonable test of just how entrenched the newly adopted identity is. So Much for Subtlety June 8, 2015 at 9:51 pm Squander Two – “SMFS and Radders explicitly compared changing one’s name to a white person claiming to be black.” No I am not. Because there is no evidence that the athlete formerly known as Bruce Jenner has changed his name by deed poll. He is welcome to. As others have mentioned, the problem is the bullying of anyone who does not accept that he has changed his sex and is now a woman. By the way, nothing explicit there at all. Tim Newman – “The closets parallel I can think of is somebody giving himself a Jewish name because it is good for business (whether this ever happened outside a Guy Ritchie film I don’t know). I could understand why Jews would be unhappy about going along with the name change.” Whoopi Goldberg changed her name from Caryn Elaine Johnson because she wanted to work in show business and thought a Jewish name would help. ukliberty June 8, 2015 at 10:09 pm I don’t feel at all “coerced” or “bullied” by Caitlyn Jenner or anyone insisting Jenner is a woman. Are you guys feeling a bit delicate? So Much for Subtlety June 8, 2015 at 10:27 pm ukliberty – “I don’t feel at all “coerced” or “bullied” by Caitlyn Jenner or anyone insisting Jenner is a woman. Are you guys feeling a bit delicate?” Of course not. You usually stand with the bullies. So Much for Subtlety June 8, 2015 at 10:32 pm john77 – “Why can’t s/he wear high heels just because s/he is 6’2″?” Because women want men who are taller than them. Not always, but fairly strongly. Wearing heels makes their legs look better but it is a trade off. Remember that horrible Australian actress when she divorced Tom Cruise saying that finally she was free to wear heels again. “Anecdata alert: when I was in my thirties I was average height for a man and a very attractive blonde friend (not a girlfriend, just a friend who was a girl) 4″ taller than I wore high heels as often as not” And thus was not your girlfriend. Had she been, do you think she would have worn heels? john77 June 8, 2015 at 10:38 pm @ Tim Newman All the guys in his office wore skullcaps and beards. I suppose that by the age of six, he had spent more time than he wished to do in the whole of his life expaining why he had been named Mordecai Secondly, there is a lovely bit in “Cabin Pressure”, a BBC radio serial, where the owner of the air dot (one aeroplane cannot form a line) asks her not-at-all-bright-son not to list the names of his girl friends lest it sound as if he is trying to name a litter of Labrador puppies john77 June 8, 2015 at 10:52 pm @ SMFS If she had been my girlfriend, it would have made no difference to her choices about when to wear high heels or flats – she was taller than me in flats. Neither of us needed height for status – she, and my little sister, had more letters after their names than I. As to your first paragraph – definitely not always, my mother as 1″ taller than my father. Ian B June 8, 2015 at 11:04 pm john77- Nonetheless, it’s a basic thing that because we are a sexually dimorphic species with larger males, women tend to prefer taller men, and men tend to prefer shorter women. As SMFS said, not always. But there is a strong bias. Steve June 8, 2015 at 11:54 pm I sneeze in threes – (takes a bow) 🙂 Ukliberty – Now, this was a burdensome name Damn right. Who would name their son “Adolph”? I don’t feel at all “coerced” or “bullied” by Caitlyn Jenner Me neither. I feel sorry for him/her/shim. All that money and fame, and six children, and it wasn’t enough to make Jenner happy. The surgery probably won’t either, but hopefully it’ll turn out better than it does for most transsexuals – who end up miserable and regretting it. or anyone insisting Jenner is a woman. Me personally? No. I ran out of fucks to give a while back. But I can see where this is headed – look at the hounding of James Naughtie and the Twittermobs denouncing “bigots” who don’t agree that Caitlin Jenner is, and always has been, a woman. Soon it’ll be a sackable offence not to go along with gender madness. Maybe they’ll drum up some trumped-up lawsuits to sweeten the pot too, like with those Christian bakers who were shown that they’d better get with the programme. Are you guys feeling a bit delicate? Not since I stopped being a gloriously perma-sauced alcoholic. What happened to poor Charlie Kennedy (may he rest in peace) could easily have happened to me. So no, not delicate. I do feel like Captain Picard in that episode of Star Trek TNG where the Cardassian interrogator (played by the deliciously evil David Warner) was trying to break him into saying that there were five lights. There were only four lights, of course. His torturer knew that if he could force Picard to deny reality, he could get him to do anything. It’s like they’re holding up that Uncanny Valleyish, Photoshopped picture on the cover of Vanity Fair and daring you to deny that it’s an image of a beautiful woman, rather than a 65 year old grandfather with a penis who got dolled up to look like Jessica Lange. I used to smoke a bit of dope back in my youth, and combined with beer it sometimes made me feel weird. But not as weird as this. Maybe our universe has collided with the Cheech and Chong dimension. Ed Snack June 9, 2015 at 12:14 am I think the word SMFS and Radders are seeking is Trans-Nigger; where one is really Black, on the INSIDE. It’s as real as any other similar syndrome, to deny it is undoubtedly racist. I’m just waiting for the body-dysmorphism deniers to start a group supporting anorexics RIGHT to thinness, including fat-removal surgery. Why make exception for one sort of dysmorhia and not others ? Matthew L June 9, 2015 at 2:02 am Seeing as we have the world’s leading experts on trans issues collected in this thread, let’s find out – how do you all propose to treat people with gender dysphoria? You’re adamantly opposed to gender transitioning, and therapy has been shown not to work. Any other suggestions? Ian B June 9, 2015 at 2:26 am Matthew L- Nobody is saying that these people should not be free to transition. Or to not transition, but to dress as a woman. Or whatever works for them. The issue is that we now have the SJWs setting a rigid orthodoxy about what one should believe ontologically regarding sex and gender. Which ironically, even radical feminists like Julie Bindel have found puts them in the “no platform” sin bin because they believe that a man is still a man even if he has some hormones and plastic surgery. As to treatment; well, firstly it is unclear what is being treated. Nobody can be sure whether this is some biological/congenital problem, or a psychiatric one. But some conditions cannot be treated at any stage of human medical history, so it may be that there is no treatment. The outrageous thing here is a “rights” movement driven by a critical theory analysis claiming medical certainty. It’s pure dogmatism. It would be nice to have the technology to genuinely change sex. A person could try it for a while, and stay that way if they like it, or transition back if they don’t. But we do not have that technology as yet. But one interesting thing is that normally, humans are very defensive about what they are. A disabled person might be frustrated at not being fully able to do things that others can do. An ugly person might wish to be beautiful because of the reactions they get from others. But what you are is an observable, and the idea that we arrive in the world hardwired with “what sex we ought to be” is not convincing, which leaves transsexuality as a suspicious category of people who are unable to accept what they are; which certainly looks like a psychiatric disorder. Ultimately, life is all about dealing with what you are, and what actually is. Maybe, if it is a psychiatric condition, a means can be found to treat that. It certainly won’t be if we deny even the possibility of it as politically incorrect. Ian B June 9, 2015 at 2:40 am Just to clarify the first bit: as I said, anyone who wishes to undergo these procedures should of course be free to do so. One question though is whether this is a medical treatment, or an elective cosmetic surgery. There is a distinction, rather like the difference between reconstructive breast surgery after a cancer (for instance) compared to choosing to have DD implants because you fancy having big boobs. The problem becomes, should these people have the right to demand (by force of law?) that the rest of society treat them as their chosen gender? Should a transwoman compete in gender segregated sports, when the whole point of that segregation is because the male body is on average much bigger and stronger than the female? If Jenner had transitioned when young should s/he have competed against natural females? All 6 foot 2 of him with his male muscles? What of bathroom facilities? Communal showers? Should transwomen be incarcerated in womens prisons? What is the point of having separate sex facilities at all if so? They still have all the physical power that makes men a threat to women, even if they have breast implants. The Guardian a while ago complained that a “transwoman” comedian had been put in a mens prison in the States (over a visa problem); in his, or her, article, she (or he) complained that it was because he (or she) still had his “junk”. She, or he, also has a girlfriend, and considers him or herself a “lesbian”. Rape problems, much? So again, it’s not just about what the person wants for themself. It is a demand that everyone else treat them as what they claim to be. I wonder how many transmen are eager to go into male American prisons, with the certainty of rapidly becoming some big thug’s bitch. Matthew L June 9, 2015 at 2:44 am “They still have all the physical power that makes men a threat to women” No, they don’t. The testosterone blockers and estrogen they take reduce muscle mass considerably. Matthew L June 9, 2015 at 3:24 am Ignoring the glaring error about physical power (honestly, if you’re going to criticise this stuff you should at least understand it) the rest of those comments are a complete non-answer. “I don’t have a problem with them transitioning as long as they can’t do it in any meaningful way whatsoever”. It’s like saying you’re fine with people having guns as long as they’re made out of tissue paper and nobody sells them bullets. Ed Snack June 9, 2015 at 3:58 am So Matthew L, you support anorexics access to stomach stapling and fat removal surgery then ? If not, why discriminate. Therapy for Anorexics often doesn’t work as well, you know that I suppose ? It’s a difficult area, sure, but are you REALLY sure that you are not encouraging self mutilation for people suffering a genuine mental problem. The problem being mental, not the body. I think a great deal of caution is necessary before going off the deep end in some crazed SJW campaign. And just for the record, I know someone who went through this, got the chop and the body mods. Is dead now, topped him/her self, it wasn’t the body see, it was the mind. Oh, and utterly resisted any form of therapy, it just was a certainty in his mind…until it wasn’t. Matthew L June 9, 2015 at 4:12 am I think it’s worth giving empathy, compassion and acceptance a try first, but clearly that’s a minority view. Matthew L June 9, 2015 at 4:14 am On anorexia: http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/stop-confusing-gender-dysphoria-with-body-dysmorphia-al-1583049920 Matthew L June 9, 2015 at 4:16 am Or if you want some scientific research to back that up: http://openmindedhealth.com/2013/02/article-review-ender-identity-disorder-and-eating-disorders-similarities-and-differences-in-terms-of-body-uneasiness/ I know it’s not up to the standards of evidence we’re seeing in this thread so far but it’s a start. Tim Newman June 9, 2015 at 6:35 am No, they don’t. The testosterone blockers and estrogen they take reduce muscle mass considerably. Perhaps, but they are still a lot stronger than women. I have seen enough Thai ladyboys fighting to know that. Ed Snack June 9, 2015 at 6:48 am Matthew L, those are , at best, campaign sites for gender dysmorphistic individuals. And yet there may be significant differences in the two states, at least the second site has a reference to one study which I have not further looked into. My (anecdotal) experience would not agree, but anecdotes are not data and there may be a variety of mental states involved. Interested June 9, 2015 at 8:01 am @Matthew L Ian B gave you a perfectly good answer, which is that he couldn’t really give a shit what people does with or to themselves, but he won’t accept being silenced or otherwise policed as to what he thinks or says about it. Perfectly consistent. Unless you think understanding and accepting beliefs and points of view only travels in one direction. Bloke in Wales June 9, 2015 at 8:58 am I think it’s worth giving empathy, compassion and acceptance a try first, but clearly that’s a minority view. Maybe it’s different in SJW-land, but in my universe empathy, compassion and acceptance isn’t incompatible with trying to help someone understand themselves without necessarily resorting to self-mutilation. Because, a bloke that has his cock chopped off no more becomes a woman than if he has his hair permed or fingernails manicured. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 9:41 am SMFS, > No I am not. Funny, my first draft of that comment included “Though he will no doubt deny it now.” Should have left it in. For the record, here’s what you said: > Martin Audley – “Caitlyn Jenner, Tim.” > Really? You know, deep down inside blah blah blah You were explicitly responding to and criticising the use of the name Caitlyn, not the surgery. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 9:49 am Ian, > Maybe, if it is a psychiatric condition, a means can be found to treat that. It certainly won’t be if we deny even the possibility of it as politically incorrect. This is precisely my problem with it: the unscientific dogma. I imagine, people being different, that some people would prefer their bodies to be changed to suit their psyche and others would prefer their minds changed to be more content in their bodies. The former hasn’t been perfected, though it seems to be good enough for some recipents. The latter might well be a better option, if therapists are allowed to work at it. In the current climate, they’ll face harassment if they even consider looking into it. So what could well be a valuable and useful treatment for people is simply not being researched. Ian B June 9, 2015 at 9:50 am I think it’s worth giving empathy, compassion and acceptance a try first, but clearly that’s a minority view. Well this is a typical moralist putdown. I’m not saying at all that such people should not be treated compassionately. The discussion here is about (a) what their condition actually is and (b) the compulsion of everybody to agree to one opinion on that as a matter of dogma. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 9:51 am Matthew, > I think it’s worth giving empathy, compassion and acceptance a try No you don’t. We’ve seen before how you react to the idea that someone might try some psychiatric treatment instead of surgery. Acceptance? Hardly. Ian B June 9, 2015 at 9:58 am Squander- Indeed. The big problem for me here is that in fact we have very little science to go on. Nobody really knows what is being dealt with. It may even be that some have a congenital condition (“female brain in male body” or vice versa) and others are suffering a psychological condition. Some may just be caught up in a fad. One cannot assume that a particular symptom always has the same cause. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 10:08 am Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg have both written excellent columns on Jenner. Steyn: Even those far closer to them than I was weren’t aware – because back then the object of having a “sex change” (also as we used to say) was to change from being a man to being a woman. There were still only two teams and you were simply crossing over to bat for the other side. The trans-life had little in common with “gay pride” – because the object wasn’t to come out of the closet, but to blend into it so smoothly no one would know you hadn’t always been there. Before their outing, the two ladies in question were more lady-ier than thou: both used to show up once a month with a box of Tampax discreetly poking out from the top of their handbags – even though, as we all understood in retrospect, they had no need of it. But they had chosen to live as women, and so they wished to be as other women. And they were mortified when they were exposed. … I have no great objection to a grown man who “identifies” as a woman and wishes to live as one. Guys have been doing that, to one degree or another, throughout history, and all that’s happened is that cosmetic surgery has caught up with their desires. If half the women in California can walk around with breast implants, I don’t see why the chaps can’t. But … The left’s saying … “No one’s saying she’s a woman. We’re saying she’s a transwoman – a new, separate and way more glamorous category that’s taking its seat at the American table and demanding public affirmation. This isn’t your father’s sex change. Changing from man to woman is so last century.” The coronation of Caitlyn is ultimately not about the right to choose which of the two old teams you want to play on. It’s about creating a cool new team. Goldberg: What I find fascinating is how much magical thinking is involved in all of this. It’s true that gender is a social construction. It’s also true that it’s a social construction built on a natural foundation. If you have a problem with that statement, take it up with the archeological record and the evolutionary psychologists. In other words, gender is an intersubjective cultural term, but culture is also an expression of human nature. There are no cultural institutions designed to deal with people who have laser vision and 14 heads. Why? Because such people don’t exist. Gender roles came about because they are cultural expressions of biological facts rooted in human nature. It is one thing to have a cultural argument about cultural institutions, including language. But you venture into a kind of totalitarianism when you insist that facts be bent to, or erased by, ideology as well. … That only biologically female humans can get pregnant and give birth to babies is true no matter how inconvenient it may be. If that fact hurts someone’s feelings, that’s unfortunate. But that’s no reason to change the language to fuzz-up the facts. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 10:42 am If anyone fancies a laugh, here it is: The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism. Henning June 9, 2015 at 10:49 am I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet: https://youtu.be/Dgp9MPLEAqA So Much for Subtlety June 9, 2015 at 12:25 pm Squander Two – “You were explicitly responding to and criticising the use of the name Caitlyn, not the surgery.” No I wasn’t. I was responding to the implicit shaming of TW for using the scientifically correct pronoun. I don’t mind anyone calling themselves Caitlyn. As long as it is not part of a campaign to fundamentally change Western society by bullying people to accept the deviant as natural. So Much for Subtlety June 9, 2015 at 12:33 pm Ed Snack – “I’m just waiting for the body-dysmorphism deniers to start a group supporting anorexics RIGHT to thinness, including fat-removal surgery. Why make exception for one sort of dysmorhia and not others ?” I think they are on to this already. I am sure I have seen an article asserting it. Matthew L – “how do you all propose to treat people with gender dysphoria? You’re adamantly opposed to gender transitioning, and therapy has been shown not to work. Any other suggestions?” I am not sure therapy has been shown not to work. What does Johns Hopkins do? I would treat them with care and compassion. Denying their fantasy and trying to slow move them back into the real world through an acceptance of reality. All the while making sure they cannot do irreversible harm to themselves. Matthew L – “No, they don’t. The testosterone blockers and estrogen they take reduce muscle mass considerably.” Actually it seems they do. As you would expect. Blocking testosterone, if they bother, would slow new muscle but it would not get rid of muscle they had already. But don’t take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox#Alleged_advantage During Fox’s fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head. After her loss, Brents took to social media to fuel the controversy surrounding Fox’s unfair advantage. She stated that “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…” Maybe he was juicing. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 1:29 pm > No I wasn’t. I was responding to the implicit shaming of TW for using the scientifically correct pronoun. I don’t mind anyone calling themselves Caitlyn. And, again, here’s the thing you actually quoted and then replied to: > Martin Audley – “Caitlyn Jenner, Tim.” Not one pronoun in there. Just the name. If you’re this bad at saying what you mean, maybe your delivery needs work. Interested June 9, 2015 at 2:56 pm @S2 – he did say ‘implicit’, and I assume that M Audley was responding to the word ‘he’ in TW’s header, not just the word Bruce. Though I guess it’s possible that Audley objects to ‘Bruce’ but not ‘he’, or that he objects to both, or neither. Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 4:35 pm > I assume that M Audley was responding to the word ‘he’ in TW’s header On what basis? Ian B June 9, 2015 at 4:54 pm I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…” Males and females have different skeletal structures. Even ignoring the different hips and thighs, males are more robust, broader, and have more efficient muscle attachment points (more leverage), which means in real terms for a male and female of the same height and muscle mass, the male will be stronger. This, for heaven’s sake, is why it is taboo for men to use their strength against women. Suddenly, with “trans” dogma, this all flies out the window. This is why you can’t base descriptions of reality on dogma, and Critical Theory is not the correct discipline to analyse biology. Mr Ecks June 9, 2015 at 6:09 pm The real issue here is the freedom to say that 2+2=4 without attempted bullying from the left. If you don’t agree that 2+2=4 fine but you will get away with no logic-free demands on me about what is true. Bruce Jenner is a man. That is it. As for empathy, compassion etc. If he is helping or is willingly allowing leftist SJW scum to use his case for their propaganda purposes HE has had any chance of compassion etc as far as I am concerned. ukliberty June 9, 2015 at 6:18 pm steve, I do feel like Captain Picard in that episode of Star Trek TNG where the Cardassian interrogator (played by the deliciously evil David Warner) was trying to break him into saying that there were five lights. There were only four lights, of course. His torturer knew that if he could force Picard to deny reality, he could get him to do anything. Do you really feel like you’re undergoing torture intended to break your will? Squander Two June 9, 2015 at 6:55 pm UKL, > Do you really feel like you’re undergoing torture intended to break your will? The coverage of this story’s been a bit odd. It’s prompted lots of strong feelings and shouting on both sides, as you’d expect. Fair enough. But there is a difference between being shouted at and being silenced or censored. I have no doubt that the Left would just love to censor opinions they don’t like — they have form. But, in this case, they have absolutely failed to do so — while all the while the Right shout “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!” Instead of whining about being victims, why not crow about how the Left have failed to enforce their ideology on this occasion? Steve June 9, 2015 at 7:13 pm Ukliberty – Do you really feel like you’re undergoing torture intended to break your will? Yes. But that’s married life for you. Regarding Bruce Jenner’s changing his name to Caitlin and being trumpeted all over the media as the greatest thing since sliced sausage, and the President of the United States saluting the “bravery”, and being informed that the odd-looking person on that Vanity Fair is, contrary to what your eyes might tell you, a beautiful woman… I feel like Captain Picard saying “there… are… four… lights!” Now, I wouldn’t claim to be tortured by this bizarre circus, just as I’m not claiming I feel like I’m a bald French starship captain from the 24th century. It was just an analogy, or a metaphor, or a simile, or something. Though, logically, if I did claim to be Captain Picard, and had my head shaved to better represent the real me, and changed by name to Jean-Luc, you would be obliged to agree that I am, in fact, the skipper of the USS Enterprise. You trekphobic bigot. Dongguan John June 10, 2015 at 2:55 am I thought the Capt Pickard analogy was fair. The other week I was perusing the Guardian website, as I do when bored in the office and fancy a laugh at how big the shark jumped today was and I found one that beats even the North Korea apology the other year. There was an article about Jenner which was full of adjectives telling us how beautiful and sexy this old-dude-in-a-dress is. One word used to describe him was, and I shit you not, “megababe”. I kept scrolling back up to the Vanity Fair cover shot at the top of the article to check my mind wasn’t playing tricks on me. Now, I’m a pretty open minded kind of guy, I go to the Philippines and Thailand and see these ladyboys and some of them actually are not only convincing but also pretty fucking hot, although most look like pathetic men. So it’s not impossible. But Jenner, even with all that photoshopping, he looks like a 65 year old bloke who’s put on a wig, his wife’s make up & her dress to enjoy some time prancing around in front of the mirror. No one could possible think that he is a sexy women ( well maybe some weirdo perv might but not a general person). So why on earth did the author feel the need to fill the article with just about every adjective for beauty in the dictionary and some that aren’t as well? “Megababe” for fucks sake. Is it not that they want to beat it into our heads that this awful mess should be considered beautiful? Squander Two June 10, 2015 at 9:41 am > But Jenner, even with all that photoshopping, he looks like a 65 year old bloke who’s put on a wig, his wife’s make up & her dress to enjoy some time prancing around in front of the mirror. Yup. Personally, I’m not interested in sport. I notice a lot of stories which claim to be about something else are really about sport. Since I had never heard of Bruce Jenner till two weeks ago — and am still happily ignorant of just which variety of jumping up and down he was good at — I simply saw loads of people going on about some wrinkled and somewhat masculine old woman on the front of Vanity Fair. Seriously, I thought it was a bold blow against agism at first. The Pastorius story was about sport too. People thought it was about a murder, but those same people couldn’t tell you a damn thing about any other murder in South Africa. Mr Ecks June 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm “those same people couldn’t tell you a damn thing about any other murder in South Africa.” In fairness there are a hell of a lot to keep track of. I was going to say “keep abreast of” but maybe not…. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.