Reality, warts and all » « My lasting contribution to atheism

The future will get better

jenner

Here’s the good news: Caitlyn Jenner is on the cover of Vanity Fair. Nice photo, too, and the story is very positive.

Here’s the bad news (because there’s always bad news): Fox News has applied their patented oblivious obnoxiousness to the story. Here’s Neil Cavuto, who is so repulsive he could only have a job on television news.

I guess it’s some consolation that the only people who watch Cavuto are people who mock him (hi, guys!), and ancient bigots who will all die in a few years.

But hang on, let’s end on a happy note: Skepticon has announced their first speaker, and it’s … Fallon Fox! Now, see, we must all go. How can you not? Neil Cavuto won’t be there!

Reality, warts and all » « My lasting contribution to atheism

Comments

  1. Sili says

    I have no idea who any of those people are. A bit inside football or whatever it’s called, this story. In one case this ignorance seems to be for the better.

  2. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Saw the photo earlier to today. Hope Jenner is happy. The Wiki article is great.
    For those not familiar with her earlier history:

    At the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Canada, she won the gold medal in the decathlon,[34] setting a world record of 8,616 points, beating her own world record set at the Olympic Trials.[22] She hit a “home run” by achieving personal bests on the first day, turning her notorious second day into a gold medal coronation.[33] Jenner stated, “It hurts every day when you practice hard. Plus, when this decathlon is over, I got the rest of my life to recuperate. Who cares how bad it hurts?”[33]

  3. DonDueed says

    I find it interesting that the article changed the pronouns when describing Jenner’s exploits in the 1976 Olympics, in which he competed in the men’s decathlon.

    I’m fine with using the pronouns she prefers today, but is it valid to project that back 40-odd years?

    In any case, it seems to me that this is a significant moment for the transgender community, somewhat similar to the time that Magic Johnson came forward with his HIV status. (I don’t mean to compare trans* to a disease, of course, just that the high-profile nature of the two events did / could affect public attitudes.)

  4. says

    I wonder how long it will be before all who need make this level of change will not have to depend on personal wealth to have such good results.

  6. Saad says

    DonDueed, #3

    I’m fine with using the pronouns she prefers today, but is it valid to project that back 40-odd years?

    Ask Jenner. Only she can tell you the valid pronoun to describe her 40 years ago.

  7. Jackson says

    Saad, #4

    Ask Jenner. Only she can tell you the valid pronoun to describe her 40 years ago.

    Or even the pronoun Jenner currently prefers. I didn’t read this Vanity Fair article, but in a recent interview, Jenner specified that they still preferred the masculine pronoun.

  9. says

    Or even the pronoun Jenner currently prefers. I didn’t read this Vanity Fair article, but in a recent interview, Jenner specified that they still preferred the masculine pronoun.

    Until they were ready to come out fully as transitioned, which is what has happened with this cover, and Caitlyn now prefers female pronouns.

  11. says

    Come to think of it, I do remember her saying in that interview that she was OK with referring to the past events as “Bruce,” If I remember correctly, she was basing that on allowing for people’s memories of the events, having been a public figure.
    But as far as the Wikipedia article, it is a biography of Caitlyn Jenner, so even if she is ok with people saying “Bruce Jenner won the olympic gold medal,” the biography is about her, written in the present tense but referring to past events, so linguistically it seems it would make the most sense to be saying “She was,” and “she did” and “in her olympic career” etc.

    That having been said, I also got the sense that she was referring to past events with “Bruce” in part because she had not yet revealed her chosen name, and was still in the process of coming out, etc.

  12. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Going to be the killjoy here.

    While it is good that Caitlyn was able to get past all of her physiological blocks (Being seen as perhaps the greatest male athlete of her generation had to add to her issues.) and transition in such a public way, her life is an anomaly for trans people. She is fabulously wealthy and can afford to get the best care. She does not have to worry about losing her job, not getting a job or being under employed nor does she have to go the route of not transitioning in order to hold a job. (Yes, many trans people end up not transitioning in order to hold a job. A very miserable situation to be in.) And being part of a very media savvy family, she was in a position to be presented in a positive light through a friendly interview and make a profit off of it.

    For most of us, we are to scrimp to get the money needed for therapy and hormones. (Most insurance will not cover this.) Many trans people never get the surgeries they want because they cannot afford it. Many trans people end up unemployed and/or homeless. And if you want truly horrifying stories, look up the violence done to trans women, especially that done to african-american trans women. (Look up Transgender Day Of Remembrance, I do not feel like linking to it.)

    It is nice to see a trans woman being treated kindly by a mainstream outlet, it might even change the mind of some people (Mostly people who were already ready to be persuaded by the idea that a trans person really is a person worthy of being respected.) but I still cannot help but see the cover with Caitlyn Jenner as an other example of celebrity culture celebrating celebrity.

  13. Jackson says

    @Ibis3, @marilove

    Duly noted. When using pronouns for public figures (or people who I don’t know personally) who are trans, I always pluralize pronouns to avoid assigning gender from language. I wish English had gender neutral singular pronouns.

  14. says

    It is nice to see a trans woman being treated kindly by a mainstream outlet

    Yeah, it’s nice. Of course she would have been treated kindly before, if it had been a car wreck or whatever else. Being rich or famous appears to be the important thing; I guess it’s kind of by definition you don’t wind up on the cover of Vanity Fair if you’re not a somebody.

  16. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Here is Steve Doocy whining about stuff that’s gross. This was before Caitlyn Jenner’s Vanity Fair cover was revealed.

    This is the kind of shit trans people get every fucking day.

  17. carlie says

    Janine – I was wondering about that – thank you for sharing and articulating it. (“that” being wondering about the critique that the acceptance she’s getting is because of celebrity rather than some sea change in trans acceptance)

  18. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Carlie, if there had been a sea change, trans people would not be worried about losing jobs, losing family, losing friends and losing homes. Trans people would not be worried about acts of overkill. Trans people would not be the punchline of jokes (Ask me why I despise Ace Ventura and Adam Sandler.) Trans people woud not be dehumanized as “traps” and other such words.

    Don’t get me wrong, today’s event is a net good but there is so much more yet to be done. And most trans people lack the wealth and media connections that Caitlyn has.

  19. fakeemailaddress says

    Jackson, #13:

    I wish English had gender neutral singular pronouns.

    It does. “It”. Though for whatever reason, people tend to prefer being referred to in the plural than in the singular when gender is left out.

  20. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Just realized that it was Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura. Still, fuck Sandler for Jack And Jill.

  21. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    It is alright to use “they” as a singular pronoun.

  22. says

    fakeemailaddress @19:

    It does. “It”. Though for whatever reason, people tend to prefer being referred to in the plural than in the singular when gender is left out.

    People also prefer not to be referred to as “it” (which transphobes love to do), because that’s dehumanizing as fuck.

  23. magistramarla says

    Since neither one of us are in the least bit interested in sports, the hubby and I never watch ESPN,
    However, I was at physical therapy today and we happened to see a report about Caitlyn’s Vanity Fair cover.
    The report was done very sensitively by a female reporter and we looked at each other and said “Good for her!”.
    It was certainly nice to see a sports channel handling this well.
    As PZ said, there is hope for the future.

  24. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    Magistramarla, for people under the age of forty, Caitlyn is best known for being part of a reality show family.

  25. What a Maroon, oblivious says

    “It” is not neutral. It stands in contrast to “he” and “she”, both of which are marked for humanness, or at least animacy. So “it” generally implies that its referent isn’t human. About the only exception is when the doctor announces “It’s a girl/boy!”, but given all the issues that gender assignment raises, that’s probably a usage that would best be left in the trash heap.

    “They” is neutral; it can be used for any group of more than one thing. And English (and other Indo-European languages) regularly uses plural pronouns (like “you”) in the singular, so there’s nothing wrong with using “they” as a neutral, singular noun.

    If you want to speak a language that doesn’t have sex-based gender categories, you’re better off staying away from most Indo-European (with the notable exception of Farsi) or Semitic languages.

    (Off topic rant: After all these years, why is my auto correct telling me that “Indo-European” is wrong?)

  27. What a Maroon, oblivious says

    To expand a bit on my previous post:

    The main point I’m trying to make is that in English it’s relatively easy to remain neutral regarding gender. Aside from a few third person singular pronouns and a few nouns, there’s little in English that forces a speaker to make gender distinctions. That sets it apart from most Indo-European languages. In Spanish, for example, nearly every noun, adjective, and third person pronoun, and even some first and second person plural pronouns, force you to make a gender distinction. There are ways around it in the written language, but it’s virtually impossible in spoken Spanish to remain neutral. To a greater or lesser extent, that’s true of most Indo-European and Semitic languages.

    But if you take a broader view, most languages don’t have a gender system based on differences in sex. Here it’s important to distinguish between grammatical gender as used in linguistics, which just refers to classification of nouns often based on some real world analogue, and gender as used in gender studies and increasingly in the broader society. From a linguistic perspective, grammatical gender can be based on distinction such as animate/inanimate, human/non-human, or apparently arbitrary distinctions. And there are plenty of languages that make no grammatical gender distinction whatsoever. The example I’m most familiar with is Turkish, where the pronoun “o” (plural “onlar”) serves for any singular noun at all.

    Anyway, I guess the larger point I’m making is that, if you’re really having trouble knowing what pronoun to use in English to refer to Caitlyn Jenner, get over it. She wants to be known as she, so refer to her as she (“She won the decathlon in Montreal in 1976”–see how easy it is?). In cases where you’re not sure, or gender is ambiguous, “they” is a perfectly acceptable option, regardless of what a few misguided prescriptivists may say.

  29. fakeemailaddress says

    She wants to be known as she, so refer to her as she

    I’m going to have to (partially) disagree with that on the basis of the principle of least astonishment.

    Sure, if you’re talking about Caitlin Jenner (or about Chelsea Manning, or whoever), please do use female pronouns. But if you’re talking about Bruce Jenner (or Bradley Manning, or whoever), then use male ones. To illustrate, consider the following scenario. Alice was once named Bob. A newspaper article was written about something that Bob did at a time when that was the correct name to use. Carol and Dave are now discussing that article. Carol knows that “Bob” is now named “Alice”. Dave doesn’t know and it’s not relevant to the topic at hand. If Carol uses “she/Alice”, then Dave things that Carol is talking about someone else because he doesn’t know what Alice has to do with Bob. If Carol uses “she/Bob”, then Dave thinks that Carol is talking about two different people because of a perceived mismatch in name/pronoun gender. Using “he/Alice” wouldn’t make sense from any perspective that I can think of. Alice could explain to Dave that Alice and Bob are really the same person, but that is irrelevant to Dave’s interest and a distraction from the topic at hand. The least astonishing way to refer to Alice in the context of the old newspaper article is as “he/Bob”.

    So if you’re talking about the 1976 Olympics, then Bruce Jenner won a medal in the men’s decathalon. If you’re talking about Vanity Fair, Caitlyn Jenner is on the cover. If you’re talking about Caitlyn Jenner, then she won a medal in the men’s decathalon in 1976, and she was named Bruce at the time.

  30. says

    fakeemailaddress @29:
    So you’re just going to assume that the pronoun YOU choose to use for a trans person is the correct one. What gives you that right?
    BTW, since you didn’t do any research on your own:

    Pre-transition pronouns, some guiding thoughts

    A dear cousin of mine, a feminist who was very vocal when I was growing up, did me the courtesy of asking me a question which I paraphrase thus:

    Thinking of you as Grace is easy enough now, but how would you like us to reference experiences which [my son] and I had with you earlier in your life? Is there a standard approach? Please educate us a bit.

    Short version, sans reasoning:

    Please refer to me as “Grace” and using female markers, even if you’re referring to pre-transition me.

    Long version, with meandering:

    There’s a saying in some trans circles: if you’ve met one trans person you’ve met one trans person. So, these are not universal, but are simply my considered opinions as a trans person and a writer and thinker-about-language.

    From my perspective, the essential me has not changed. Indeed, I tried to change it in order to conform (as pretty much all adult transitioners do), and found that I could not. So, for me, such phrases as, “When you were a man” are awkward because I never was a man. I learned to play the part pretty convincingly — I was able to make that much use of a trans socialization — but it was always a role, and one which became increasingly oppressive as time went on. So I understand why people conceptualize it that way, or even just phrase it that way for convenience, but in my ideal world, they would choose a different phrasing. Same (to a lesser extent, if we’re slicing it fine) with “When you were ‘[ old name ]’”.

    And, not to put too fine a point on this: on this topic, the topic of my inextricable identity, it is my perspective which matters, and no one else’s.

    That does not prevent people, however, from re-casting matters in a way which devalues a trans person’s perspective, even out of love and with the best of intentions.

    Writers writing ABOUT trans people have to decide how to refer to their subjects in the pre-transition phase of their lives. Many have chosen to refer to the post-transition person using (for instance) female pronouns, while referring to the pre-transition same person using male pronouns. It can be made to work, but in general it seems to me to be awkward. More importantly, it gives primacy to appearance and presentation, rather than identity. Identity is clearly more important overall; if it weren’t, people would not transition. And so it seems awkward, at best, to give appearance such weight. At worst, it seems a denial of the strongest statement, probably, that the trans person will ever make to the world at large: “This is who I am, and this is how I expect you to treat me, in spite of ALL people who tell you otherwise and ALL evidence to the contrary, and this is so important to me that I have chosen to do it even though I know there will be severe negative impacts on me.”

    Other people have chosen to write about trans people using the trans person’s gender of identity throughout. This often seems weird on first encounter, but it quickly comes to feel natural.

    Such writing generally seems to me more respectful of the trans person. However, this may stem from the fact that writers making that choice tend to be people who know more than one trans person, and often know us personally outside of the context of transition, and who know more about trans things generally. The fact that such people typically choose one pronoun and stick with it, while people writing about a trans person for the first time often choose this he-then-she or she-then-he format — that is telling in itself.1

    This is also why I dislike the terms “MtF” (for “male-to-female”) and “FtM” (for “female-to-male”), though I still use them because they are so widespread and understood: they lead with the rejected gender. I am not a male who became female. I am female with a complex endocrinological and social history. Which yields a less wieldy acronym, I admit. (fcesh? fwacesh? I just made it up.)

    Trans people writing in the first person don’t have to make this choice as much in describing our own lives, since English has no gendered “I”, but note that trans people DO have to make this choice sometimes. For people who are not out-as-trans to everyone in hearing range, it is often simpler to say, “When I was little” rather than “When I was a girl”. The simple assertion that I was once a girl will often lead someone to correct me: “Well, of course, you were never REALLY a girl.” Which, though they don’t realize it, is an attack on my gender identity and life experience, and puts me in the position of choosing between defending my identity, AGAIN, or letting it pass unchallenged, thereby validating it for all of the other listeners.

    Of course, I am a woman now, and I was a girl then. I was just a girl who looked like a boy and was treated like one, which is a very different thing from actually being a boy. If I offer that point, the person making the original attack will often then point out that I was not socialized as a girl, or that I did not menstruate, or that I don’t know what it’s like to fear sexual assault (they inevitably make the assumption that I have not been sexually assaulted). And now we’re off into the weeds where, as I take the necessary time to discuss the finer points of what it’s like not to fit the gender binary, I will eventually be accused of sophistry, or of forcing them to dance on the head of a pin, and they will airily hand-wave the rest of what I have to say away in their desire to get back to the simple life.

    (I will agree readily that I was not treated like a cis girl, in my youth, and that I did not therefore have a “typical” female socialization (whatever that means, lumping together as it does many very disparate experiences, even within this country alone). However, I also did not have a typical male socialization (whatever that is; see above). I had a trans girl’s socialization, which meant that I got to sidestep a lot of crap that most cis girls hit with, and got much of the crap which cis boys get hit with, with an extra helping of crap which trans kids get hit with, and the same can be said for some of the advantages which tend to accrue to cis boys, and missing out on some of the “advantages” (many of which are backhanded) which tend to accrue to cis girls. (It’s funny, but as hard as I have sometimes looked, in conversation with other trans people, we have a hard time finding advantages which accrue to trans kids.))

    (Likewise, I have never menstruated, and never will, though if it were part of the transition price I would pay it without hesitation. However, there are cis girls and cis women who do not menstruate, too, and that doesn’t make them boys and men. If you are persistent, this attempt to find a characteristic or experience which is unique to all men, or unique to all women, eventually leads you to the inevitable conclusion that there is no such thing. That fact can be pretty difficult for people, enough so that most people stop investigating and start hand-waving as soon as they start to see it coming over the horizon.)

    As a woman growing up when you did, and taking the stances that you did, I would guess that some of this resonates with you, this, “Oh, God, do I have the time and resources to fight yet another battle for my basic rights?”

    Getting back to answering your question, many trans people feel constrained not to refer to, for instance, their “girlhood” or “boyhood”, and work around it. Some things are harder to work around. Many trans men attended women’s colleges, and have to come out as trans or refuse to name their college. So, there are awkward bits, and we work around them or take them head-on, as resources and mood dictate.

    There is also a more subtle, but very important, consideration. The topic of these news pieces which jump back and forth on pronouns is the trans nature of the person, which makes it easy to miss an important fact: once you go back and forth on pronouns, you have outed the person you’re referring to. Most people don’t see a problem, there; doesn’t everyone know? Certainly, in the modern day of our Internet, you cannot KEEP people from knowing, if they dig. However, despite the fact that I transitioned in a high-profile job in a small city, I have been surprised to find that lots of people DON’T know.2 And I would much, much, MUCH rather they discover a bit later, once they form an impression of me, so that their reaction is, “Grace is trans? Huh. I had no idea. Well, she’s always been decent to me…” rather than, “So, it’s ‘Grace’, but he’s actually a man? That’s so weird!” When the FIRST THING people know about you is that you’re trans, sometimes the result is embarrassing for everyone involved. Or violent, for the trans person.

    Do read it all. There is no excuse for the ignorance and arrogance you’ve shown.

  31. says

    Oddly, Jenner manages to be a republican; presumably because it’s the party of the rich and famous. Or the party of cognitive dissonance. And a christian, too, but that’s more understandable than being a republican:

    When asked about President Obama’s comments on LGBT rights in his State of the Union address, the 65-year-old former Olympic athlete said that didn’t affect him much.
    “I’ve always been more on the conservative side,” Mr. Jenner said, the Daily Caller reported Friday.
    Ms. Sawyer, shocked by Mr. Jenner’s response, asked him if he identifies as a Republican, to which Mr. Jenner answered “yes.”

  32. badgersdaughter says

    The pronoun issue has always been especially difficult for me because I’m a straight woman who had a boyfriend in college who is a trans woman and transitioned around 20 years ago, soon after we lost touch with each other. I have only really known her as “John”. Since her transition we have e-mailed once or twice briefly, so I do now know her as “Mary”, but my memories are all of “John”. I completely and totally respect and support her transition, it’s just that my memory is out of step and I have to be really careful what I say if I should tell someone about her. My husband’s mother, in a conversation about the recent Irish referendum, was a little confused to learn I once had a relationship with “Mary” but have never been a lesbian. It only look a minute to sort things out, though, and she’s cool with it (and happy about the result of the referendum).

  33. says

    What a Maroon
    “It’s a baby” is not so much an exception. In that case “it” is known as a dummy subject, meaning you need a gramatical subject in that position. Also part of “it clefting”, a way to emphasize things: It is only know that she can live her life freely.

    fakeemailaddress
    I’m going to assume for a moment that you’re not just trolling, trying to circumvent an instant ban by appearing somewhat reasonable and uneducated.

    1. You are not the expert on trans* lives.
    2. How you want to refer to people is completely irrelevant. It’s their wish that counts.
    3. The claim that we need to refer to people to their pre transitioning name to avoid confusion is bullshit. We are very used to referring to people by a different name. You know, like talking about the time when Hillary Clinton was in highschool.

    ++++
    Good for Caitlin.
    The problem isn’t that Caitlin is having it easy because she’s rich and famous, the problem is that others are having it very hard because they are not. Every trans* person should have the medical options she has, the support she has, the safety she has. You shouldn’t have to be a celebrity millionaire to get the medical treatment you need.
    It’s a problem that we need to put a pretty white face to the term trans in order for people to consider their humanity.

  34. badgersdaughter says

    Also, Caitlyn Jenner is clearly a much more feminine and beautiful woman than I am.

  36. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @badgersdaughter

    Also, Caitlyn Jenner is clearly a much more feminine and beautiful woman than I am.

    …aaaaaaaannndd, don’t.

  37. badgersdaughter says

    I’m sorry, Crip Dyke, I don’t mean any disrespect. I’m frankly a dumpy middle-aged nerd, and she’s a glamorous and lovely woman. What’s wrong with that?

  38. says

    Badgersdaughter
    The problem is that you’Re meassuring her against an arbitrary standard of “femininity”, in this case your own. Trans women are always judged according to those standards and “passing privilege” is awarded according to that. Trans women who cannot pull off the glamourus white satin high gloss image Caitlyn Jenner gets are further marginalized and treated as “not really women.”
    Let’s just stop this shit. Yes, she is a very attractive woman. But that should be very irrelevant to the topic at hand.

  39. says

    Though for whatever reason, people tend to prefer being referred to in the plural than in the singular when gender is left out.

    I don’t get this. “They” is used as a singular pronoun all the fucking time. We don’t even need to go historical. It’s in perfectly common use.
    E.g. “If a person wakes me up at 3 a.m they’d better have a damn good reason.”

  40. badgersdaughter says

    OK, thanks, Giliell. I appreciate you explaining and pointing out my unconscious bias. You’re right. I’m just glad Caitlyn is now feeling like herself and happy.

  41. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Thank you for giving your perspective on this, Janine.

    I first read about this on MarySue and there were similar reactions from some trans commenters: celebrity reality is far from their reality. It was also said this kind of sexy cover was an unfortunate way ot present her, as it “sets an unrealistic expectation on what a “successful” transition is going to have to look like” . (source, but it’s disqus comments, so i’m not sure whether linking to a comment will work)

    (http://www.themarysue.com/caitlyn-jenner-vanity-fair/)

  42. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Oh, and of course, congrats to Caitlyn!

  43. says

    LykeX

    I don’t get this. “They” is used as a singular pronoun all the fucking time. We don’t even need to go historical. It’s in perfectly common use.

    People are throwing a tantrum over this because it abandons the male default. Because for speakers of a language that cannot switch from addressing you, Lyke X to addressing you, dear readers of Pharyngula by switching pronouns to complain about the singular/plural issue is riddiculous.

  44. azhael says

    @27 What a Maroon, oblivious
    Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but there is indeed a problem, in spanish, when trying to reference an individual without making assumptions of gender, because you just can’t. You either have to go with the default (go on, have a guess which one that is), make an assumption based on the way the individual presents themselves or use “he/she”. None of those are even remotely ideal…
    Most people who are trying not to be complete arseholes, in the absence of knowledge of how the individual prefers to be referenced to, simply apply the gendered pronoun that they think most likely fits the way the individual presents themselves externally, but this is entirely based on someone else’s assumptions and may be incorrect, plus it completely fails genderqueer people.
    Does anyone know of a way to resolve this that i’ve failed to be aware of?

  45. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ dondueed #3

    I find it interesting that the article changed the pronouns when describing Jenner’s exploits in the 1976 Olympics, in which he competed in the men’s decathlon.

    I’m fine with using the pronouns she prefers today, but is it valid to project that back 40-odd years?

    Normally I’d say that she’s always been a woman, and simply presented as male, so it is appropriate. However, Jenner specifically asked media outlets to continue to use male pronouns until her transition was complete, so in this case I honestly don’t know. At the end of the day, it’s up to her.

  46. carlie says

    Regarding name, at least, we refer to the history of people who change their name all the damned time without blowing a gasket over it and finding it all complicated.

    “Hillary Clinton was born in 1947 and grew up in Illinois.”

    OH NO HER NAME WAS NOT CLINTON THEN WHAT DO WE DOOOOOOO

    If needed for clarity, you a) add “(formerly Rodham), or b) add “(nee Rodham)” if you want to be French about it. And it is only grammatically logical that the pronoun follows the current name, which is the main one being used in the sentence. Otherwise, you trust the reader to figure out from context that a change has taken place. See? Neither difficult, nor new.

  48. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    What’s interesting is that female presenter (didn’t catch her name) immediately launches into a screed about how glamorous Caitlyn looks and starts talking about what she’s wearing. Despite misgendering her a couple of times, the presenter seems generally supportive and immediately starts treating Caitlyn the way she would any other woman. The problem is that Fox news treat all women like shit.

    It’s the male presenters who seem to be clearly uncomfortable with the whole thing.

  49. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ fakeemailaddress #29

    Carol knows that “Bob” is now named “Alice”. Dave doesn’t know and it’s not relevant to the topic at hand. If Carol uses “she/Alice”, then Dave things that Carol is talking about someone else because he doesn’t know what Alice has to do with Bob.

    So Carol explains the situation to Dave and then they both continue with the story using the correct name and pronouns.

    This is not difficult.

  50. says

    That is most interesting news. My sympathies to all transgender people in US, who not only have to combat with prejudice, but also with shitty health service. Perhaps it will be better at some time in the future, it was done in other lands and maybe US will catch up with civilised world in foreseeable future.

    A personal story with good end to share:
    I have a dear friend who is trans. Before transition, he got referred to as he by a lot of friends, and he prefered it thus, alghough he identified as a woman at that time. I schoffed at this, and I was reluctand to succumb to social pressure and use masculine pronouns for him for various reasons (love was one of them – I loved him but I am cis male – ignorance was another).
    But when he learned about gender dysphoria and realised that he is trans, I was one of the first people he came out to and I accepted it. Love died in the process, but with it the ignorance withered somewhat and the friendship remained.
    He is however lucky in many regards – he has lost no (that I am aware of) friends because of his transition, because those friends accepted him as trans before any of them (and he himself) knew that this is the case. And we all live in a society, where transition is paid for from law-guaranteed health insurance. He has family now and he and our mutual friends meet irregularly once a year on average.

    I see stories like the one alluded to in OP as small steps towards trans acceptance by wider public in US. It is sad that those steps are inevitably acompanied by shrieking of regressive thrasphobes, but history tells us that in the long rund regressives always lose. I know it is of little comfort to people who are currently being hurt by actual system and trapped in shitty society. But it gets better, really.

  51. Saad says

    fakeemailaddress, #29

    Alice could explain to Dave that Alice and Bob are really the same person, but that is irrelevant to Dave’s interest and a distraction from the topic at hand.

    Ugh, I know.

    Such an inconvenience. Three seconds of a cis person’s time wasted properly acknowledging the existence of a trans person.

  52. carlie says

    Did you just elaborate on my #33 or are we thinking so much alike?

    Oh jeez! I honestly hadn’t read that part of your comment (skimming BAD!)! Too funny that not only did we come up with the same rationale, but the same example, especially since Clinton isn’t as much of a big deal where you are. :D

  54. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Saad @51

    Ugh, I know.

    Such an inconvenience. Three seconds of a cis person’s time wasted properly acknowledging the existence of a trans person.

    I thought the insipidity started with Alice was once named Bob. Bob never really existed to Alice. Alice was always Alice. Bob was the outward manifestation of Alice. Now Alice is on the outside and the inside. Calling Alice ‘Bob’ is erasing Alice’s existence.

  55. Emily says

    @4 – If you live in California, trans coverage is required in health insurance by law. Unfortunately, I’m not in California.

    @19 – They in the singular is fine, and people don’t like ‘it’ because it is almost always used to refer to objects, not people unless it’s being used to dehumanize.

    @48 – Male Fox News anchors probably find talking about trans women emasculating by proxy. I don’t exactly expect good reporting from Fox anyway.

    Probably a bit late, but there you go. The fox reporting was predictably terrible.

  56. Scr... Archivist says

    throwaway @54,

    Alice was always Alice.

    That’s what I was thinking. The “new” name is for someone who has always been here. The rest of us just didn’t know.

  58. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ Emily #55

    Male Fox News anchors probably find talking about trans women emasculating by proxy.

    Of course. A man giving up his holy manness and divine pene to become one of the ovaried untermensch? Unthinkable!

    @ throwaway #54

    Bob never really existed to Alice. Alice was always Alice. Bob was the outward manifestation of Alice.

    Succinctly put.

    O/T: Seriously, what is with this automatic link that pops up whenever I copy/paste another commenter’s words? Can we make this stop now?

  59. David Marjanović says

    After all these years, why is my auto correct telling me that “Indo-European” is wrong?

    Because it knows less than you do. :-| Why should that be a surprise?

    Clinton isn’t as much of a big deal where you are.

    Clinton is a big deal in the innertubes, and that’s where Giliell is. :-)

    Also… that whole “Most Powerful Person in the World” and “Leader of the Free World” thing isn’t just grandstanding. It has enormous effects on the whole world who exactly is elected POTUS; elections for POTUS and even primaries are worldwide primetime news and have been for decades.

  60. David Marjanović says

    O/T: Seriously, what is with this automatic link that pops up whenever I copy/paste another commenter’s words? Can we make this stop now?

    In Firefox, on two different computers, it doesn’t happen to me – even though it does happen with other websites. What browser are you using?

  61. closeted says

    Also encouraging was ESPN’s Bomani Jones, discussing the difference between sex and gender, as well as respect for the individual’s wishes.

    it’s the second segment here, and, while it covers no new ground for people here, to hear this discussed thoughtfully, and without jokes, on one of ESPN’s featured programs would have been unheard of even a few years ago.

  62. caseloweraz says

    Neil Cavuto doesn’t know what Playboy Bunnies look like? Then I am the Tsar of all the Russias.

    Yes, it’s a side issue. But, given how Fox News relies on young, good-looking women for part of its appeal, I think it’s worth mentioning the disingenuousness.

  66. What a Maroon, oblivious says

    azhael @ 44,

    Yeah, my point was mostly about English. Generally speaking it’s difficult t o avoid the grammatical distinctions your language makes; in languages like Spanish, which force you to declare a gender with virtually every noun, adjective and article, it’s virtually impossible to get around gender (as opposed to English, where really it’s just a matter of how you handle third person pronouns). As for what to do, I dunno. I imagine there’s a dialogue out there on how to handle things, but I haven’t seen it. The best I can say is to be sensitive to how people want to be addressed, and own it if you make a mistake.

    Or, you know, learn Euskara.

  67. What a Maroon, oblivious says

    After all these years, why is my auto correct telling me that “Indo-European” is wrong?

    Because it knows less than you do. :-| Why should that be a surprise?

    Because it’s been a term in English since 1813, and it’s not terribly obscure. I mean, radium doesn’t trip my spell check.

  68. Saad says

    Mike Huckabee:

    Mike Huckabee says there’s a time he wishes he could’ve been transgender: When it was time to hit the high school showers.

    If he “could have felt like a woman,” the Republican former Arkansas governor joked earlier this year, then he could have seen his female classmates without their clothes on.

    “Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE,” Huckabee said.

    “I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’ You’re laughing because it sounds so ridiculous doesn’t it?”

  69. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @LykeX #64

    Yep, that’s the one. Dead irritating, having to delete that out every time I need to blockquote someone.

  70. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ David Marjanovic

    In Firefox, on two different computers, it doesn’t happen to me – even though it does happen with other websites. What browser are you using?

    IE *looks sheepish*

    The weird thing is that it’s not consistent. Normally it happens, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s very strange.

  71. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ saad

    Mike Huckabee, proving once again that he is a fucking idiot. As if we needed more proof.

    It’s just such a serious misunderstanding of what being trans is that I don’t even…

  73. Saad says

    Yeah, it’s pretty simple with these people. They don’t hide their transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, racism, or any other -ism. They tell you like it is.

    I do wonder though if he realizes that he has just gone on record as having a desire to sneak into teenage girls’ showers. Strong family values and that, you know. LGBT people are dangerous to our children, right?

  74. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    And in the midst of all this, Louisiana Girl Scouts still exclude Trans kids, because they apparently pose a risk to the health and safety of the other members…

    @ CaitieCat

    Maybe I am being overly charitable, but if he really did understand it I can’t quite wrap my head around pretending he doesn’t. Besides, it’s entirely possible he doesn’t, and it doesn’t really matter which it is since the result is the same.

  75. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ Saad

    I do wonder though if he realizes that he has just gone on record as having a desire to sneak into teenage girls’ showers.

    That is a very good point. But then, his audience consists of the kind of moron who thinks that is perfectly normal behavior for boys, and it’s therefore up to girls to defend themselves from it. So I doubt he’ll be pulled up on it.

  76. says

    Thumper, it matters to me that we not make excuses for this kind of transphobic behaviour. If he were making fried chicken and watermelon references, or PMS/mother in law references, would you be so quick to excuse his bigotry? Let him own his transphobia, without your help, and maybe consider whether I might have more experience with this than you in recognising bog-standard anti-trans bigotry when I see it. Again. And again. And again.

  77. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ CaitieCat

    I’m not making excuses. The fact he doesn’t understand what a trans person is in no way excuses his bigotry, at least not in my opinion. Especially since I believe it to be a wilfull ignorance; he has every opportunity to go and learn.