The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
All Bruce Jenner, All the Time
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Earlier this week, I wrote in Taki’s:

O’Brien conceived of new manifestations of Big Brother’s power as “subtler,” but in 21st-century America, “sillier” might be a better term for Big Sibling’s muscle-flexing. For example, World War G over gay marriage was immediately followed by World War T. That the struggle for transgender rights to, say, beat up women in mixed martial arts fights has always been on the verge of collapsing into Bruce Jenner farcicality is part of its appeal. WWT offers a new opportunity to uncover the wreckers who can’t help but smirk.

Today, the NYT emits a thumbsucker on the Meaning of It All:

The Transition of Bruce Jenner: A Shock to Some, Visible to All
By SARAH LYALL and JACOB BERNSTEIN FEB. 6, 2015

Bruce Jenner has been an Olympic superstar, the hunk on the Wheaties box, a Playgirl cover boy, the author of inspirational sports books and a sometime actor and celebrity game-show contestant. In recent years, he has also been an ancillary but vivid participant in the bizarre public spectacle that is the Kardashian family.

Now Mr. Jenner, who muscled his way into American consciousness when he won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Montreal Summer Games and was anointed the World’s Greatest Athlete, may be entering the newest and most surprising phase of his multi-act career. Though he has not confirmed it, he is widely reported to be in the midst of making a transition from male to female.

… Dwight Stones, a former Olympic high-jump medalist who has known Mr. Jenner for years, said that his apparent transformation presented a “phenomenal opportunity.”

“I think he is going to have a tremendous impact on popular culture,” said Mr. Stones, who is now a broadcaster for NBC. “The parents of kids who are suppressing this, or trying to find a way to reveal themselves to the people they care about, are going to know who Bruce Jenner is. That might smooth the way or make the reality a little less difficult.”

Once again, let me toss out the possibility that Jenner, who has fathered two children with each of his three wives, may not have actually always felt like a girl on the inside. A decade ago, J. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern, offered an alternative explanation for highly masculine middle aged men who suddenly declare themselves transsexuals. He was methodically persecuted for spilling the beans in his book by highly masculine middle-aged transsexuals like economist McCloskey and computer scientist Conway.

I don’t know that Bailey’s is the only alternative explanation, but it’s at least a valuable complement to the “always felt like a girl on the inside” orthodoxy.

There’s a Sapir-Whorf aspect to this since we don’t have a category name for the kind of high profile m to f transsexuals like Wachowski (whose latest flop sci-fi movie is coming out soon), Jenner, Rothblatt, McCloskey, etc, nor for the other kind, who start out extremely effeminate. So, it’s easy for the propaganda organs to insinuate the idea that Bruce Jenner must have some poor feminine little boy who was always getting picked on the by the big mean bullies. Sure, it doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the category they’ve given us, so it’s a lot of cognitive work to rebel against it.

… But for people from his early days in sports, this latest development is a shock. They remember Mr. Jenner the gifted athlete, the big personality, the charismatic wheeler-dealer who parlayed a single towering Olympic achievement into a lifetime of success and fame beyond sports.

“He was a hell of an athlete,” said Keith Jackson, who covered Mr. Jenner’s Olympic triumph while working as a sportscaster in 1976. … In recent days, Mr. Jackson said, he has talked to friends and former colleagues who competed against Mr. Jenner. “They were just like me, with their mouths open,” he said.

Advocates for transgender issues declined in interviews to discuss specifics about Mr. Jenner’s situation, saying that until he announces what is going on, it is wrong to make any assumptions. But at the very least, they say, his prominence has provided momentum for a continuing national discussion on the topic.

Denise A. Norris, the director of the Institute for Transgender Economic Advancement, said that the United States was going through what she called a trans-peak, with the issue often in the news.

Like I said, World War T.

Besides Mr. Jenner, she mentioned Laverne Cox, a transgender actress in “Orange is the New Black,” and the online show “Transparent,” among other things.

“Right now we have a potential trans celebrity, and this creates a conversation,” Ms. Norris said of Mr. Jenner.

… The memoir “Redefining Realness,” by the transgender campaigner Janet Mock, became a New York Times best-seller last year. Last summer, Ms. Cox was on the cover of Time magazine, the star of an article titled “The Transgender Tipping Point.”

“If we look at historic trans-peaks, we get celebrities out there — they may be great, they may be bad — but regardless of what the celebrity is doing, this creates a conversation,” Ms. Norris said. “And then the activists come in and lock every bit of gain we can out of it.”

Mr. Jenner’s potential problems include the multitudes of people — and not just sympathetic transgender campaigners — who are trying to squeeze every bit of gain they can out of him. He has lived so long in the public eye that it will be difficult for him to harbor an expectation of secrecy now.

Not that he is seeking secrecy, at least from what is known so far. Mr. Jenner is reportedly in negotiations with Diane Sawyer over an exclusive tell-all interview. There are also talks of a reality television show about his transition.

… Marcia Ochoa, chairwoman of the feminist studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said that much of the publicity swirling around Mr. Jenner, especially the obsession with his physical changes, had been ugly and prurient.

“It’s such a courageous act, if she’s going to be transitioning publicly and subjecting herself to that kind of ridicule,” Ms. Ochoa said, using the feminine pronoun to describe Mr. Jenner. “In some ways, this is changing the whole landscape of it, because ultimately it looks inhumane, and she is a person who deserves to be happy.”

One obvious trend is that extremely ambitious and attention hungry individuals have figured out how to exploit the sacralization of official victim groups to promote themselves even further. But, you aren’t really supposed to notice that.

And in other Bruce Jenner news, he was involved this afternoon in a fatal car crash on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu:

Deputies said a white Lexus was one of two vehicles that stopped abruptly in front of Jenner. He rear ended the Lexus by chain reaction, and pushed the vehicle into oncoming traffic.

The Lexus was then struck by a Hummer at the scene.

Authorities pronounced the elderly female driver of the Lexus dead at the scene.

 
• Tags: Sapir-Whorf 
Hide 125 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Re Jenner accident. How many old trannies like Jenner enjoy riding ATVs? Seems like something a masculine young male would do.
    Is this sex change deal just a money making publicity stunt?

    • Replies: @Alec
    I'm not sure about trannies, bit my lesbian grandmother and her partner were huge ATV fans for three or four decades.
  2. As someone said on Twitter, he’s already driving like a woman…

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    The cis-man who caused the accident was apparently drunk.
  3. Bruce Jenner, American Caesar!

    #spenglerwasright

  4. He reminds me of Malcom Gladwell- another kinda odd looking, skinny, post-middle-aged former marathoner . You don’t hear much about Gladwell these days – probably counting all his money now that more people have become wise to his BS

    • Replies: @Truth

    probably counting all his money now that more people have become wise to his BS
     
    The first clause tends to supersede the second here.

    BTW, whatever happened to the name "Bruce." Does anyone know anyone under 40 with that name?
  5. There are no second acts in American lives.
    F. Scott Fitzgerald

    He said that before World War T.

  6. Jenner sort of personifies the decline and fall of America, no? Wins Gold at the height of the Cold War, defeating Soviet rivals and then becomes a transexual.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Jenner sort of personifies the decline and fall of America, no? Wins Gold at the height of the Cold War, defeating Soviet rivals and then becomes a transexual.
     
    I remember being on board the US express during the 80s, getting ginned up for military action and throwing our weight around the world. As I've grown and come to find our culture increasingly repulsive, I've found it harder and harder to get worked up about going abroad to spread 'our' values. Between having nothing in common with our post-1965 immigrants and batty whites like Jenner and his family, I have little to no emotional ties left, and would not wish our culture on even our worst enemies.
    , @Carlos
    Jenner personifies the decline and fall of the white man.

    A masculine Olympic gold medal winner marries a woman who constantly hectors him and cuckolds him. As soon as she was done with him she runs off with a younger black man, who she was probably seeing while they were married.

    All, or so it seems, of his kids or step kids are being banged by blacks.

    Then he decides he is gay or a trans or whatever he is. So yeah, not a good moment in history for white people.
  7. ‘ … Marcia Ochoa, chairwoman of the feminist studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said that much of the publicity swirling around Mr. Jenner, especially the obsession with his physical changes, had been ugly and prurient.

    “It’s such a courageous act, if she’s going to be transitioning publicly and subjecting herself to that kind of ridicule,” Ms. Ochoa said, using the feminine pronoun to describe Mr. Jenner. “In some ways, this is changing the whole landscape of it, because ultimately it looks inhumane, and she is a person who deserves to be happy.”

    Can one use the term “horse’s ass” with regard to a female ?

    • Replies: @fish
    "Mares Ass"...."Fillies Ass"......? Doesn't really roll off the tongue like Horse Ass!
  8. If I was one of the cops filling out paperwork on that accident, I’d skip the “Sex” box on Jenner for now.

    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "Jenner" should its own separate box
  9. Now that we’re in the throes of World War L versus World War T raging, I’m wondering what the next big fringier than thou constituency is going to be. I have heard that among Ts, there are way more men who trans to women than women who trans to men. So, maybe the next hot civil rightsey social justicey constituency is going to be women who trans to men and the discrimination and bigotry they face from the “establishment” of men that trans to women.

    I wonder if I could get on the ground floor of this in some sort of investment sense.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Now that we’re in the throes of World War L versus World War T raging, I’m wondering what the next big fringier than thou constituency is going to be.

    In anal sex going totally mainstream? Allison Williams is getting analingus on "Girls." Must figure her father is too busy with his own problems to notice.

    http://www.peeperz.com/allison-williams-gets-ass-eaten-tv/
    , @slumber_j

    I wonder if I could get on the ground floor of this in some sort of investment sense.
     
    You want to get long penis.
  10. Speaking of celebrity California trannies: Martine Roseblatt got a puff piece entitled “Sexy Tomorrow” on France’s Canal+ channel and Alain Soral did not like it. The title Soral gave it was “Globalist Nightmare” and the first reader’s comment was “Oulalalala, quel carnage!”:

    http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Cauchemar-mondialiste-28773.html

  11. RE: M to F Transgendered*,

    It’s not tough to understand.They come in two flavors (so to speak):

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their “transition.”

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won’t cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their “transition.”

    Needless to say, Jenner seems like a clear case of category 2

    *Seeing as how the essence remains unchanged (M to F trans can’t have babies, etc), the PC preference for using “gender” instead of “sex” finally seems appropriate

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    Nice. So Jenner is turned on by being a woman. Women are desired, so how much better to become a woman. It's a form a mental masturbation taken to its limit.

    This strikes me as the final platform for American culture. The natural cultural dead end evolution of the most narcissistic country on the planet.

    Star-Spangled Banner on endless loop, faggots.

    , @Tracy

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their “transition.”

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won’t cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their “transition.”
     

    I agree with category 2, but think category 1 is made up of the truly transgendered. Or maybe there are three categories: 1) the autogynephiles, like Jenner and that Navy Seal, 2) the truly transgendered, and 3) homosexuals who, like most male homosexuals, want masculine men to have sex with and think that transitioning would be the best way to get one.

    I don't understand why some people think there aren't people out there who are truly transgendered. So much can go wrong in utero, from chromosomal mishaps to hormonal problems. When this subject comes up on my forum, I post this video and ask the questions, "What sex is this person? Why do you think what you think?" I've found that people who don't "get" the idea of transgenderism never, ever answer the question. The video: The Woman with Male DNA

    That woman -- and I do believe she's a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus -- is an extreme example of what can go wrong. But what about people who are born with a 95% insensitivity to androgen? What about 80%? Or 50? What does absolutely determine sex? If it's not the chromosomes, not the presence of absence of penises, uteruses, vaginas, testiclese, etc., then what? And why wouldn't brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter? I find it kinda funny that people, like me, who see definite and obvious differences between the sexes and who think that God created us male or female (and that each person is, in fact, in God's eyes, one sex or the other) are the ones who tend to not see brain-wiring as being relevant to a persons subjective identity. In fact, it's the folks who tend to be very rigid in their thinking about the sexes who think the whole concept of transgenderism is nothing but mental illness at best, or perversion at worst (I grant, though, that autogynephiles would fit the "perverted" category -- but I don't consider them truly transgendered).

    Anyway, I guess we can thank God that most of the time things go right and all the sexual markers match up in most people. But there are these outliers out there. And they must have it rough... I wish they had more sympathy from my fellow paleo-cons and co-religionists (trad Catholics).

  12. There’s obviously something wrong with that Cadillac. Could it be the tranny? – from a now deleted tmz comment

  13. I think some transvestites are just pervs who get off on listening to women (and girls) use the bathroom. Dressing like a women lets them get their perv on women’s bathrooms.

  14. Given our current political climate, I have a feeling that this episode of South Park might end up being quietly buried:

    http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154762/vagainaplasty

    Be warned; it’s not for the squeamish

  15. Wasn’t there a song from the 90’s called Detachable Penis?

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
    Wasn’t there a song from the 90′s called Detachable Penis?

    I don't recall that one, but Lou Reed's '72 hit "Walk on the Wild Side" is fitting, "...shaved her legs and then he was a she..."
  16. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:

    If you reject the idea of natural hierarchies because you believe in Shermer’s Moral Arc Reactor, then it shouldn’t make any difference if competitive, accomplished men mutilate themselves both physically and biochemically to try to become “women.”

    Yet to those of us with unregenerate minds who think that tradition before the Enlightenment got it basically right about hierarchy, this behavior makes no sense at all because these men have deliberately and needlessly thrown themselves into much lower positions in the order of things.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    If you reject the idea of natural hierarchies because you believe in Shermer’s Moral Arc Reactor, then it shouldn’t make any difference if competitive, accomplished men mutilate themselves both physically and biochemically to try to become “women.”

    Yet to those of us with unregenerate minds who think that tradition before the Enlightenment got it basically right about hierarchy, this behavior makes no sense at all because these men have deliberately and needlessly thrown themselves into much lower positions in the order of things.
     

    Of course, following that logic, one would have to assume that a woman transforming herself into a pseudo-man is morally acceptable.After all, she is attempting to occupy a higher position in the order of things....

    A more rational position would base itself on the notion that we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to mutilate themselves:


    Dr. Paul McHugh, director of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins medical school, argues that a patient's feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man's body is not that different from an anorectic woman's feeling that she is drastically overweight. "We don't do liposuction on anorectics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely the fault is in the mind, not the member," he wrote.

    In the late 1970s, McHugh halted sex-change operations at Hopkins, concluding that surgeons should not carve up a healthy body to satisfy a feeling about what that body should be.
     

  17. For the middle-aged and old trannies: Do they imagine they are gonna wake up as attractive young women that straight men would hit on?

    Or do they understand they are becoming a monstrosity?

    A lot of human societies have had places for the ladyboy/twink type — I understand how a certain class of effeminate young men want to be that. No society has a place for old, mutilated saggy granny trannies. Who would want to be that?

  18. Jenner’s female name will be Belinda.

  19. @Anonymous
    Jenner sort of personifies the decline and fall of America, no? Wins Gold at the height of the Cold War, defeating Soviet rivals and then becomes a transexual.

    Jenner sort of personifies the decline and fall of America, no? Wins Gold at the height of the Cold War, defeating Soviet rivals and then becomes a transexual.

    I remember being on board the US express during the 80s, getting ginned up for military action and throwing our weight around the world. As I’ve grown and come to find our culture increasingly repulsive, I’ve found it harder and harder to get worked up about going abroad to spread ‘our’ values. Between having nothing in common with our post-1965 immigrants and batty whites like Jenner and his family, I have little to no emotional ties left, and would not wish our culture on even our worst enemies.

  20. How many trillion cells are in the human body?
    Isn’t each one of those cells coded to be either male or female, XY or XX?

    Cutting off or mutilating bits and bobs, or flooding the body with excess estrogen or testosterone — doesn’t change the underlying DNA in each of our trillions of cells.

  21. The thing is, this ‘sissy boy’ culture is hardly unique to America; you see it in Brazil, pretty much all of East Asia from Japan, South Korea, Thailand to the Philippines, Turkey, ..all over the developed world. I think that this is the result of religion taking a backseat to new found economic prosperity. When people criticize America, I say open your eyes, it’s just as bad, if not worse, in the rest of the world.

  22. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:

    Steve: Speaking of the Moral Arc Reactor, have you read Michael Shermer’s piece in the March issue of Reason magazine? I laughed at how he tried to combine IQ research with progressivism. It seems that we’ve had all of this “moral progress” because of the Flynn Effect. A society where kids do better on Raven’s matrices just naturally tend to produce Enlightenment-type thinkers because that part of the IQ test shows that we’ve gotten better at thinking about abstract categories, hence we include more and more of our species into the moral community.

    That sounds good, until you realize that these new inclusions don’t necessarily get along with the includers who do well on Raven’s matrices.

  23. Do the old trannies like Jenner have a fascination with ladyboys and think they can become one?

    Who would possibly want to be with an old tranny? Not a women, not a straight dude, and not gay dudes – they like dudes.

    The pool of available partners for old trannies has to be insanely small.

  24. @advancedatheist
    If you reject the idea of natural hierarchies because you believe in Shermer's Moral Arc Reactor, then it shouldn't make any difference if competitive, accomplished men mutilate themselves both physically and biochemically to try to become "women."

    Yet to those of us with unregenerate minds who think that tradition before the Enlightenment got it basically right about hierarchy, this behavior makes no sense at all because these men have deliberately and needlessly thrown themselves into much lower positions in the order of things.

    If you reject the idea of natural hierarchies because you believe in Shermer’s Moral Arc Reactor, then it shouldn’t make any difference if competitive, accomplished men mutilate themselves both physically and biochemically to try to become “women.”

    Yet to those of us with unregenerate minds who think that tradition before the Enlightenment got it basically right about hierarchy, this behavior makes no sense at all because these men have deliberately and needlessly thrown themselves into much lower positions in the order of things.

    Of course, following that logic, one would have to assume that a woman transforming herself into a pseudo-man is morally acceptable.After all, she is attempting to occupy a higher position in the order of things….

    A more rational position would base itself on the notion that we shouldn’t allow the mentally ill to mutilate themselves:

    Dr. Paul McHugh, director of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins medical school, argues that a patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body is not that different from an anorectic woman’s feeling that she is drastically overweight. “We don’t do liposuction on anorectics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely the fault is in the mind, not the member,” he wrote.

    In the late 1970s, McHugh halted sex-change operations at Hopkins, concluding that surgeons should not carve up a healthy body to satisfy a feeling about what that body should be.

    • Replies: @donut
    That had to have been one of the few ethical decisions made at that particular institution.
    , @e
    I've thought of the analogy to the anorexic person before. We recognize them as sick people whose perceptual abilities have been compromised. Some part of the brain has gone haywire . They stand in front of a mirror, ribs protruding through flesh, yet adamantly argue they are fat.

    Think Diane Sawyer would EVER have the guts during her upcoming story on Jenner to draw that comparison?

    Of course not, but why not?

    Because... stating that someone like Jenner has a brain in which something has gone wrong is but one short step from stating that men who are turned on by men rather than women and women who are turned on by women rather than men have a brain in which something has gone wrong, and the anti-science GLBT crowd and their groupies cannot allow speech which speaks of malfunctions. Nope.

  25. Gender re-assignment is big in the Islamic Republic of Iran:

    Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[1]

    The new religious government that came to be established after the 1979 Iranian Revolution classed transsexuals and transvestites with gays and lesbians, who were condemned by Islam and faced the punishment of lashing or even death under Iran’s penal code.

    One early campaigner for transsexual rights was Maryam Hatoon Molkara, who had been assigned male at birth but identified as female. Before the revolution, she had longed to become physically female but could not afford surgery and wanted religious authorization. In 1975, she began to write letters to Khomeini, who was to become the leader of the revolution and was in exile. After the revolution, she was fired, forcedly injected with male hormones, and institutionalized. She was later released with help from her connections and continued to lobby many other leaders. Later she went to see Khomeini, who had returned to Iran. During this visit, she was subjected to beatings from his guards. Khomeini, however, did give her a letter to authorize her sex reassignment operation, which she later did in 1997.[2] Due to this fatwa, issued in 1987, transsexual women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and get married to men.[3]

    Present day[edit]
    Khomeini’s original fatwa has since been reconfirmed by the current leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics.[1] However, there is still a great deal of stigma attached to the idea of transsexualism and gender reassignment in ordinary Iranian society, and most transsexuals, after completing their transition, are advised to maintain discretion about their past.[1] Once a transsexual individual has undergone sex reassignment, that person legally becomes the new sex. All legal documents, such as birth certificates and passports, are also changed accordingly.[1]

    Hojatoleslam Kariminia, a mid-level cleric who is in favor of transsexual rights, has stated that he wishes “to suggest that the right of transsexuals to change their gender is a human right” and that he is attempting to “introduce transsexuals to the people through my work and in fact remove the stigma or the insults that is attach to these people.”[2]

    UNHCR’s 2001 report says that sex reassignment surgery is performed frequently and openly in Iran, and that homosexual and cross-dressing people, although unrelated to transsexualism, would be safe as long as they keep a low profile.[3] However, the Safra Project’s 2004 report considers UNHCR’s report over-optimistic. The Safra Project’s report suggests that UNHCR underestimated legal pressure over transsexual and LGBT matters.[citation needed]

    The report further states that currently, it is not possible for presumed transsexual individuals to choose not to undergo surgery – if they are approved for sex reassignment, they are expected to undergo treatment immediately. Those who wish to remain “non-operative” (as well as those who cross-dress and/or identify as genderqueer) are considered their biological gender, and as such they are likely to face harassment as being homosexuals and subject to the same laws barring homosexual acts.[4]

  26. A lot of men who used to be part of he gym scene seem convinced Jenner used PEDs long before ” Anyone really knew much of anything about them,” and that in those days he probably didn’t cycle off and on them as he should have.”

    I don’t know anything about modern PEDs beyond the stuff one reads about them in relation to baseball and football players, but I do recall the special I saw on what East German efforts to make their female athletes into super performers did to those poor women. Anything is possible.

    Then too, just think of how screwed up are the people who live on diet pills or those who have been chronic meth users. Meth depletes their serotonin, and all kinds of strange behaviors, including sexual behaviors, result. I’d guess his quest for belonging to the “in” crowd could have led to drug use.

  27. Most 65 year old white men fall asleep on the couch watching Blue Bloods. They tend not to have the manhood shredded into some parody of a lady thing. The doctors should be shot.

  28. @syonredux

    If you reject the idea of natural hierarchies because you believe in Shermer’s Moral Arc Reactor, then it shouldn’t make any difference if competitive, accomplished men mutilate themselves both physically and biochemically to try to become “women.”

    Yet to those of us with unregenerate minds who think that tradition before the Enlightenment got it basically right about hierarchy, this behavior makes no sense at all because these men have deliberately and needlessly thrown themselves into much lower positions in the order of things.
     

    Of course, following that logic, one would have to assume that a woman transforming herself into a pseudo-man is morally acceptable.After all, she is attempting to occupy a higher position in the order of things....

    A more rational position would base itself on the notion that we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to mutilate themselves:


    Dr. Paul McHugh, director of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins medical school, argues that a patient's feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man's body is not that different from an anorectic woman's feeling that she is drastically overweight. "We don't do liposuction on anorectics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely the fault is in the mind, not the member," he wrote.

    In the late 1970s, McHugh halted sex-change operations at Hopkins, concluding that surgeons should not carve up a healthy body to satisfy a feeling about what that body should be.
     

    That had to have been one of the few ethical decisions made at that particular institution.

  29. e says: • Website
    @syonredux

    If you reject the idea of natural hierarchies because you believe in Shermer’s Moral Arc Reactor, then it shouldn’t make any difference if competitive, accomplished men mutilate themselves both physically and biochemically to try to become “women.”

    Yet to those of us with unregenerate minds who think that tradition before the Enlightenment got it basically right about hierarchy, this behavior makes no sense at all because these men have deliberately and needlessly thrown themselves into much lower positions in the order of things.
     

    Of course, following that logic, one would have to assume that a woman transforming herself into a pseudo-man is morally acceptable.After all, she is attempting to occupy a higher position in the order of things....

    A more rational position would base itself on the notion that we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to mutilate themselves:


    Dr. Paul McHugh, director of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins medical school, argues that a patient's feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man's body is not that different from an anorectic woman's feeling that she is drastically overweight. "We don't do liposuction on anorectics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely the fault is in the mind, not the member," he wrote.

    In the late 1970s, McHugh halted sex-change operations at Hopkins, concluding that surgeons should not carve up a healthy body to satisfy a feeling about what that body should be.
     

    I’ve thought of the analogy to the anorexic person before. We recognize them as sick people whose perceptual abilities have been compromised. Some part of the brain has gone haywire . They stand in front of a mirror, ribs protruding through flesh, yet adamantly argue they are fat.

    Think Diane Sawyer would EVER have the guts during her upcoming story on Jenner to draw that comparison?

    Of course not, but why not?

    Because… stating that someone like Jenner has a brain in which something has gone wrong is but one short step from stating that men who are turned on by men rather than women and women who are turned on by women rather than men have a brain in which something has gone wrong, and the anti-science GLBT crowd and their groupies cannot allow speech which speaks of malfunctions. Nope.

  30. Pictures of the Feminist Studies Professor Marcia Ochoa

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Marcia+Ochoa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JsXWVKuCPYyayASM2oG4Aw&ved=0CC8QsAQ

    She looks pretty butch.

    • Replies: @donut
    F**K ! I wasn't ready for that . You should give a heads up.
    , @e
    Why aren't people like her called "masculinists" rather than "feminists"? She and they ruin a perfectly good and decent Latin root for a perfectly good and decent sex.
    , @Vendetta
    HAHAHA!

    Think she should be taking lessons on feminimity, not teaching them.
    , @Wally
    http://wcms-prod-web-2.ucsc.edu/cache/directory/marcia8a.jpg
    Marcia / Mark Ochoa

    Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?

    This is all about mental illness. There I said it.
  31. @syonredux
    RE: M to F Transgendered*,

    It's not tough to understand.They come in two flavors (so to speak):

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their "transition."

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won't cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their "transition."

    Needless to say, Jenner seems like a clear case of category 2







    *Seeing as how the essence remains unchanged (M to F trans can't have babies, etc), the PC preference for using "gender" instead of "sex" finally seems appropriate

    Nice. So Jenner is turned on by being a woman. Women are desired, so how much better to become a woman. It’s a form a mental masturbation taken to its limit.

    This strikes me as the final platform for American culture. The natural cultural dead end evolution of the most narcissistic country on the planet.

    Star-Spangled Banner on endless loop, faggots.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Nice. So Jenner is turned on by being a woman. Women are desired, so how much better to become a woman. It’s a form a mental masturbation taken to its limit.

    This strikes me as the final platform for American culture. The natural cultural dead end evolution of the most narcissistic country on the planet.

    Star-Spangled Banner on endless loop, faggots.
     
    Actually, dear fellow, the Islamic Republic of Iran far exceeds the USA in the gender re-assignment surgery department:

    Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[1]
     
  32. @Hacienda
    Nice. So Jenner is turned on by being a woman. Women are desired, so how much better to become a woman. It's a form a mental masturbation taken to its limit.

    This strikes me as the final platform for American culture. The natural cultural dead end evolution of the most narcissistic country on the planet.

    Star-Spangled Banner on endless loop, faggots.

    Nice. So Jenner is turned on by being a woman. Women are desired, so how much better to become a woman. It’s a form a mental masturbation taken to its limit.

    This strikes me as the final platform for American culture. The natural cultural dead end evolution of the most narcissistic country on the planet.

    Star-Spangled Banner on endless loop, faggots.

    Actually, dear fellow, the Islamic Republic of Iran far exceeds the USA in the gender re-assignment surgery department:

    Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[1]

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There's a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.

    Thailand is renowned gender change surgical center. People from
    all over the world get their surgeries done there. This has to
    inflate Thailand's numbers. And the Thai sex industry is in a league of
    its own and a national catastrophe. Thais must get the surgeries for
    the most marginal of reasons.

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner's got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!

  33. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Pictures of the Feminist Studies Professor Marcia Ochoa

    http://wcms-prod-web-2.ucsc.edu/cache/directory/marcia8a.jpg

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Marcia+Ochoa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JsXWVKuCPYyayASM2oG4Aw&ved=0CC8QsAQ

    She looks pretty butch.

    F**K ! I wasn’t ready for that . You should give a heads up.

  34. The Bruce Jenner car crash story was the top story on Google News today and it was featured among the top stories on NYTimes.com. Apparently he’s now one of the world’s most important people and this is a major news story.

  35. I think shock is not the right word — disgust comes closer.

    Mangan had a relevant post recently: The political equivalent of obesity and type 2 diabetes. America as freak show. Tolerance — even celebration is not too strong here — of stuff like this is a ‘disease of modern civilization’, like obesity and diabetes — indulgence of this sort of pathology is a misguided product of wealth and abundance.

  36. I read this piece on this RadFem blog Cherry Blossoms Life a while back. I tried to find the thing but I guess it is now defunct. I did find a Rational Male comment I made about this in the past:

    “The best definition I heard of this was from a RadFem blog, Cherry Blossoms. (Yes, not one of them had a photo for an avatar in comments. The owner of the blog is extremely fucking ugly. I’m the sure whole crowd was real special).

    “Anyway she had a post about a restaurant that wouldn’t allow this support group of transsexuals to meet in the back room of his restaurant anymore. It seems they were going in the women’s bathroom and pissing all over the seats. So the actual female patrons were raising hell.

    “And so I guess RadFems get even more pissed off about men pissing on the toilet seats then typical women, so they fucking despise t-girls. I think the blog post headline was “Of course, Transsexual men piss on the toilet seats.” (I am sure that is major plank in the RadFem platform “The Patriarchy exploits women and also pisses on the toilet seats”)

    “And Ms Cherry Blossom went on the say that “Women are the object of desire and these transsexuals were not women trapped in the body of men, but creeps that also want to be the object of desire.”

    “At first I thought, “Jeez, pretty hard from a bunch of ugly RadFems.” I thought they were all about embracing the GBLT thing. I figured they hated the idea of competition. But they were most serious about the “Women having the genius of creating life” with their magic vaginas and a TS just doesn”t get to be in the fucking club.

    “But after reading that, every time I see some photo of some TS on a match site, I think, “Yeah, that ugly RadFem makes sense here. Sure looks like what this TS is doing”. Their photos go over the top in slutty attire and attention whoring poses.”

    So I tend to agree with Bailey in a way, that these are not “girls trapped in boys bodies. Trannies usually do go way way to the extreme in both worshiping and presenting particularly the most sexual adornments to gain what they perceive is the social power that women have. And they flaunt it in far more audacious manners. I agree with with Ms Cherry Blossom, they want to be the “object of desire”. I think they become both fascinated with the power that women have and covet the attention they generate. It seems to coincidental that these men described, the highly masculine men, that when they reach some point that could be termed as “the male wall” desire to convert to women. And then they adopt the trappings.

    Jenner has been in the middle of what is the biggest attention whoring factory ever. Literally a member of a whole enterprise based on nothing else but “look at me”. Look at both the extremes those people have gone to in order to achieve the attention and the money they have generated for doing so.

    One last point. I was re-reading sections of The Tyranny of Ambiguity, this book by Simon Sheppard on how women increase the difficulty and cost of sexual access to men and in doing so enhance the social status and increase the rents that women seek from men. It’s a pretty amazing book. I read most of it last summer and after another six months of constantly reading Manosphere and now Dark Enlightenment writings, I realize first, how prescient Sheppard was, and then second, that he wrote it 20 years ago, alone, all based on private experimentation, observation, and study.

    He listed 80 things that were signs of the feminization of society. Keep in mind this was in the early 1990s and these things might have been present but not so obvious to most of us. Things like “A rewriting of history”, “A stagnation of culture, a constant borrowing of styles and fashions from the past”, “Unscientific and anti-scientific fact”, “Derogation of National Culture”, “Underming of Authority”. And I listed these because many of the rest are too long for this comment or are somewhat technical in that you need to have read prior sections of the book. The list is pretty amazing, especially for 20 years ago.

    He lists several origins for this feminization: Gentrification so females feel safe, the nature of politics because manipulation is a female trait, the cumulative effect of wars due to loss of the most masculine men, reproductive control, female control of sex due to affluence, and a strange one:

    “Environmental pollution, things like hormones from female bodies using birth control pills entering the environment via urine.”

    I know that seems like a strange one. But imagine Jenner living in that constant cloud of estrogen, constantly exposed environmentally to all that Kardashian crap.

    Makes you wonder.

    • Replies: @Tracy

    Trannies usually do go way way to the extreme in both worshiping and presenting particularly the most sexual adornments to gain what they perceive is the social power that women have. And they flaunt it in far more audacious manners. I agree with with Ms Cherry Blossom, they want to be the “object of desire”.
     
    The type of person you're describing is the autogynephile, not people I consider truly transgendered. The over the top girliness, the whorishness, the drag queen-style names they choose for themselves, etc. -- all tells for that type. But the transgendered person I know best -- male to female -- wears little to no make-up and dresses in jeans most of the time. She is truly transgendered. I do think, though, that most of the self-proclaimed transgendered people out there (the male to female ones) are autogynephiles and not truly transgendered at all.

    He listed 80 things that were signs of the feminization of society. Keep in mind this was in the early 1990s and these things might have been present but not so obvious to most of us. Things like “A rewriting of history”, “A stagnation of culture, a constant borrowing of styles and fashions from the past”, “Unscientific and anti-scientific fact”, “Derogation of National Culture”, “Underming of Authority”.
     
    I'd likely agree that everything the guy listed is bad for society, but I really, really hate how all the bad stuff is referred to as a "feminization." As a woman, I think it sucks to have all bad ideas called "feminine" -- especially when you're a woman who hates those bad ideas as much as anyone with a brain would. There's nothing "feminine" about a stagnant culture or re-writing history. That stuff might be going on, in part, because of radical feminism, but there's not much that's feminine about that, either.
    , @Zippy
    If a guy isn't willing to sit down while he pees, he ain't identifying as a woman, even if he does run around in a dress.
  37. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Pictures of the Feminist Studies Professor Marcia Ochoa

    http://wcms-prod-web-2.ucsc.edu/cache/directory/marcia8a.jpg

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Marcia+Ochoa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JsXWVKuCPYyayASM2oG4Aw&ved=0CC8QsAQ

    She looks pretty butch.

    Why aren’t people like her called “masculinists” rather than “feminists”? She and they ruin a perfectly good and decent Latin root for a perfectly good and decent sex.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    She and they ruin a perfectly good and decent Latin root…
     
    Ruining a perfectly good and decent root is what this whole story is about.
  38. @e
    Why aren't people like her called "masculinists" rather than "feminists"? She and they ruin a perfectly good and decent Latin root for a perfectly good and decent sex.

    She and they ruin a perfectly good and decent Latin root…

    Ruining a perfectly good and decent root is what this whole story is about.

  39. Dwight Stones, a former Olympic high-jump medalist who has known Mr. Jenner for years…

    My grandma always said, people who live in glass scrota shouldn’t dwight stones.

  40. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Pictures of the Feminist Studies Professor Marcia Ochoa

    http://wcms-prod-web-2.ucsc.edu/cache/directory/marcia8a.jpg

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Marcia+Ochoa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JsXWVKuCPYyayASM2oG4Aw&ved=0CC8QsAQ

    She looks pretty butch.

    HAHAHA!

    Think she should be taking lessons on feminimity, not teaching them.

  41. “(whose latest flop sci-fi movie is coming out soon)”

    Coming out soon. Indeed!

    • Replies: @Zippy
    I saw it! It's BAD. I mean, horribly, horribly bad in ways you can't even imagine. I can love big dumb action movies, even adore them. I loved Guardians of the Galaxy.

    This thing has no sense of life, no fun, no joy, nothing. Not even good fetish wear like The Matrix.

    By the way Steve, I'd love to hear your take on it. If you can stand the ordeal. Ponderous it was.

  42. Georges Clemenceau said “America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization”

  43. @syonredux

    Nice. So Jenner is turned on by being a woman. Women are desired, so how much better to become a woman. It’s a form a mental masturbation taken to its limit.

    This strikes me as the final platform for American culture. The natural cultural dead end evolution of the most narcissistic country on the planet.

    Star-Spangled Banner on endless loop, faggots.
     
    Actually, dear fellow, the Islamic Republic of Iran far exceeds the USA in the gender re-assignment surgery department:

    Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[1]
     

    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There’s a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.

    Thailand is renowned gender change surgical center. People from
    all over the world get their surgeries done there. This has to
    inflate Thailand’s numbers. And the Thai sex industry is in a league of
    its own and a national catastrophe. Thais must get the surgeries for
    the most marginal of reasons.

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner’s got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There’s a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.
     
    It's been going strong now for more than 20 years, so maybe not.Also, remember that this is actually subsidized by the Islamic Republic....

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner’s got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!
     
    The Trans "community" rejects the idea of autogynephilia; they see it as " transphobic." Hence, Jenner will, in all probability, never become an advocate for autogynephilia.When he starts dating women as an M to F trans, Jenner will simply claim that he is a Lesbian.
  44. @grey enlightenment
    He reminds me of Malcom Gladwell- another kinda odd looking, skinny, post-middle-aged former marathoner . You don't hear much about Gladwell these days - probably counting all his money now that more people have become wise to his BS

    probably counting all his money now that more people have become wise to his BS

    The first clause tends to supersede the second here.

    BTW, whatever happened to the name “Bruce.” Does anyone know anyone under 40 with that name?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    BTW, whatever happened to the name “Bruce.” Does anyone know anyone under 40 with that name?
     
    Mount Bruce:

    Bruce finished in the top hundred in the US 1932-1970.
    Highest position: #28 in 1952.
    Bruce ranked #140 in 1975 (i.e., 40 yrs old)
    Highest rank in 21st century: #416 in 2013

    Bruce was the stock gay-joke name around 1970 (Adam and Steve came later). But a wave of he-man Bruces came to the rescue: Springsteen, Willis, and-- yes-- Jenner.
    Still, it fell over time.

    Robin had a similar fate. Not gay, but girl. Then Messrs Gibb, Williams, Yount, Ventura and, lately, Thicke brought it home to the boys. It's in the 900s for both sexes now, but many males are legally Robert.

  45. Been lurking here for a couple of months. Interesting website, and refreshing for its fearless candor. The comments on articles are less impressive, to put it diplomatically. So this is an experiment. I’m commenting on this because, for some stupid reason, I find myself sucked into the Bruce Jenner story, which I find bizarre and interesting, as extremes often are.

    I’ll post in bullet points after a brief sketch of my background: 57-year-old homosexual white male, born and raised in the Midwest. No “trans” impulses at all. I am comfortable with my gender, period. About five years ago, for reasons as random as having been sucked into the Jenner vortex now, I found myself in a month-long online debate with so-called “gender queers,” during which I learned a few things.

    1. The fact that people can be grouped by this or that trait doesn’t mean that the group is homogenous. This is definitely true of gays, or whites, or blacks, or males, or females, or heterosexuals, ad infinitum. And of that group we call here “transsexuals.” It’s a small group, but there are plenty of variations.

    2. There are transvestites — almost exclusively male — who wear women’s clothing. They can be divided between burlesque entertainers (mostly but not entirely gay males) and men (mostly heterosexuals) who go further into “femininity” as an escape. Check out an organization called “Tri-Ess.” It was a “who knew?” moment for me, anyway.

    3. There are fetishists, usually men, who have an erotic fixation on themselves as members of the other gender. Jenner sounds like one of them, but who knows?

    4. There are intersexuals, a category once known as hermaphrodites. Some have both sets of sexual organs, but it varies all over the map. Turns out that every organ in the body — not just the genitals — can be analyzed in terms of gender. There are people with a “male” liver, “female” lungs, and a “male” brain.

    5. There are gender benders, a group that personally drives me a little crazy. For political (!), social, ideological, and other reasons that are murky as hell to me, they seek to blur gender barriers, sometimes to the point of “identifying” as male one day, female another day, and “neutral” or “agender” another day. I view it as performance art and psychological disturbance, but what do I know?

    6. There are some males and females who might (or might not?) be intersexual but who otherwise are gender non-conforming, not by choice but by nature. You know, the highly effeminate males and highly butch females. They sometimes “transition” through surgery, and sometimes don’t.

    7. My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery. They have enough trouble, don’t you think? Why add to it? Same goes for genuine intersexuals. Look, they didn’t ask for this. I’m somewhat persuaded that intersexuality has increased in recent decades; if that’s true, my guess would be chemicals in the environment. It’s mind boggling to me how many new chemicals get introduced with little or no surveillance or testing.

    8. I don’t think homosexuality is a way station on a gender continuum. I know plenty of men other than myself who are attracted to the same gender without having a classic female temperament. I think that stereotype has its roots in the gut-level sense that penetration is male and being penetrated is female. But I don’t think the stereotype is accurate.

    9. When I was coming to terms with my nature — in typical Midwestern fashion, I finally looked in the mirror at age 19 and said, “You’re a faggot, now go make a life” — the acronym was “GL” for gay and lesbian. That took getting used to, because “gay” bugged me. Then they added the B for bisexual. Fine. Then someone added the T, and it has always bothered me a lot, because while I have sympathy with “sexual outlaws” who are hated for their nature, I don’t appreciate being classified with people confused about their gender. See, I really like manhood.

    10. With age, I mellowed to a degree. I’m no longer bothered by effeminate men, having realized a long time ago that it wouldn’t rub off. And if someone is intersexed, well hell, they didn’t choose it any more than I chose to be homosexual or most people chose to be heterosexual. But I’m still put off by GLBT, and especially by the “genderqueer” phenomenon, i.e. theatrical types who want to play or experiment with gender. Why? Because like most people, I really LIKE the difference.

    Okay, that’s it. I don’t have a unified conclusion here, just a collection of thoughts. Take what you will from it. Maybe there’ll be more to say later, and maybe not.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery."

    There is a related illness where people wish to amputate limbs. Very few people consider this to be a lifestyle choice, they rightly consider it a disorder. These disorders don't have limits, they exist on a hierarchy of severity. When you get down to it, they are people that feel they have to mutilate their bodies to feel "normal." And then, in the majority of cases, they still are not satisfied, in the rest I question their candor. Have you known some of these people? In my experience, this is just one more disorder in a cluster of mental and emotional issues. I am not trying to be cruel but I just don't see this as a thing to be normalized and accepted. There is a desire to be empathetic, but it is based on believing it's possible to perfect the world. unfortunately there are broken people in the world and nothing in the world can fix them. But accommodating them can make things worse...
    , @meh

    Been lurking here for a couple of months. Interesting website, and refreshing for its fearless candor. The comments on articles are less impressive, to put it diplomatically.
     
    Well, how gracious of you to finally ameliorate our glaring deficiencies as a commentariat, by gracing us with your presence!
    , @dr kill
    I'm interested in your opinion of my opinion - the entire Jenner/Kardashian complex is cutting edge marketing.
  46. I’ve got a question that has nothing to do with this topic but maybe someone here can answer for me.
    I saw a trailer for a movie today on IMDB the title of the movie is “Cut Bank”. It looks like it might be a good story, it has what I think is a great cast ; Billy Bob Thornton , John Malkovich , Bruce Dern , Oliver Platt and some younger actors that I don’t know but I assume they’re not nobodies.

    The thing is it’s opening March 20 in Iceland. Why would they do that ? They have these multiplexes all over with a dozen screens and nothing at the moment I would watch if it was on Netflix and this thing which looks good is opening in Iceland. Whats up with that ?

  47. My take is that Jenner always had a femme side. I have never seen how he speaks (mannerisms etc) but his floppy haircut with long bangs almost in his eyes was on the girlish side and reminded me of the actress Joyce Dewitt is Threes Company. It was a tell in his case. Of course not for all guys who look similar. Looked is a better word, this was a 70s and 80s type haircut you don’t see much now. It went out with the mullet.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Basically the same haircut Pete Rose sported in 1972. Think of him as girlish?
  48. @countenance
    Now that we're in the throes of World War L versus World War T raging, I'm wondering what the next big fringier than thou constituency is going to be. I have heard that among Ts, there are way more men who trans to women than women who trans to men. So, maybe the next hot civil rightsey social justicey constituency is going to be women who trans to men and the discrimination and bigotry they face from the "establishment" of men that trans to women.

    I wonder if I could get on the ground floor of this in some sort of investment sense.

    Now that we’re in the throes of World War L versus World War T raging, I’m wondering what the next big fringier than thou constituency is going to be.

    In anal sex going totally mainstream? Allison Williams is getting analingus on “Girls.” Must figure her father is too busy with his own problems to notice.

    http://www.peeperz.com/allison-williams-gets-ass-eaten-tv/

    • Replies: @Tracy

    In anal sex going totally mainstream?
     
    Been mainstream for a while. Thanks, porn. Woohoo.
  49. So when is Bruce Jenner going to be thanked for being an iSteve content provider?

  50. ‘Propaganda organs’

    A bit of a Freudian slip, if not Freudian snip, methinks.

  51. Kim Kardashian must be extremely jealous right now that the media tabloids and the paparazzi are talking more about Bruce Jenner than they are about her, her daughter North West, and her husband Kanye West.

    Kim Kardashian is a media whore who is addicted to the spotlight like Bruno Mars is addicted to cocaine, so maybe she should one up Bruce Jenner and announce that she is becoming a “man” just like Cher’s daughter Chaz Bono. The Kardashian family is already a family of sideshow circus freaks anyways. So nothing would surprise me if it’s coming from them.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Kim Kardashian is a media whore who is addicted to the spotlight like Bruno Mars is addicted to cocaine, so maybe she should one up Bruce Jenner and announce that she is becoming a “man” just like Cher’s daughter Chaz Bono. The Kardashian family is already a family of sideshow circus freaks anyways. So nothing would surprise me if it’s coming from them.
     
    Its all about the millions the entire family is making. You are simplistically implying that she is a vain and stupid media whore when the facts are that she is worth millions from it. So she has a higher money IQ than 100 iSteve posters put together. So much for our wit and brilliance!

    Kim Kardashian is an American reality television star, model and spokesperson who has a net worth of $65 million
     

    Kris Jenner Net Worth Here. ... Estimated Net Worth: $25 Million.
     
  52. @countenance
    If I was one of the cops filling out paperwork on that accident, I'd skip the "Sex" box on Jenner for now.

    “Jenner” should its own separate box

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @New Reader
    Been lurking here for a couple of months. Interesting website, and refreshing for its fearless candor. The comments on articles are less impressive, to put it diplomatically. So this is an experiment. I'm commenting on this because, for some stupid reason, I find myself sucked into the Bruce Jenner story, which I find bizarre and interesting, as extremes often are.

    I'll post in bullet points after a brief sketch of my background: 57-year-old homosexual white male, born and raised in the Midwest. No "trans" impulses at all. I am comfortable with my gender, period. About five years ago, for reasons as random as having been sucked into the Jenner vortex now, I found myself in a month-long online debate with so-called "gender queers," during which I learned a few things.

    1. The fact that people can be grouped by this or that trait doesn't mean that the group is homogenous. This is definitely true of gays, or whites, or blacks, or males, or females, or heterosexuals, ad infinitum. And of that group we call here "transsexuals." It's a small group, but there are plenty of variations.

    2. There are transvestites -- almost exclusively male -- who wear women's clothing. They can be divided between burlesque entertainers (mostly but not entirely gay males) and men (mostly heterosexuals) who go further into "femininity" as an escape. Check out an organization called "Tri-Ess." It was a "who knew?" moment for me, anyway.

    3. There are fetishists, usually men, who have an erotic fixation on themselves as members of the other gender. Jenner sounds like one of them, but who knows?

    4. There are intersexuals, a category once known as hermaphrodites. Some have both sets of sexual organs, but it varies all over the map. Turns out that every organ in the body -- not just the genitals -- can be analyzed in terms of gender. There are people with a "male" liver, "female" lungs, and a "male" brain.

    5. There are gender benders, a group that personally drives me a little crazy. For political (!), social, ideological, and other reasons that are murky as hell to me, they seek to blur gender barriers, sometimes to the point of "identifying" as male one day, female another day, and "neutral" or "agender" another day. I view it as performance art and psychological disturbance, but what do I know?

    6. There are some males and females who might (or might not?) be intersexual but who otherwise are gender non-conforming, not by choice but by nature. You know, the highly effeminate males and highly butch females. They sometimes "transition" through surgery, and sometimes don't.

    7. My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery. They have enough trouble, don't you think? Why add to it? Same goes for genuine intersexuals. Look, they didn't ask for this. I'm somewhat persuaded that intersexuality has increased in recent decades; if that's true, my guess would be chemicals in the environment. It's mind boggling to me how many new chemicals get introduced with little or no surveillance or testing.

    8. I don't think homosexuality is a way station on a gender continuum. I know plenty of men other than myself who are attracted to the same gender without having a classic female temperament. I think that stereotype has its roots in the gut-level sense that penetration is male and being penetrated is female. But I don't think the stereotype is accurate.

    9. When I was coming to terms with my nature -- in typical Midwestern fashion, I finally looked in the mirror at age 19 and said, "You're a faggot, now go make a life" -- the acronym was "GL" for gay and lesbian. That took getting used to, because "gay" bugged me. Then they added the B for bisexual. Fine. Then someone added the T, and it has always bothered me a lot, because while I have sympathy with "sexual outlaws" who are hated for their nature, I don't appreciate being classified with people confused about their gender. See, I really like manhood.

    10. With age, I mellowed to a degree. I'm no longer bothered by effeminate men, having realized a long time ago that it wouldn't rub off. And if someone is intersexed, well hell, they didn't choose it any more than I chose to be homosexual or most people chose to be heterosexual. But I'm still put off by GLBT, and especially by the "genderqueer" phenomenon, i.e. theatrical types who want to play or experiment with gender. Why? Because like most people, I really LIKE the difference.

    Okay, that's it. I don't have a unified conclusion here, just a collection of thoughts. Take what you will from it. Maybe there'll be more to say later, and maybe not.

    “My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery.”

    There is a related illness where people wish to amputate limbs. Very few people consider this to be a lifestyle choice, they rightly consider it a disorder. These disorders don’t have limits, they exist on a hierarchy of severity. When you get down to it, they are people that feel they have to mutilate their bodies to feel “normal.” And then, in the majority of cases, they still are not satisfied, in the rest I question their candor. Have you known some of these people? In my experience, this is just one more disorder in a cluster of mental and emotional issues. I am not trying to be cruel but I just don’t see this as a thing to be normalized and accepted. There is a desire to be empathetic, but it is based on believing it’s possible to perfect the world. unfortunately there are broken people in the world and nothing in the world can fix them. But accommodating them can make things worse…

    • Replies: @New Reader
    That's an interesting take on it, i.e. a self mutilation disorder.

    Off the top of my head, I think there's probably a lot of truth in that. I've read that transsexuals have extremely high suicide rates, and that there are more than a few cases where people "transition," and then transition back. Holy smokes!

    Homosexuals have higher-than-average suicide rates too, especially younger ones. But I think "gay suicides," as a phenomenon, have mainly different roots. Transsexuals, whatever "type," strike me as having much deeper inherent conflicts, whereas with homosexuals I think the "conflict" is much more a matter of adjustment to a society that only very recently has been anything other than sharply disdainful at best.

    This is another reason why I continue to be uneasy with "GLBT." Other than "T" raising issues of what I'll call here "non-standard sexuality," I really don't think that "GLB" have any more in common with "T" than heterosexuals do. In fact, the "Tri-Ess" transvestites are typically heterosexual men, and most post-op "Ts" wind up having a heterosexual orientation in their new gender.

    All of this is, to me, just as mysterious and "abnormal" as it is to you. Being part of a group that, in my lifetime, have widely been scorned (and worse) as "abnormal" and dangerous and gender non-conforming, I start with a sympathetic view toward "sexual outlaws" who otherwise do no harm. But that's as far as it goes, and any initial sympathy is always tentative pending further information. Which is to say that the "North American Man Boy Love Assn" likely pisses me off at least as much as it pisses off most people.

    Should "T" be normalized or accepted?

    Well, hmm. It's a free country, so if someone wants to hack off body parts and a doctor will do it, I see no reason why it shouldn't be "accepted." I don't think people do something like that casually. And yes, I've been momentarily acquainted with three transsexuals that I know about. I felt very sorry for each of them.

    "Normalized?" That's such a loaded term, prone to semantic whirlpools. Intersex is a "normal" variation, somewhere way in the tail of the bell curve, so I suppose it's "normal." Homosexuality is two standard deviations from the mean, as are plenty of traits, so I think it's "normal." Lots of things that most people don't do, share, want, or like are "normal" in that sense.

    I guess, in the end, I think that people ought to be allowed to try to make their own way, i.e., to pursue happiness. Daily life is challenging enough without someone being targeted for extra oppression, especially when it's based on something they simply ARE that they didn't choose. If someone can cobble together a life without hurting others, maybe a helping hand is in order, especially for the most scorned.

    That's about as well as I can do at the moment, but I'm sure there are other thoughts rattling around in here.

  54. “Now Mr. Jenner, who muscled his way into American consciousness when he won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Montreal Summer Games… ”

    Distance runners don’t ‘muscle’ anything. I’m sure west Africans have a trove of fag jokes about East African Bantu. Any paleo site has warnings about the perils of testosterone sapping pavement pounding. I grew up in culture of middle distance, cross country, triathlons and orienteering.

    Got out just in time, my darlings!

    • Replies: @CJ
    Distance runners don’t ‘muscle’ anything.

    Jenner's event, the decathlon, doesn't involve much distance running. The ten events are:

    Day 1 - 100 meters, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 meters
    Day 2 - 110 meters hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, 1500 meters

    Shot put, discus, pole vault, and javelin all require upper-body strength. The theory that he was using PEDs is not improbable. How that affected him, who knows?
  55. @New Reader
    Been lurking here for a couple of months. Interesting website, and refreshing for its fearless candor. The comments on articles are less impressive, to put it diplomatically. So this is an experiment. I'm commenting on this because, for some stupid reason, I find myself sucked into the Bruce Jenner story, which I find bizarre and interesting, as extremes often are.

    I'll post in bullet points after a brief sketch of my background: 57-year-old homosexual white male, born and raised in the Midwest. No "trans" impulses at all. I am comfortable with my gender, period. About five years ago, for reasons as random as having been sucked into the Jenner vortex now, I found myself in a month-long online debate with so-called "gender queers," during which I learned a few things.

    1. The fact that people can be grouped by this or that trait doesn't mean that the group is homogenous. This is definitely true of gays, or whites, or blacks, or males, or females, or heterosexuals, ad infinitum. And of that group we call here "transsexuals." It's a small group, but there are plenty of variations.

    2. There are transvestites -- almost exclusively male -- who wear women's clothing. They can be divided between burlesque entertainers (mostly but not entirely gay males) and men (mostly heterosexuals) who go further into "femininity" as an escape. Check out an organization called "Tri-Ess." It was a "who knew?" moment for me, anyway.

    3. There are fetishists, usually men, who have an erotic fixation on themselves as members of the other gender. Jenner sounds like one of them, but who knows?

    4. There are intersexuals, a category once known as hermaphrodites. Some have both sets of sexual organs, but it varies all over the map. Turns out that every organ in the body -- not just the genitals -- can be analyzed in terms of gender. There are people with a "male" liver, "female" lungs, and a "male" brain.

    5. There are gender benders, a group that personally drives me a little crazy. For political (!), social, ideological, and other reasons that are murky as hell to me, they seek to blur gender barriers, sometimes to the point of "identifying" as male one day, female another day, and "neutral" or "agender" another day. I view it as performance art and psychological disturbance, but what do I know?

    6. There are some males and females who might (or might not?) be intersexual but who otherwise are gender non-conforming, not by choice but by nature. You know, the highly effeminate males and highly butch females. They sometimes "transition" through surgery, and sometimes don't.

    7. My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery. They have enough trouble, don't you think? Why add to it? Same goes for genuine intersexuals. Look, they didn't ask for this. I'm somewhat persuaded that intersexuality has increased in recent decades; if that's true, my guess would be chemicals in the environment. It's mind boggling to me how many new chemicals get introduced with little or no surveillance or testing.

    8. I don't think homosexuality is a way station on a gender continuum. I know plenty of men other than myself who are attracted to the same gender without having a classic female temperament. I think that stereotype has its roots in the gut-level sense that penetration is male and being penetrated is female. But I don't think the stereotype is accurate.

    9. When I was coming to terms with my nature -- in typical Midwestern fashion, I finally looked in the mirror at age 19 and said, "You're a faggot, now go make a life" -- the acronym was "GL" for gay and lesbian. That took getting used to, because "gay" bugged me. Then they added the B for bisexual. Fine. Then someone added the T, and it has always bothered me a lot, because while I have sympathy with "sexual outlaws" who are hated for their nature, I don't appreciate being classified with people confused about their gender. See, I really like manhood.

    10. With age, I mellowed to a degree. I'm no longer bothered by effeminate men, having realized a long time ago that it wouldn't rub off. And if someone is intersexed, well hell, they didn't choose it any more than I chose to be homosexual or most people chose to be heterosexual. But I'm still put off by GLBT, and especially by the "genderqueer" phenomenon, i.e. theatrical types who want to play or experiment with gender. Why? Because like most people, I really LIKE the difference.

    Okay, that's it. I don't have a unified conclusion here, just a collection of thoughts. Take what you will from it. Maybe there'll be more to say later, and maybe not.

    Been lurking here for a couple of months. Interesting website, and refreshing for its fearless candor. The comments on articles are less impressive, to put it diplomatically.

    Well, how gracious of you to finally ameliorate our glaring deficiencies as a commentariat, by gracing us with your presence!

  56. el topo [AKA "darryl revok"] says:

    I just saw black transsexual journalist Janet Mock on Bill Maher’s show and I have to say he/she’s a great weapon in World War T, since he/she has more feminine charm than 99% of American women. Maybe that’s the point: Americans are now so confused about gender roles that only trannies know how to be feminine.

  57. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @anonymous-antimarxist
    Pictures of the Feminist Studies Professor Marcia Ochoa

    http://wcms-prod-web-2.ucsc.edu/cache/directory/marcia8a.jpg

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Marcia+Ochoa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JsXWVKuCPYyayASM2oG4Aw&ved=0CC8QsAQ

    She looks pretty butch.


    Marcia / Mark Ochoa

    Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?

    This is all about mental illness. There I said it.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?
    This is all about mental illness. There I said it.
     
    Deranged and degenerate is more accurate
  58. @syonredux
    RE: M to F Transgendered*,

    It's not tough to understand.They come in two flavors (so to speak):

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their "transition."

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won't cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their "transition."

    Needless to say, Jenner seems like a clear case of category 2







    *Seeing as how the essence remains unchanged (M to F trans can't have babies, etc), the PC preference for using "gender" instead of "sex" finally seems appropriate

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their “transition.”

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won’t cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their “transition.”

    I agree with category 2, but think category 1 is made up of the truly transgendered. Or maybe there are three categories: 1) the autogynephiles, like Jenner and that Navy Seal, 2) the truly transgendered, and 3) homosexuals who, like most male homosexuals, want masculine men to have sex with and think that transitioning would be the best way to get one.

    I don’t understand why some people think there aren’t people out there who are truly transgendered. So much can go wrong in utero, from chromosomal mishaps to hormonal problems. When this subject comes up on my forum, I post this video and ask the questions, “What sex is this person? Why do you think what you think?” I’ve found that people who don’t “get” the idea of transgenderism never, ever answer the question. The video: The Woman with Male DNA

    That woman — and I do believe she’s a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus — is an extreme example of what can go wrong. But what about people who are born with a 95% insensitivity to androgen? What about 80%? Or 50? What does absolutely determine sex? If it’s not the chromosomes, not the presence of absence of penises, uteruses, vaginas, testiclese, etc., then what? And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter? I find it kinda funny that people, like me, who see definite and obvious differences between the sexes and who think that God created us male or female (and that each person is, in fact, in God’s eyes, one sex or the other) are the ones who tend to not see brain-wiring as being relevant to a persons subjective identity. In fact, it’s the folks who tend to be very rigid in their thinking about the sexes who think the whole concept of transgenderism is nothing but mental illness at best, or perversion at worst (I grant, though, that autogynephiles would fit the “perverted” category — but I don’t consider them truly transgendered).

    Anyway, I guess we can thank God that most of the time things go right and all the sexual markers match up in most people. But there are these outliers out there. And they must have it rough… I wish they had more sympathy from my fellow paleo-cons and co-religionists (trad Catholics).

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "I do believe she’s a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus — is an extreme example of what can go wrong...What does absolutely determine sex? If it’s not the chromosomes..."

    Sex is determined by the chromosomes, full-stop. That has become the biological definition of sex, and it is a highly useful one for several important reasons. You want to re-categorize those people who for various reasons do not feel they belong to their biologically determined gender, then feel free to make up a new term - many new terms already have been invented, and people are happy to force them on us while at the same time not allowing us to deny new definitions to very old concepts, such as the idea that a husband pairs with a wife, not with another husband.

    Funny that those people who have invented words for over 50 different genders can't come up with a single new word to describe a gay man and his legal partner that does not step all over the one already used to describe a married straight man.
    , @PatrickH
    I expect you would call this person "truly transgendered": there was an article in Allure magazine many years ago about a male-to-female transsexual whose DNA was male but who had extremely high levels of female hormones in his blood. He wanted a sex-change operation from his earliest years and, although apparently attractive to some gay men as a very "pretty boy" type, he was uninterested in exploiting this because he only wanted to have sexual relationships with men as a woman. He apparently "transitioned" very effectively. One of his before pictures showed an extremely feminine-looking teenage boy (not dressed, coiffed nor made up to look like a girl); his after pictures showed a pretty, middle-aged woman. He was even able to find a man to marry him.

    I am afraid I got rather lost in your 3rd paragraph, starting with the sentence "And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter?" I'm not trying to attack your argument or your grammar - though there is a double negative in there! It's only that there seems to be an interesting point here that is just eluding me, and I wonder if you could recast this section to make it clearer. Are you saying that "brain wiring" is NOT relevant to a person's sexual identity, or that it is but most people don't see this?
  59. @Harry Baldwin
    Now that we’re in the throes of World War L versus World War T raging, I’m wondering what the next big fringier than thou constituency is going to be.

    In anal sex going totally mainstream? Allison Williams is getting analingus on "Girls." Must figure her father is too busy with his own problems to notice.

    http://www.peeperz.com/allison-williams-gets-ass-eaten-tv/

    In anal sex going totally mainstream?

    Been mainstream for a while. Thanks, porn. Woohoo.

  60. @New Reader
    Been lurking here for a couple of months. Interesting website, and refreshing for its fearless candor. The comments on articles are less impressive, to put it diplomatically. So this is an experiment. I'm commenting on this because, for some stupid reason, I find myself sucked into the Bruce Jenner story, which I find bizarre and interesting, as extremes often are.

    I'll post in bullet points after a brief sketch of my background: 57-year-old homosexual white male, born and raised in the Midwest. No "trans" impulses at all. I am comfortable with my gender, period. About five years ago, for reasons as random as having been sucked into the Jenner vortex now, I found myself in a month-long online debate with so-called "gender queers," during which I learned a few things.

    1. The fact that people can be grouped by this or that trait doesn't mean that the group is homogenous. This is definitely true of gays, or whites, or blacks, or males, or females, or heterosexuals, ad infinitum. And of that group we call here "transsexuals." It's a small group, but there are plenty of variations.

    2. There are transvestites -- almost exclusively male -- who wear women's clothing. They can be divided between burlesque entertainers (mostly but not entirely gay males) and men (mostly heterosexuals) who go further into "femininity" as an escape. Check out an organization called "Tri-Ess." It was a "who knew?" moment for me, anyway.

    3. There are fetishists, usually men, who have an erotic fixation on themselves as members of the other gender. Jenner sounds like one of them, but who knows?

    4. There are intersexuals, a category once known as hermaphrodites. Some have both sets of sexual organs, but it varies all over the map. Turns out that every organ in the body -- not just the genitals -- can be analyzed in terms of gender. There are people with a "male" liver, "female" lungs, and a "male" brain.

    5. There are gender benders, a group that personally drives me a little crazy. For political (!), social, ideological, and other reasons that are murky as hell to me, they seek to blur gender barriers, sometimes to the point of "identifying" as male one day, female another day, and "neutral" or "agender" another day. I view it as performance art and psychological disturbance, but what do I know?

    6. There are some males and females who might (or might not?) be intersexual but who otherwise are gender non-conforming, not by choice but by nature. You know, the highly effeminate males and highly butch females. They sometimes "transition" through surgery, and sometimes don't.

    7. My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery. They have enough trouble, don't you think? Why add to it? Same goes for genuine intersexuals. Look, they didn't ask for this. I'm somewhat persuaded that intersexuality has increased in recent decades; if that's true, my guess would be chemicals in the environment. It's mind boggling to me how many new chemicals get introduced with little or no surveillance or testing.

    8. I don't think homosexuality is a way station on a gender continuum. I know plenty of men other than myself who are attracted to the same gender without having a classic female temperament. I think that stereotype has its roots in the gut-level sense that penetration is male and being penetrated is female. But I don't think the stereotype is accurate.

    9. When I was coming to terms with my nature -- in typical Midwestern fashion, I finally looked in the mirror at age 19 and said, "You're a faggot, now go make a life" -- the acronym was "GL" for gay and lesbian. That took getting used to, because "gay" bugged me. Then they added the B for bisexual. Fine. Then someone added the T, and it has always bothered me a lot, because while I have sympathy with "sexual outlaws" who are hated for their nature, I don't appreciate being classified with people confused about their gender. See, I really like manhood.

    10. With age, I mellowed to a degree. I'm no longer bothered by effeminate men, having realized a long time ago that it wouldn't rub off. And if someone is intersexed, well hell, they didn't choose it any more than I chose to be homosexual or most people chose to be heterosexual. But I'm still put off by GLBT, and especially by the "genderqueer" phenomenon, i.e. theatrical types who want to play or experiment with gender. Why? Because like most people, I really LIKE the difference.

    Okay, that's it. I don't have a unified conclusion here, just a collection of thoughts. Take what you will from it. Maybe there'll be more to say later, and maybe not.

    I’m interested in your opinion of my opinion – the entire Jenner/Kardashian complex is cutting edge marketing.

    • Replies: @New Reader
    I might be the last person in America who knows almost nothing about the Kardashians. To give you a sense of how ignorant I am about them, I didn't know Jenner was connected with those people until I read through the comments at TMZ.

    I really know is that one of the Kardashians was the lawyer in the O.J. Simpson case -- well, and now I know that Jenner was married to one of them. You might say I'm the worst queer ever to be a queer. My Hollywood I.Q. is about 50. I only checked into any of this Jenner stuff because I remember him as an Olympic athlete, although I get that confused with others from the same era, like Mark Spitz.

    I remember Jenner as a clean-cut, kinda-sorta Ken-doll lookin' Mormon, cute in a way, but where are the gonads, even back then.

    Which is all a way of saying that I have no opinion of your opinion, other than to say that I think Hollywood has the ethics of a rattlesnake, so nothing surprises me. Also, I don't follow TMZ. Only looked there because the news aggregator, "Memeorandum," linked to their story. Their comment section is a circus, and not Circque du Soleil.

  61. @Mark Minter
    I read this piece on this RadFem blog Cherry Blossoms Life a while back. I tried to find the thing but I guess it is now defunct. I did find a Rational Male comment I made about this in the past:

    "The best definition I heard of this was from a RadFem blog, Cherry Blossoms. (Yes, not one of them had a photo for an avatar in comments. The owner of the blog is extremely fucking ugly. I’m the sure whole crowd was real special).

    "Anyway she had a post about a restaurant that wouldn’t allow this support group of transsexuals to meet in the back room of his restaurant anymore. It seems they were going in the women’s bathroom and pissing all over the seats. So the actual female patrons were raising hell.

    "And so I guess RadFems get even more pissed off about men pissing on the toilet seats then typical women, so they fucking despise t-girls. I think the blog post headline was “Of course, Transsexual men piss on the toilet seats.” (I am sure that is major plank in the RadFem platform “The Patriarchy exploits women and also pisses on the toilet seats”)

    "And Ms Cherry Blossom went on the say that “Women are the object of desire and these transsexuals were not women trapped in the body of men, but creeps that also want to be the object of desire.”

    "At first I thought, “Jeez, pretty hard from a bunch of ugly RadFems.” I thought they were all about embracing the GBLT thing. I figured they hated the idea of competition. But they were most serious about the “Women having the genius of creating life” with their magic vaginas and a TS just doesn”t get to be in the fucking club.

    "But after reading that, every time I see some photo of some TS on a match site, I think, “Yeah, that ugly RadFem makes sense here. Sure looks like what this TS is doing”. Their photos go over the top in slutty attire and attention whoring poses."

    So I tend to agree with Bailey in a way, that these are not "girls trapped in boys bodies. Trannies usually do go way way to the extreme in both worshiping and presenting particularly the most sexual adornments to gain what they perceive is the social power that women have. And they flaunt it in far more audacious manners. I agree with with Ms Cherry Blossom, they want to be the "object of desire". I think they become both fascinated with the power that women have and covet the attention they generate. It seems to coincidental that these men described, the highly masculine men, that when they reach some point that could be termed as "the male wall" desire to convert to women. And then they adopt the trappings.

    Jenner has been in the middle of what is the biggest attention whoring factory ever. Literally a member of a whole enterprise based on nothing else but "look at me". Look at both the extremes those people have gone to in order to achieve the attention and the money they have generated for doing so.

    One last point. I was re-reading sections of The Tyranny of Ambiguity, this book by Simon Sheppard on how women increase the difficulty and cost of sexual access to men and in doing so enhance the social status and increase the rents that women seek from men. It's a pretty amazing book. I read most of it last summer and after another six months of constantly reading Manosphere and now Dark Enlightenment writings, I realize first, how prescient Sheppard was, and then second, that he wrote it 20 years ago, alone, all based on private experimentation, observation, and study.

    He listed 80 things that were signs of the feminization of society. Keep in mind this was in the early 1990s and these things might have been present but not so obvious to most of us. Things like "A rewriting of history", "A stagnation of culture, a constant borrowing of styles and fashions from the past", "Unscientific and anti-scientific fact", "Derogation of National Culture", "Underming of Authority". And I listed these because many of the rest are too long for this comment or are somewhat technical in that you need to have read prior sections of the book. The list is pretty amazing, especially for 20 years ago.

    He lists several origins for this feminization: Gentrification so females feel safe, the nature of politics because manipulation is a female trait, the cumulative effect of wars due to loss of the most masculine men, reproductive control, female control of sex due to affluence, and a strange one:

    "Environmental pollution, things like hormones from female bodies using birth control pills entering the environment via urine."

    I know that seems like a strange one. But imagine Jenner living in that constant cloud of estrogen, constantly exposed environmentally to all that Kardashian crap.

    Makes you wonder.

    Trannies usually do go way way to the extreme in both worshiping and presenting particularly the most sexual adornments to gain what they perceive is the social power that women have. And they flaunt it in far more audacious manners. I agree with with Ms Cherry Blossom, they want to be the “object of desire”.

    The type of person you’re describing is the autogynephile, not people I consider truly transgendered. The over the top girliness, the whorishness, the drag queen-style names they choose for themselves, etc. — all tells for that type. But the transgendered person I know best — male to female — wears little to no make-up and dresses in jeans most of the time. She is truly transgendered. I do think, though, that most of the self-proclaimed transgendered people out there (the male to female ones) are autogynephiles and not truly transgendered at all.

    He listed 80 things that were signs of the feminization of society. Keep in mind this was in the early 1990s and these things might have been present but not so obvious to most of us. Things like “A rewriting of history”, “A stagnation of culture, a constant borrowing of styles and fashions from the past”, “Unscientific and anti-scientific fact”, “Derogation of National Culture”, “Underming of Authority”.

    I’d likely agree that everything the guy listed is bad for society, but I really, really hate how all the bad stuff is referred to as a “feminization.” As a woman, I think it sucks to have all bad ideas called “feminine” — especially when you’re a woman who hates those bad ideas as much as anyone with a brain would. There’s nothing “feminine” about a stagnant culture or re-writing history. That stuff might be going on, in part, because of radical feminism, but there’s not much that’s feminine about that, either.

  62. @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    Re Jenner accident. How many old trannies like Jenner enjoy riding ATVs? Seems like something a masculine young male would do.
    Is this sex change deal just a money making publicity stunt?

    I’m not sure about trannies, bit my lesbian grandmother and her partner were huge ATV fans for three or four decades.

  63. What about the suffering the transsexuals impose on their spouses and children? That never gets mentioned.

    Steve has recommended that “porn stars” be called “porn whores”. I suggest that so-called “gender reassignment” surgery be referred to as genital mutilation. It is!

  64. @countenance
    Now that we're in the throes of World War L versus World War T raging, I'm wondering what the next big fringier than thou constituency is going to be. I have heard that among Ts, there are way more men who trans to women than women who trans to men. So, maybe the next hot civil rightsey social justicey constituency is going to be women who trans to men and the discrimination and bigotry they face from the "establishment" of men that trans to women.

    I wonder if I could get on the ground floor of this in some sort of investment sense.

    I wonder if I could get on the ground floor of this in some sort of investment sense.

    You want to get long penis.

  65. @Truth

    probably counting all his money now that more people have become wise to his BS
     
    The first clause tends to supersede the second here.

    BTW, whatever happened to the name "Bruce." Does anyone know anyone under 40 with that name?

    BTW, whatever happened to the name “Bruce.” Does anyone know anyone under 40 with that name?

    Mount Bruce:

    Bruce finished in the top hundred in the US 1932-1970.
    Highest position: #28 in 1952.
    Bruce ranked #140 in 1975 (i.e., 40 yrs old)
    Highest rank in 21st century: #416 in 2013

    Bruce was the stock gay-joke name around 1970 (Adam and Steve came later). But a wave of he-man Bruces came to the rescue: Springsteen, Willis, and– yes– Jenner.
    Still, it fell over time.

    Robin had a similar fate. Not gay, but girl. Then Messrs Gibb, Williams, Yount, Ventura and, lately, Thicke brought it home to the boys. It’s in the 900s for both sexes now, but many males are legally Robert.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    And a dumb meme it was. Bruce is a very manly name.

    As regards Jenner, I wonder whether his obvious juicing didn't mess with his brain, and when he came off the juice ("transitioned"?), he felt a bit wuss. There's no evidence he's particularly smart, but like most Hollywood exhibitionists, has an animal survival cunning. Transitioning to fake ladyhood is a good career move. (Remember Vidal on Capote?)
  66. Like Michael Richards and Daniel Tosh before, will all the comedians and late night hosts who Jenner bashed now be guilty of hate and “gone too far” comedy? Will they continue joking or now quickly shut up for fear of T special interests and hashtag advocacy?

  67. @donut
    ' … Marcia Ochoa, chairwoman of the feminist studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said that much of the publicity swirling around Mr. Jenner, especially the obsession with his physical changes, had been ugly and prurient.

    “It’s such a courageous act, if she’s going to be transitioning publicly and subjecting herself to that kind of ridicule,” Ms. Ochoa said, using the feminine pronoun to describe Mr. Jenner. “In some ways, this is changing the whole landscape of it, because ultimately it looks inhumane, and she is a person who deserves to be happy.”

    Can one use the term "horse's ass" with regard to a female ?

    “Mares Ass”….”Fillies Ass”……? Doesn’t really roll off the tongue like Horse Ass!

  68. Oh the racism. Jenner has 6 babies across 3 baby mamas, but no discussion of his Cromaritie index.

    BTW rear ending someone implies (s)he was tail gateing possibly to get the car in front to let him(er) pass. Not typical female behavior.

    Why aren’t middle aged African American men getting reassigned genders like white guys? Racism?

  69. @Jefferson
    Kim Kardashian must be extremely jealous right now that the media tabloids and the paparazzi are talking more about Bruce Jenner than they are about her, her daughter North West, and her husband Kanye West.

    Kim Kardashian is a media whore who is addicted to the spotlight like Bruno Mars is addicted to cocaine, so maybe she should one up Bruce Jenner and announce that she is becoming a "man" just like Cher's daughter Chaz Bono. The Kardashian family is already a family of sideshow circus freaks anyways. So nothing would surprise me if it's coming from them.

    Kim Kardashian is a media whore who is addicted to the spotlight like Bruno Mars is addicted to cocaine, so maybe she should one up Bruce Jenner and announce that she is becoming a “man” just like Cher’s daughter Chaz Bono. The Kardashian family is already a family of sideshow circus freaks anyways. So nothing would surprise me if it’s coming from them.

    Its all about the millions the entire family is making. You are simplistically implying that she is a vain and stupid media whore when the facts are that she is worth millions from it. So she has a higher money IQ than 100 iSteve posters put together. So much for our wit and brilliance!

    Kim Kardashian is an American reality television star, model and spokesperson who has a net worth of $65 million

    Kris Jenner Net Worth Here. … Estimated Net Worth: $25 Million.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Making money is not an indicator of IQ. Examples: Einstein, Tesla, and Charles Babbage were not good at making money. Meanwhile, Fifty Cent, Warren Sapp, Suge Knight, Jay Z, will.i.am, Dr. Dre, and Oprah are very, very good at making money.

    Oprah's IQ vs. say, Charles Babbages?

    American and Western society are deeply feminized. Feminized in a commercial way, by media dependent on advertising and female consumption. Women watch freak shows like "Real Housewives" and "Little People Big World," and "Sister Wives" and other stuff like Honey Boo Boo where the attraction is the freak show. By contrast, guys watch stuff on the History Channel or live sports where the struggle to achieve something: a money making deal, restoring some hardware, or motorcycle, or classic car, or scoring a touchdown is what matters. And the diva-esque drama is not the point.

    World War G, T, etc. are driven by a female-oriented media to have stuff women want to watch: freakshows to advertise against (shampoo, cosmetics, insurance etc.) Why do you think Progressive Insurance has "Flo" instead of some dorky guy as their star? Duh women are the target.
    , @Lurker
    Spokesperson? Who or what is she speaking for?
  70. Is ‘crashed the lexus’ going to be the next ‘jumped the shark’?

  71. @Wally
    http://wcms-prod-web-2.ucsc.edu/cache/directory/marcia8a.jpg
    Marcia / Mark Ochoa

    Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?

    This is all about mental illness. There I said it.

    Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?
    This is all about mental illness. There I said it.

    Deranged and degenerate is more accurate

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.

    See

    Default human phenotype female, XY Males grow up with female phenotypes:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

    One not uncommon cause of masculinized XX female phenotypes associated with lesbianism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia

    The point of showing Ms Ochoa's photos is to give one a head's up as to where she is coming from, a likely dysphoric partly masculinized female psychology.
  72. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Deputies said a white Lexus was one of two vehicles that stopped abruptly in front of Jenner. He rear ended the Lexus by chain reaction, and pushed the vehicle into oncoming traffic.

    The Lexus was then struck by a Hummer at the scene.

    Authorities pronounced the elderly female driver of the Lexus dead at the scene.”

    So two cars ahead of Jenner stopped suddenly at the same time, and Jenner pushed one of them into oncoming traffic? If there was oncoming traffic, doesn’t that mean Jenner was headed for it himself if he was driving quickly enough to push another car into it? I’m only going by this paragraph, so of course I could be missing important details, but it sounds like maybe Jenner was responsible, and the article is phrasing it to blame the old lady who died?

  73. @jimB
    Wasn't there a song from the 90's called Detachable Penis?

    Wasn’t there a song from the 90′s called Detachable Penis?

    I don’t recall that one, but Lou Reed’s ’72 hit “Walk on the Wild Side” is fitting, “…shaved her legs and then he was a she…”

  74. @P
    As someone said on Twitter, he's already driving like a woman...

    The cis-man who caused the accident was apparently drunk.

  75. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    BTW, whatever happened to the name “Bruce.” Does anyone know anyone under 40 with that name?
     
    Mount Bruce:

    Bruce finished in the top hundred in the US 1932-1970.
    Highest position: #28 in 1952.
    Bruce ranked #140 in 1975 (i.e., 40 yrs old)
    Highest rank in 21st century: #416 in 2013

    Bruce was the stock gay-joke name around 1970 (Adam and Steve came later). But a wave of he-man Bruces came to the rescue: Springsteen, Willis, and-- yes-- Jenner.
    Still, it fell over time.

    Robin had a similar fate. Not gay, but girl. Then Messrs Gibb, Williams, Yount, Ventura and, lately, Thicke brought it home to the boys. It's in the 900s for both sexes now, but many males are legally Robert.

    And a dumb meme it was. Bruce is a very manly name.

    As regards Jenner, I wonder whether his obvious juicing didn’t mess with his brain, and when he came off the juice (“transitioned”?), he felt a bit wuss. There’s no evidence he’s particularly smart, but like most Hollywood exhibitionists, has an animal survival cunning. Transitioning to fake ladyhood is a good career move. (Remember Vidal on Capote?)

  76. @dr kill
    I'm interested in your opinion of my opinion - the entire Jenner/Kardashian complex is cutting edge marketing.

    I might be the last person in America who knows almost nothing about the Kardashians. To give you a sense of how ignorant I am about them, I didn’t know Jenner was connected with those people until I read through the comments at TMZ.

    I really know is that one of the Kardashians was the lawyer in the O.J. Simpson case — well, and now I know that Jenner was married to one of them. You might say I’m the worst queer ever to be a queer. My Hollywood I.Q. is about 50. I only checked into any of this Jenner stuff because I remember him as an Olympic athlete, although I get that confused with others from the same era, like Mark Spitz.

    I remember Jenner as a clean-cut, kinda-sorta Ken-doll lookin’ Mormon, cute in a way, but where are the gonads, even back then.

    Which is all a way of saying that I have no opinion of your opinion, other than to say that I think Hollywood has the ethics of a rattlesnake, so nothing surprises me. Also, I don’t follow TMZ. Only looked there because the news aggregator, “Memeorandum,” linked to their story. Their comment section is a circus, and not Circque du Soleil.

  77. @Clyde
    My take is that Jenner always had a femme side. I have never seen how he speaks (mannerisms etc) but his floppy haircut with long bangs almost in his eyes was on the girlish side and reminded me of the actress Joyce Dewitt is Threes Company. It was a tell in his case. Of course not for all guys who look similar. Looked is a better word, this was a 70s and 80s type haircut you don't see much now. It went out with the mullet.

    Basically the same haircut Pete Rose sported in 1972. Think of him as girlish?

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Basically the same haircut Pete Rose sported in 1972. Think of him as girlish?
     
    No!! Pete has always been tough as nails and a fierce competitor. He has never weakened despite the abuse-shaming over his gambling.
  78. Perhaps Jenner got tired of being a sideshow in the freakish Khardashian family circus, and now wishes to be a center-ring act. And Kim Khardashian certainly is some kind of freak. After hearing her name oft repeated for years on end in the media (clearly, she is a highly important person), I recently actually saw her (in full profile) on the Conan show. Her hideously bulbous hindquarters can only be described as grotesque and ugly. And she is considered to be some kind of standard of beauty? This country has truly become a debased carnival of crap.

  79. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    One obvious trend is that extremely ambitious and attention hungry individuals have figured out how to exploit the sacralization of official victim groups to promote themselves even further. But, you aren’t really supposed to notice that.

    I think you meant men didn’t you.

  80. Seems to me all this ado about gender is just attention starvation. Look at me, look at me. look at me. Hetero’s don’t constantly brag, complain, flaunt, dramatize about their proclivity, they just go about their business. Of course exception occur, but can you name a lgbtqwerty that is not all about the drama?

  81. @Anonymous
    "My personal attitude is sympathetic to anyone highly motivated enough to have surgery."

    There is a related illness where people wish to amputate limbs. Very few people consider this to be a lifestyle choice, they rightly consider it a disorder. These disorders don't have limits, they exist on a hierarchy of severity. When you get down to it, they are people that feel they have to mutilate their bodies to feel "normal." And then, in the majority of cases, they still are not satisfied, in the rest I question their candor. Have you known some of these people? In my experience, this is just one more disorder in a cluster of mental and emotional issues. I am not trying to be cruel but I just don't see this as a thing to be normalized and accepted. There is a desire to be empathetic, but it is based on believing it's possible to perfect the world. unfortunately there are broken people in the world and nothing in the world can fix them. But accommodating them can make things worse...

    That’s an interesting take on it, i.e. a self mutilation disorder.

    Off the top of my head, I think there’s probably a lot of truth in that. I’ve read that transsexuals have extremely high suicide rates, and that there are more than a few cases where people “transition,” and then transition back. Holy smokes!

    Homosexuals have higher-than-average suicide rates too, especially younger ones. But I think “gay suicides,” as a phenomenon, have mainly different roots. Transsexuals, whatever “type,” strike me as having much deeper inherent conflicts, whereas with homosexuals I think the “conflict” is much more a matter of adjustment to a society that only very recently has been anything other than sharply disdainful at best.

    This is another reason why I continue to be uneasy with “GLBT.” Other than “T” raising issues of what I’ll call here “non-standard sexuality,” I really don’t think that “GLB” have any more in common with “T” than heterosexuals do. In fact, the “Tri-Ess” transvestites are typically heterosexual men, and most post-op “Ts” wind up having a heterosexual orientation in their new gender.

    All of this is, to me, just as mysterious and “abnormal” as it is to you. Being part of a group that, in my lifetime, have widely been scorned (and worse) as “abnormal” and dangerous and gender non-conforming, I start with a sympathetic view toward “sexual outlaws” who otherwise do no harm. But that’s as far as it goes, and any initial sympathy is always tentative pending further information. Which is to say that the “North American Man Boy Love Assn” likely pisses me off at least as much as it pisses off most people.

    Should “T” be normalized or accepted?

    Well, hmm. It’s a free country, so if someone wants to hack off body parts and a doctor will do it, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be “accepted.” I don’t think people do something like that casually. And yes, I’ve been momentarily acquainted with three transsexuals that I know about. I felt very sorry for each of them.

    “Normalized?” That’s such a loaded term, prone to semantic whirlpools. Intersex is a “normal” variation, somewhere way in the tail of the bell curve, so I suppose it’s “normal.” Homosexuality is two standard deviations from the mean, as are plenty of traits, so I think it’s “normal.” Lots of things that most people don’t do, share, want, or like are “normal” in that sense.

    I guess, in the end, I think that people ought to be allowed to try to make their own way, i.e., to pursue happiness. Daily life is challenging enough without someone being targeted for extra oppression, especially when it’s based on something they simply ARE that they didn’t choose. If someone can cobble together a life without hurting others, maybe a helping hand is in order, especially for the most scorned.

    That’s about as well as I can do at the moment, but I’m sure there are other thoughts rattling around in here.

  82. @Tracy

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their “transition.”

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won’t cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their “transition.”
     

    I agree with category 2, but think category 1 is made up of the truly transgendered. Or maybe there are three categories: 1) the autogynephiles, like Jenner and that Navy Seal, 2) the truly transgendered, and 3) homosexuals who, like most male homosexuals, want masculine men to have sex with and think that transitioning would be the best way to get one.

    I don't understand why some people think there aren't people out there who are truly transgendered. So much can go wrong in utero, from chromosomal mishaps to hormonal problems. When this subject comes up on my forum, I post this video and ask the questions, "What sex is this person? Why do you think what you think?" I've found that people who don't "get" the idea of transgenderism never, ever answer the question. The video: The Woman with Male DNA

    That woman -- and I do believe she's a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus -- is an extreme example of what can go wrong. But what about people who are born with a 95% insensitivity to androgen? What about 80%? Or 50? What does absolutely determine sex? If it's not the chromosomes, not the presence of absence of penises, uteruses, vaginas, testiclese, etc., then what? And why wouldn't brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter? I find it kinda funny that people, like me, who see definite and obvious differences between the sexes and who think that God created us male or female (and that each person is, in fact, in God's eyes, one sex or the other) are the ones who tend to not see brain-wiring as being relevant to a persons subjective identity. In fact, it's the folks who tend to be very rigid in their thinking about the sexes who think the whole concept of transgenderism is nothing but mental illness at best, or perversion at worst (I grant, though, that autogynephiles would fit the "perverted" category -- but I don't consider them truly transgendered).

    Anyway, I guess we can thank God that most of the time things go right and all the sexual markers match up in most people. But there are these outliers out there. And they must have it rough... I wish they had more sympathy from my fellow paleo-cons and co-religionists (trad Catholics).

    “I do believe she’s a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus — is an extreme example of what can go wrong…What does absolutely determine sex? If it’s not the chromosomes…”

    Sex is determined by the chromosomes, full-stop. That has become the biological definition of sex, and it is a highly useful one for several important reasons. You want to re-categorize those people who for various reasons do not feel they belong to their biologically determined gender, then feel free to make up a new term – many new terms already have been invented, and people are happy to force them on us while at the same time not allowing us to deny new definitions to very old concepts, such as the idea that a husband pairs with a wife, not with another husband.

    Funny that those people who have invented words for over 50 different genders can’t come up with a single new word to describe a gay man and his legal partner that does not step all over the one already used to describe a married straight man.

    • Replies: @Tracy
    So you perceive this person to be a man?: Woman with Male DNA

    I wouldn't argue against the idea that 99% of the time sex is determined by chromosomes and that things line up well for most people. But there are cases that are a lot more ambiguous than "XX=girl" and "XY-boy," IMO.

  83. @Anonymous
    Jenner sort of personifies the decline and fall of America, no? Wins Gold at the height of the Cold War, defeating Soviet rivals and then becomes a transexual.

    Jenner personifies the decline and fall of the white man.

    A masculine Olympic gold medal winner marries a woman who constantly hectors him and cuckolds him. As soon as she was done with him she runs off with a younger black man, who she was probably seeing while they were married.

    All, or so it seems, of his kids or step kids are being banged by blacks.

    Then he decides he is gay or a trans or whatever he is. So yeah, not a good moment in history for white people.

  84. @Hacienda
    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There's a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.

    Thailand is renowned gender change surgical center. People from
    all over the world get their surgeries done there. This has to
    inflate Thailand's numbers. And the Thai sex industry is in a league of
    its own and a national catastrophe. Thais must get the surgeries for
    the most marginal of reasons.

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner's got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!

    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There’s a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.

    It’s been going strong now for more than 20 years, so maybe not.Also, remember that this is actually subsidized by the Islamic Republic….

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner’s got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!

    The Trans “community” rejects the idea of autogynephilia; they see it as ” transphobic.” Hence, Jenner will, in all probability, never become an advocate for autogynephilia.When he starts dating women as an M to F trans, Jenner will simply claim that he is a Lesbian.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It’s been going strong now for more than 20 years, so maybe not.Also, remember that this is actually subsidized by the Islamic Republic…
     
    The Shi'ites in Iran may be "homophobic", but they're not "transphobic". They have a theological justification for it all worked out, based on some obscure aspect of Islamic fatalism.

    So the "Irani tranny" is lucky to be living in the best place on earth for his kind.
    , @New Reader

    The Trans "community" rejects the idea of autogynephilia; they see it as
    "transphobic."
     
    My limited experience contradicts this. The first I'd ever heard of "autogynephilia" (in my earlier comment, I had forgotten about the label) either in concept or manifestation was when I debated with trans people on a leading trans website, or one that was at the time, about four years ago. They're the ones who told me about it.

    Now that I'm here discussing this subject, I kinda-sorta wonder whether how much "autogynephilia" there is among the "Tri-Ess" transvestites, i.e., the predominantly heterosexual men who dress as women but (to my knowledge) don't go through surgical transition.

  85. @syonredux

    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There’s a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.
     
    It's been going strong now for more than 20 years, so maybe not.Also, remember that this is actually subsidized by the Islamic Republic....

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner’s got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!
     
    The Trans "community" rejects the idea of autogynephilia; they see it as " transphobic." Hence, Jenner will, in all probability, never become an advocate for autogynephilia.When he starts dating women as an M to F trans, Jenner will simply claim that he is a Lesbian.

    It’s been going strong now for more than 20 years, so maybe not.Also, remember that this is actually subsidized by the Islamic Republic…

    The Shi’ites in Iran may be “homophobic”, but they’re not “transphobic”. They have a theological justification for it all worked out, based on some obscure aspect of Islamic fatalism.

    So the “Irani tranny” is lucky to be living in the best place on earth for his kind.

  86. “A decade ago, J. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern, offered an alternative explanation for highly masculine middle aged men who suddenly declare themselves transsexuals.”

    Steve, can you start using http://www.archive.today instead of linking to the NYT’s website? I try to avoid giving clicks to the NYT, Salon, Slate, etc.

    What was his explanation?

    • Replies: @New Reader

    Steve, can you start using http://www.archive.today instead of linking to the NYT’s website? I try to avoid giving clicks to the NYT, Salon, Slate, etc.

    What was his explanation?
     
    From the article in the newspaper whose name shall dare not be mentioned:

    In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s, in part by telling the stories of several transgender women he met through a mutual acquaintance. In the book, he gave them pseudonyms, like “Alma” and “Juanita.”
  87. @Clyde

    Considering how much lesbians hate men, why do they then try to look and act like men?
    This is all about mental illness. There I said it.
     
    Deranged and degenerate is more accurate

    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.

    See

    Default human phenotype female, XY Males grow up with female phenotypes:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

    One not uncommon cause of masculinized XX female phenotypes associated with lesbianism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia

    The point of showing Ms Ochoa’s photos is to give one a head’s up as to where she is coming from, a likely dysphoric partly masculinized female psychology.

    • Replies: @New Reader

    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.
     

    The fetal hormone explanation for homosexual orientation seems to have gained ground in recent years. Like the Freudian orthodoxy before it, the hypothesis seems plausible. All the better with this one, because there's even less evidentiary backing than there was for the "weak father, smothering mama" hypothesis, and no ethical way to test it that we know of.

    The first issue I'd raise would be that the hormone hypothesis tends to conflate homosexuality and gender non-conformity. You know, sissy boys and dykey girls. In South Africa under apartheid, one thing that government did was force gay men to get sex change operations, supposedly on the theory that homosexual men were really women in male bodies. Let's just say it didn't work out too well.

    I'd say that, while homosexual orientation and gender non-conformity sometimes DO appear together, I strongly dispute the ideas that they are part of one syndrome. There might be some links, but we don't know what they are, because frankly, we know very little about the brain at this point. My own experience and observation, though, would suggest that it's quite a bit more complicated than that, with no "one size fits all" explanation.

    Something else to keep in mind is that we're all the products of innumerable traits, processes, and influences, many of which haven't been named. So this hormone deal causes girls to become dykes in the womb, right? Well, as the brain is developing, there are all kinds of forces at work. They have effects that haven't been charted. We haven't come close to knowing all there is to know.

    Let me try to give an example that has nothing to do with sex or gender, but nonetheless has application in this discussion.

    I have a friend with multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that causes the body's immune system to attack the mylein covering on nerves. My friend says that having MS has given him some insights into the brain, and how things you'd never think were related to each other are in fact connected, or at least seem to be.

    His example is that, after it came on, his ability to find his way around a store went to hell, and so did his ability to do simple arithmetic in his head, and so did his ability to tell left from right. And those things I just mentioned, according to him, seem to come from the same cause, i.e., a nerve junction got destroyed. He says he has an identifiable yet unnameable sense (which in itself is an approximation -- not really a thought, and not an emotion) that's identical in each of those situations.

    So, to him, left/right, direction finding, and arithmetic (especially anything involving reciprocals) are all rooted in the same mental process, whatever that is.

    My point here is that we have these traits that we all recognize in ourselves and others, including gender identity and archetypes, and sexual orientation, but we don't really have a clue about the connections. Why, to give another example, are people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person?

    The correlation has been noted, as has been, say, the greater proportion of economists being homosexual. Left-handedness and homosexuality are more correlated, although I'm a right hander. If there's a genetic component, how determinative is it and how does it pass through time?

    Conclusion -- Everyone (including the gay researchers who look for the genetic explanation, mistakenly in my view thinking it would spell the end of anti-gay bigotry) needs to be pretty humble about this "search for a cause." Not only are there different kinds of transsexuals, and wide differences within the gay population, but we have a very, very rudimentary understanding of links among traits, and the processes that give rise to traits and links.

  88. @Martin

    "A decade ago, J. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern, offered an alternative explanation for highly masculine middle aged men who suddenly declare themselves transsexuals."
     
    Steve, can you start using www.archive.today instead of linking to the NYT's website? I try to avoid giving clicks to the NYT, Salon, Slate, etc.

    What was his explanation?

    Steve, can you start using http://www.archive.today instead of linking to the NYT’s website? I try to avoid giving clicks to the NYT, Salon, Slate, etc.

    What was his explanation?

    From the article in the newspaper whose name shall dare not be mentioned:

    In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s, in part by telling the stories of several transgender women he met through a mutual acquaintance. In the book, he gave them pseudonyms, like “Alma” and “Juanita.”

  89. @syonredux

    I suppose in the Iranian case, most are the 1st kind.
    There’s a base population of homosexuals in all countries. And
    these kinds of surgeries are a new thing for Iran, so opened
    the floodgates. The number of surgeries should level off.
     
    It's been going strong now for more than 20 years, so maybe not.Also, remember that this is actually subsidized by the Islamic Republic....

    But, if autogynephilia is a true condition, Jenner’s got to be the embodiment of it
    and the USA is leading the way to its acceptance. USA! USA! USA!
     
    The Trans "community" rejects the idea of autogynephilia; they see it as " transphobic." Hence, Jenner will, in all probability, never become an advocate for autogynephilia.When he starts dating women as an M to F trans, Jenner will simply claim that he is a Lesbian.

    The Trans “community” rejects the idea of autogynephilia; they see it as
    “transphobic.”

    My limited experience contradicts this. The first I’d ever heard of “autogynephilia” (in my earlier comment, I had forgotten about the label) either in concept or manifestation was when I debated with trans people on a leading trans website, or one that was at the time, about four years ago. They’re the ones who told me about it.

    Now that I’m here discussing this subject, I kinda-sorta wonder whether how much “autogynephilia” there is among the “Tri-Ess” transvestites, i.e., the predominantly heterosexual men who dress as women but (to my knowledge) don’t go through surgical transition.

  90. @Clyde

    Kim Kardashian is a media whore who is addicted to the spotlight like Bruno Mars is addicted to cocaine, so maybe she should one up Bruce Jenner and announce that she is becoming a “man” just like Cher’s daughter Chaz Bono. The Kardashian family is already a family of sideshow circus freaks anyways. So nothing would surprise me if it’s coming from them.
     
    Its all about the millions the entire family is making. You are simplistically implying that she is a vain and stupid media whore when the facts are that she is worth millions from it. So she has a higher money IQ than 100 iSteve posters put together. So much for our wit and brilliance!

    Kim Kardashian is an American reality television star, model and spokesperson who has a net worth of $65 million
     

    Kris Jenner Net Worth Here. ... Estimated Net Worth: $25 Million.
     

    Making money is not an indicator of IQ. Examples: Einstein, Tesla, and Charles Babbage were not good at making money. Meanwhile, Fifty Cent, Warren Sapp, Suge Knight, Jay Z, will.i.am, Dr. Dre, and Oprah are very, very good at making money.

    Oprah’s IQ vs. say, Charles Babbages?

    American and Western society are deeply feminized. Feminized in a commercial way, by media dependent on advertising and female consumption. Women watch freak shows like “Real Housewives” and “Little People Big World,” and “Sister Wives” and other stuff like Honey Boo Boo where the attraction is the freak show. By contrast, guys watch stuff on the History Channel or live sports where the struggle to achieve something: a money making deal, restoring some hardware, or motorcycle, or classic car, or scoring a touchdown is what matters. And the diva-esque drama is not the point.

    World War G, T, etc. are driven by a female-oriented media to have stuff women want to watch: freakshows to advertise against (shampoo, cosmetics, insurance etc.) Why do you think Progressive Insurance has “Flo” instead of some dorky guy as their star? Duh women are the target.

  91. @anonymous-antimarxist
    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.

    See

    Default human phenotype female, XY Males grow up with female phenotypes:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

    One not uncommon cause of masculinized XX female phenotypes associated with lesbianism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia

    The point of showing Ms Ochoa's photos is to give one a head's up as to where she is coming from, a likely dysphoric partly masculinized female psychology.

    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.

    The fetal hormone explanation for homosexual orientation seems to have gained ground in recent years. Like the Freudian orthodoxy before it, the hypothesis seems plausible. All the better with this one, because there’s even less evidentiary backing than there was for the “weak father, smothering mama” hypothesis, and no ethical way to test it that we know of.

    The first issue I’d raise would be that the hormone hypothesis tends to conflate homosexuality and gender non-conformity. You know, sissy boys and dykey girls. In South Africa under apartheid, one thing that government did was force gay men to get sex change operations, supposedly on the theory that homosexual men were really women in male bodies. Let’s just say it didn’t work out too well.

    I’d say that, while homosexual orientation and gender non-conformity sometimes DO appear together, I strongly dispute the ideas that they are part of one syndrome. There might be some links, but we don’t know what they are, because frankly, we know very little about the brain at this point. My own experience and observation, though, would suggest that it’s quite a bit more complicated than that, with no “one size fits all” explanation.

    Something else to keep in mind is that we’re all the products of innumerable traits, processes, and influences, many of which haven’t been named. So this hormone deal causes girls to become dykes in the womb, right? Well, as the brain is developing, there are all kinds of forces at work. They have effects that haven’t been charted. We haven’t come close to knowing all there is to know.

    Let me try to give an example that has nothing to do with sex or gender, but nonetheless has application in this discussion.

    I have a friend with multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that causes the body’s immune system to attack the mylein covering on nerves. My friend says that having MS has given him some insights into the brain, and how things you’d never think were related to each other are in fact connected, or at least seem to be.

    His example is that, after it came on, his ability to find his way around a store went to hell, and so did his ability to do simple arithmetic in his head, and so did his ability to tell left from right. And those things I just mentioned, according to him, seem to come from the same cause, i.e., a nerve junction got destroyed. He says he has an identifiable yet unnameable sense (which in itself is an approximation — not really a thought, and not an emotion) that’s identical in each of those situations.

    So, to him, left/right, direction finding, and arithmetic (especially anything involving reciprocals) are all rooted in the same mental process, whatever that is.

    My point here is that we have these traits that we all recognize in ourselves and others, including gender identity and archetypes, and sexual orientation, but we don’t really have a clue about the connections. Why, to give another example, are people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person?

    The correlation has been noted, as has been, say, the greater proportion of economists being homosexual. Left-handedness and homosexuality are more correlated, although I’m a right hander. If there’s a genetic component, how determinative is it and how does it pass through time?

    Conclusion — Everyone (including the gay researchers who look for the genetic explanation, mistakenly in my view thinking it would spell the end of anti-gay bigotry) needs to be pretty humble about this “search for a cause.” Not only are there different kinds of transsexuals, and wide differences within the gay population, but we have a very, very rudimentary understanding of links among traits, and the processes that give rise to traits and links.

    • Replies: @e
    New Reader,

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, " people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person"? Thanks.

    (Of course, we already know that people who can code AND learn foreign languages are more likely to be male than female).

    BTW, you call yourself "New Reader" and write of homosex, so I'll just throw this out: do you read "West Hunter" and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)

    , @Martin

    "I have a friend with multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that causes the body’s immune system to attack the mylein covering on nerves."
     
    Your friend could try this:

    http://robbwolf.com/2014/01/27/paleo-solution/

    It's a stricter version of the paleo diet and some people report good results
  92. @Gilbert P
    "Now Mr. Jenner, who muscled his way into American consciousness when he won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Montreal Summer Games... "

    Distance runners don't 'muscle' anything. I'm sure west Africans have a trove of fag jokes about East African Bantu. Any paleo site has warnings about the perils of testosterone sapping pavement pounding. I grew up in culture of middle distance, cross country, triathlons and orienteering.

    Got out just in time, my darlings!

    Distance runners don’t ‘muscle’ anything.

    Jenner’s event, the decathlon, doesn’t involve much distance running. The ten events are:

    Day 1 – 100 meters, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 meters
    Day 2 – 110 meters hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, 1500 meters

    Shot put, discus, pole vault, and javelin all require upper-body strength. The theory that he was using PEDs is not improbable. How that affected him, who knows?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Decathletes are usually large, strong men who are not very good distance runners. The typical gold medalist's strategy is to build a lead in the first 9 events, then hang on in the 1500 meter tenth event.
    , @Ola
    True. Jenner threw the 7.26 kg shot 15.35 meters and the 2 kg discus 51.68. That takes enormous strength.

    The best thrower in the last three decades of my small track club had nearly identical numbers in those two events - and he had a 185 kg bench press and 300+ kg squat in official powerlift meets during the early 90's.

    In the 70's we had quite a few throwers with more impressive stats but steroids were much more common in Swedish track & field then.

  93. @New Reader

    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.
     

    The fetal hormone explanation for homosexual orientation seems to have gained ground in recent years. Like the Freudian orthodoxy before it, the hypothesis seems plausible. All the better with this one, because there's even less evidentiary backing than there was for the "weak father, smothering mama" hypothesis, and no ethical way to test it that we know of.

    The first issue I'd raise would be that the hormone hypothesis tends to conflate homosexuality and gender non-conformity. You know, sissy boys and dykey girls. In South Africa under apartheid, one thing that government did was force gay men to get sex change operations, supposedly on the theory that homosexual men were really women in male bodies. Let's just say it didn't work out too well.

    I'd say that, while homosexual orientation and gender non-conformity sometimes DO appear together, I strongly dispute the ideas that they are part of one syndrome. There might be some links, but we don't know what they are, because frankly, we know very little about the brain at this point. My own experience and observation, though, would suggest that it's quite a bit more complicated than that, with no "one size fits all" explanation.

    Something else to keep in mind is that we're all the products of innumerable traits, processes, and influences, many of which haven't been named. So this hormone deal causes girls to become dykes in the womb, right? Well, as the brain is developing, there are all kinds of forces at work. They have effects that haven't been charted. We haven't come close to knowing all there is to know.

    Let me try to give an example that has nothing to do with sex or gender, but nonetheless has application in this discussion.

    I have a friend with multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that causes the body's immune system to attack the mylein covering on nerves. My friend says that having MS has given him some insights into the brain, and how things you'd never think were related to each other are in fact connected, or at least seem to be.

    His example is that, after it came on, his ability to find his way around a store went to hell, and so did his ability to do simple arithmetic in his head, and so did his ability to tell left from right. And those things I just mentioned, according to him, seem to come from the same cause, i.e., a nerve junction got destroyed. He says he has an identifiable yet unnameable sense (which in itself is an approximation -- not really a thought, and not an emotion) that's identical in each of those situations.

    So, to him, left/right, direction finding, and arithmetic (especially anything involving reciprocals) are all rooted in the same mental process, whatever that is.

    My point here is that we have these traits that we all recognize in ourselves and others, including gender identity and archetypes, and sexual orientation, but we don't really have a clue about the connections. Why, to give another example, are people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person?

    The correlation has been noted, as has been, say, the greater proportion of economists being homosexual. Left-handedness and homosexuality are more correlated, although I'm a right hander. If there's a genetic component, how determinative is it and how does it pass through time?

    Conclusion -- Everyone (including the gay researchers who look for the genetic explanation, mistakenly in my view thinking it would spell the end of anti-gay bigotry) needs to be pretty humble about this "search for a cause." Not only are there different kinds of transsexuals, and wide differences within the gay population, but we have a very, very rudimentary understanding of links among traits, and the processes that give rise to traits and links.

    New Reader,

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, ” people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person”? Thanks.

    (Of course, we already know that people who can code AND learn foreign languages are more likely to be male than female).

    BTW, you call yourself “New Reader” and write of homosex, so I’ll just throw this out: do you read “West Hunter” and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)

    • Replies: @New Reader

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, ” people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person”? Thanks.
     
    I'm not an academic or even an amateur expert, but just someone with some miles on the tires, lots of curiosity, and a three-digit I.Q. I msde that statement from memory of having read about the phenomenon, but don't have a link list. Which is to say that I'm sure there's material out there that I haven't found. Here's something that mentions what I was talking about, albeit in passing.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21542170

    BTW, you call yourself “New Reader” and write of homosex, so I’ll just throw this out: do you read “West Hunter” and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)
     
    I call myself "New Reader" because I am a new reader of this interesting website, which I like -- so far, anyway -- because there isn't a lot of "p.c." crap. Some of the comments are sophomoric and bumper-stickerish, but that's true all over the Internet. My "experiment" is basically to test the signal-to-noise ratio, as opposed to, say, demanding agreement, "acceptance," or anyone's love.

    I haven't read posts by Greg Cochran. I'll try a search here and see what pops up. I have no idea what "West Hunter" is. Maybe you could fill me in.
    , @Melendwyr
    I'll note that the community of people interested in Constructed Languages has a much higher-than-normal rate of homosexuality. I'd guess that linguistic ability and interest is connected with 'feminine' brain wiring - not really a shocking hypothesis.
  94. @CJ
    Distance runners don’t ‘muscle’ anything.

    Jenner's event, the decathlon, doesn't involve much distance running. The ten events are:

    Day 1 - 100 meters, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 meters
    Day 2 - 110 meters hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, 1500 meters

    Shot put, discus, pole vault, and javelin all require upper-body strength. The theory that he was using PEDs is not improbable. How that affected him, who knows?

    Decathletes are usually large, strong men who are not very good distance runners. The typical gold medalist’s strategy is to build a lead in the first 9 events, then hang on in the 1500 meter tenth event.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Decathletes are usually large, strong men who are not very good distance runners. The typical gold medalist’s strategy is to build a lead in the first 9 events, then hang on in the 1500 meter tenth event.
     
    Here's a quote that describes the average proportions of a world-class decathlete:

    Since decathletes score over a wide range of points on the scoring tables there is a wide range of shapes, sizes and body types. But as one gets closer to world-class level the sizes get remarkably similar, averaging about 6-0 to 6-3 in height and 180 to 200 pounds.[.......]The pole vault and 1500 meter run are particularly difficult for heavier athletes.

     

    The pole vault seems to be the most technically demanding event in the decathlon:

    POLE VAULT Technically this is the decathlon's most difficult event. While grasping the upper end of a 14 to 15 foot fiberglass vaulting pole, the athlete races toward the pit, plants the pole in a takeoff box and swings himself up and over a crossbar, eventually landing in a foam rubber pit. Sound easy? It takes lots of practice.
     
    http://decathlonusa.typepad.com/deca/nature.html
  95. @CJ
    Distance runners don’t ‘muscle’ anything.

    Jenner's event, the decathlon, doesn't involve much distance running. The ten events are:

    Day 1 - 100 meters, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 meters
    Day 2 - 110 meters hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, 1500 meters

    Shot put, discus, pole vault, and javelin all require upper-body strength. The theory that he was using PEDs is not improbable. How that affected him, who knows?

    True. Jenner threw the 7.26 kg shot 15.35 meters and the 2 kg discus 51.68. That takes enormous strength.

    The best thrower in the last three decades of my small track club had nearly identical numbers in those two events – and he had a 185 kg bench press and 300+ kg squat in official powerlift meets during the early 90’s.

    In the 70’s we had quite a few throwers with more impressive stats but steroids were much more common in Swedish track & field then.

  96. @e
    New Reader,

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, " people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person"? Thanks.

    (Of course, we already know that people who can code AND learn foreign languages are more likely to be male than female).

    BTW, you call yourself "New Reader" and write of homosex, so I'll just throw this out: do you read "West Hunter" and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, ” people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person”? Thanks.

    I’m not an academic or even an amateur expert, but just someone with some miles on the tires, lots of curiosity, and a three-digit I.Q. I msde that statement from memory of having read about the phenomenon, but don’t have a link list. Which is to say that I’m sure there’s material out there that I haven’t found. Here’s something that mentions what I was talking about, albeit in passing.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21542170

    BTW, you call yourself “New Reader” and write of homosex, so I’ll just throw this out: do you read “West Hunter” and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)

    I call myself “New Reader” because I am a new reader of this interesting website, which I like — so far, anyway — because there isn’t a lot of “p.c.” crap. Some of the comments are sophomoric and bumper-stickerish, but that’s true all over the Internet. My “experiment” is basically to test the signal-to-noise ratio, as opposed to, say, demanding agreement, “acceptance,” or anyone’s love.

    I haven’t read posts by Greg Cochran. I’ll try a search here and see what pops up. I have no idea what “West Hunter” is. Maybe you could fill me in.

    • Replies: @e
    Ah, thanks for responding.

    West Hunter is a blog run by physicist and evolutionary theorist Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending, anthropologist. (It's one of the blogs Steve lists on the side of this blog) but hey, take the direct route and just google it.

    Along with biologist Paul Ewald, Cochran and another whose name, sadly, I can't now recall, wrote Infectious Causation of Disease, An Evolutionary Perspective http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.5521&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Their work was discussed in a three part article in a 1999 Atlantic Mag article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/02/a-new-germ-theory/377430/

    In this, Cochran and Ewald explain why it makes sense to believe that exclusive male homosexuality is the result of a pathogen, a bug, likely viral. Cochran has explained many times why he believes this is the most likely reason for the existence of the condition, offering evolutionary principles to support the hypothesis.

    If you google around, you can find a site where someone has kept a kind of catalogue of Cochran's writings explaining this (and responsed to those who automatically attack the idea, as many do...however those people are usually quite uneducated in evolutionary theory.)

    The best thing to do if you're interested in reading his blog posts on the subject, and the always lively comment sections, is go to West Hunter and I think along the side is a listing of topics, one of which is "homosexuality." Start there with Depths of Madness.

    It does enrich to have a basic understanding of germ theory, but you can go directly to the posts on the subject if you're so inclined.
  97. @New Reader

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, ” people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person”? Thanks.
     
    I'm not an academic or even an amateur expert, but just someone with some miles on the tires, lots of curiosity, and a three-digit I.Q. I msde that statement from memory of having read about the phenomenon, but don't have a link list. Which is to say that I'm sure there's material out there that I haven't found. Here's something that mentions what I was talking about, albeit in passing.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21542170

    BTW, you call yourself “New Reader” and write of homosex, so I’ll just throw this out: do you read “West Hunter” and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)
     
    I call myself "New Reader" because I am a new reader of this interesting website, which I like -- so far, anyway -- because there isn't a lot of "p.c." crap. Some of the comments are sophomoric and bumper-stickerish, but that's true all over the Internet. My "experiment" is basically to test the signal-to-noise ratio, as opposed to, say, demanding agreement, "acceptance," or anyone's love.

    I haven't read posts by Greg Cochran. I'll try a search here and see what pops up. I have no idea what "West Hunter" is. Maybe you could fill me in.

    Ah, thanks for responding.

    West Hunter is a blog run by physicist and evolutionary theorist Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending, anthropologist. (It’s one of the blogs Steve lists on the side of this blog) but hey, take the direct route and just google it.

    Along with biologist Paul Ewald, Cochran and another whose name, sadly, I can’t now recall, wrote Infectious Causation of Disease, An Evolutionary Perspective http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.5521&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Their work was discussed in a three part article in a 1999 Atlantic Mag article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/02/a-new-germ-theory/377430/

    In this, Cochran and Ewald explain why it makes sense to believe that exclusive male homosexuality is the result of a pathogen, a bug, likely viral. Cochran has explained many times why he believes this is the most likely reason for the existence of the condition, offering evolutionary principles to support the hypothesis.

    If you google around, you can find a site where someone has kept a kind of catalogue of Cochran’s writings explaining this (and responsed to those who automatically attack the idea, as many do…however those people are usually quite uneducated in evolutionary theory.)

    The best thing to do if you’re interested in reading his blog posts on the subject, and the always lively comment sections, is go to West Hunter and I think along the side is a listing of topics, one of which is “homosexuality.” Start there with Depths of Madness.

    It does enrich to have a basic understanding of germ theory, but you can go directly to the posts on the subject if you’re so inclined.

    • Replies: @New Reader
    Ah, thanks to you too.

    I did the search and skimmed what looked pertinent. I will follow your links and see what's there. A three-part series in the Atlantic? Okey doke, but they do get a little, ah, discursive. They'd be so much better if they'd top their articles with a three- or four-paragraph summary for those of us who really don't give a rat's about the elegant New England atmospherics intended to convince us that Person X is Serious. Call it my Westerner's suspicion of the East and its ways. But I'll live, with a chuckle and a fart.

    Prior to jumping into the deep end of the pool, I'll say that I'm skeptical of any germ theory of homosexuality. I mean, we're dealing with something that's existed forever and everywhere. Must be one hell of a ubiquitous, adaptable, and durable bug. That much said, you'll have to trust me when I tell you that I've been skeptical before, and wound up won over. And I suppose it's better to be a product of a disease than to be directly diseased, however short the leap between the two might be.

    More to come.

  98. @Wilkey
    "I do believe she’s a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus — is an extreme example of what can go wrong...What does absolutely determine sex? If it’s not the chromosomes..."

    Sex is determined by the chromosomes, full-stop. That has become the biological definition of sex, and it is a highly useful one for several important reasons. You want to re-categorize those people who for various reasons do not feel they belong to their biologically determined gender, then feel free to make up a new term - many new terms already have been invented, and people are happy to force them on us while at the same time not allowing us to deny new definitions to very old concepts, such as the idea that a husband pairs with a wife, not with another husband.

    Funny that those people who have invented words for over 50 different genders can't come up with a single new word to describe a gay man and his legal partner that does not step all over the one already used to describe a married straight man.

    So you perceive this person to be a man?: Woman with Male DNA

    I wouldn’t argue against the idea that 99% of the time sex is determined by chromosomes and that things line up well for most people. But there are cases that are a lot more ambiguous than “XX=girl” and “XY-boy,” IMO.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "So you perceive this person to be a man?: Woman with Male DNA. I wouldn’t argue against the idea that 99% of the time sex is determined by chromosomes and that things line up well for most people."

    A woman with male DNA - i.e., sex chromosomes which are either XY or XXY - is a man.

    I'm not saying I don't believe there are people with genuine, biological conditions which cause them to feel and even look like someone of the opposite sex, and that these conditions aren't necessarily a mental illness; but those conditions are better described by using some other term rather than simply switching their preferred gender from "man" to "woman."

    I've known at least one man who had sex reassignment surgery. Before doing so he had already fathered children. That satisfies the most essential requirement of manhood. Whatever his other issues, however he may have "felt" on the inside, however worthy of our pity and/or acceptance his reasons may be, it is laughable to say that he is now a woman.
  99. @e
    Ah, thanks for responding.

    West Hunter is a blog run by physicist and evolutionary theorist Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending, anthropologist. (It's one of the blogs Steve lists on the side of this blog) but hey, take the direct route and just google it.

    Along with biologist Paul Ewald, Cochran and another whose name, sadly, I can't now recall, wrote Infectious Causation of Disease, An Evolutionary Perspective http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.5521&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Their work was discussed in a three part article in a 1999 Atlantic Mag article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/02/a-new-germ-theory/377430/

    In this, Cochran and Ewald explain why it makes sense to believe that exclusive male homosexuality is the result of a pathogen, a bug, likely viral. Cochran has explained many times why he believes this is the most likely reason for the existence of the condition, offering evolutionary principles to support the hypothesis.

    If you google around, you can find a site where someone has kept a kind of catalogue of Cochran's writings explaining this (and responsed to those who automatically attack the idea, as many do...however those people are usually quite uneducated in evolutionary theory.)

    The best thing to do if you're interested in reading his blog posts on the subject, and the always lively comment sections, is go to West Hunter and I think along the side is a listing of topics, one of which is "homosexuality." Start there with Depths of Madness.

    It does enrich to have a basic understanding of germ theory, but you can go directly to the posts on the subject if you're so inclined.

    Ah, thanks to you too.

    I did the search and skimmed what looked pertinent. I will follow your links and see what’s there. A three-part series in the Atlantic? Okey doke, but they do get a little, ah, discursive. They’d be so much better if they’d top their articles with a three- or four-paragraph summary for those of us who really don’t give a rat’s about the elegant New England atmospherics intended to convince us that Person X is Serious. Call it my Westerner’s suspicion of the East and its ways. But I’ll live, with a chuckle and a fart.

    Prior to jumping into the deep end of the pool, I’ll say that I’m skeptical of any germ theory of homosexuality. I mean, we’re dealing with something that’s existed forever and everywhere. Must be one hell of a ubiquitous, adaptable, and durable bug. That much said, you’ll have to trust me when I tell you that I’ve been skeptical before, and wound up won over. And I suppose it’s better to be a product of a disease than to be directly diseased, however short the leap between the two might be.

    More to come.

  100. @Tracy

    1. Extremely effeminate Homosexual men.These are the ones who try to date guys after making their “transition.”

    2. Heterosexual men who develop a case of severe autogynephilia. They get really turned on by the idea of being a woman, and crossdressing just won’t cut it any longer.These are the ones who try to date women after making their “transition.”
     

    I agree with category 2, but think category 1 is made up of the truly transgendered. Or maybe there are three categories: 1) the autogynephiles, like Jenner and that Navy Seal, 2) the truly transgendered, and 3) homosexuals who, like most male homosexuals, want masculine men to have sex with and think that transitioning would be the best way to get one.

    I don't understand why some people think there aren't people out there who are truly transgendered. So much can go wrong in utero, from chromosomal mishaps to hormonal problems. When this subject comes up on my forum, I post this video and ask the questions, "What sex is this person? Why do you think what you think?" I've found that people who don't "get" the idea of transgenderism never, ever answer the question. The video: The Woman with Male DNA

    That woman -- and I do believe she's a woman, in spite of her chromosomes, testes, and lack of a uterus -- is an extreme example of what can go wrong. But what about people who are born with a 95% insensitivity to androgen? What about 80%? Or 50? What does absolutely determine sex? If it's not the chromosomes, not the presence of absence of penises, uteruses, vaginas, testiclese, etc., then what? And why wouldn't brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter? I find it kinda funny that people, like me, who see definite and obvious differences between the sexes and who think that God created us male or female (and that each person is, in fact, in God's eyes, one sex or the other) are the ones who tend to not see brain-wiring as being relevant to a persons subjective identity. In fact, it's the folks who tend to be very rigid in their thinking about the sexes who think the whole concept of transgenderism is nothing but mental illness at best, or perversion at worst (I grant, though, that autogynephiles would fit the "perverted" category -- but I don't consider them truly transgendered).

    Anyway, I guess we can thank God that most of the time things go right and all the sexual markers match up in most people. But there are these outliers out there. And they must have it rough... I wish they had more sympathy from my fellow paleo-cons and co-religionists (trad Catholics).

    I expect you would call this person “truly transgendered”: there was an article in Allure magazine many years ago about a male-to-female transsexual whose DNA was male but who had extremely high levels of female hormones in his blood. He wanted a sex-change operation from his earliest years and, although apparently attractive to some gay men as a very “pretty boy” type, he was uninterested in exploiting this because he only wanted to have sexual relationships with men as a woman. He apparently “transitioned” very effectively. One of his before pictures showed an extremely feminine-looking teenage boy (not dressed, coiffed nor made up to look like a girl); his after pictures showed a pretty, middle-aged woman. He was even able to find a man to marry him.

    I am afraid I got rather lost in your 3rd paragraph, starting with the sentence “And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter?” I’m not trying to attack your argument or your grammar – though there is a double negative in there! It’s only that there seems to be an interesting point here that is just eluding me, and I wonder if you could recast this section to make it clearer. Are you saying that “brain wiring” is NOT relevant to a person’s sexual identity, or that it is but most people don’t see this?

    • Replies: @Tracy

    I am afraid I got rather lost in your 3rd paragraph, starting with the sentence “And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter?” I’m not trying to attack your argument or your grammar – though there is a double negative in there! It’s only that there seems to be an interesting point here that is just eluding me, and I wonder if you could recast this section to make it clearer. Are you saying that “brain wiring” is NOT relevant to a person’s sexual identity, or that it is but most people don’t see this?
     
    First, I have to tell you how cool it is to talk to Alias Clio! You're awesome!

    Sorry about my sloppy writing! To answer your question, I'm saying that brain-wiring is relevant to a person's identity. At least I assume it is. But it seems that there are a lot of folks out there who don't think it is -- and, strangely, they tend to be the same folks who see huge differences between men and women in most other ways (as I do, BTW, generally speaking, while knowing about the overlapping bell curves and all that good stuff). The same people who'd grant that disease can happen to any part of the body, and who'd also say that female and male brains are very different, as are our personalities, skills, interests (generally speaking) -- those same people, for some reason, exclude the brain and any (presumably) resulting subjective identity from being relevant in determining a person's sex. To them, it's all about the chromosomes and/or the genitals. But when there's a mismatch there, as in the case of the woman in the video I posted, then what?

    I'm having a helluva time trying to get all this across to some of my fellow trad Catholics (though I've been happily surprised by how so many of them "get" it, too!). I think that some are so fed up with all the LGBTQRS*-whatever activism and the PC nonsense put out by their "progressive" spokespeople, that they're "unable" to calm down, separate out the "T" part, and think about it aside from the LGB* stuff and related shenanigans.

    If I were a transgendered person, I'd be really pissed at being lumped in with that huge group! The person you described from Allure Magazine seems to have been suffering a true medical problem. To have that sort of problem would be bad enough, but to then have it all crazily politicized, to be lumped in with people who want to change the definition of marriage and who sue Christian bakers for not serving up the wedding cakes of their dreams, and to be jumbled up with Navy-Seals-now-named-"Candy" -- whew!
  101. @PatrickH
    I expect you would call this person "truly transgendered": there was an article in Allure magazine many years ago about a male-to-female transsexual whose DNA was male but who had extremely high levels of female hormones in his blood. He wanted a sex-change operation from his earliest years and, although apparently attractive to some gay men as a very "pretty boy" type, he was uninterested in exploiting this because he only wanted to have sexual relationships with men as a woman. He apparently "transitioned" very effectively. One of his before pictures showed an extremely feminine-looking teenage boy (not dressed, coiffed nor made up to look like a girl); his after pictures showed a pretty, middle-aged woman. He was even able to find a man to marry him.

    I am afraid I got rather lost in your 3rd paragraph, starting with the sentence "And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter?" I'm not trying to attack your argument or your grammar - though there is a double negative in there! It's only that there seems to be an interesting point here that is just eluding me, and I wonder if you could recast this section to make it clearer. Are you saying that "brain wiring" is NOT relevant to a person's sexual identity, or that it is but most people don't see this?

    I am afraid I got rather lost in your 3rd paragraph, starting with the sentence “And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter?” I’m not trying to attack your argument or your grammar – though there is a double negative in there! It’s only that there seems to be an interesting point here that is just eluding me, and I wonder if you could recast this section to make it clearer. Are you saying that “brain wiring” is NOT relevant to a person’s sexual identity, or that it is but most people don’t see this?

    First, I have to tell you how cool it is to talk to Alias Clio! You’re awesome!

    Sorry about my sloppy writing! To answer your question, I’m saying that brain-wiring is relevant to a person’s identity. At least I assume it is. But it seems that there are a lot of folks out there who don’t think it is — and, strangely, they tend to be the same folks who see huge differences between men and women in most other ways (as I do, BTW, generally speaking, while knowing about the overlapping bell curves and all that good stuff). The same people who’d grant that disease can happen to any part of the body, and who’d also say that female and male brains are very different, as are our personalities, skills, interests (generally speaking) — those same people, for some reason, exclude the brain and any (presumably) resulting subjective identity from being relevant in determining a person’s sex. To them, it’s all about the chromosomes and/or the genitals. But when there’s a mismatch there, as in the case of the woman in the video I posted, then what?

    I’m having a helluva time trying to get all this across to some of my fellow trad Catholics (though I’ve been happily surprised by how so many of them “get” it, too!). I think that some are so fed up with all the LGBTQRS*-whatever activism and the PC nonsense put out by their “progressive” spokespeople, that they’re “unable” to calm down, separate out the “T” part, and think about it aside from the LGB* stuff and related shenanigans.

    If I were a transgendered person, I’d be really pissed at being lumped in with that huge group! The person you described from Allure Magazine seems to have been suffering a true medical problem. To have that sort of problem would be bad enough, but to then have it all crazily politicized, to be lumped in with people who want to change the definition of marriage and who sue Christian bakers for not serving up the wedding cakes of their dreams, and to be jumbled up with Navy-Seals-now-named-“Candy” — whew!

    • Replies: @PatrickH
    Well, in a way "gender identity" probably does come down to "chromosomes". As far as I'm able to tell from casual reading, the science of DNA is not advanced enough to know all about how the information in enormously intricate strands of DNA affects each person. Then there's the fact that by definition these intricate strands differ from person to person. So it's at least possible that somewhere in an individual like the one I mentioned, who looks girlish and feels inwardly feminine but has male chromosomes and genitalia, there are some wayward bits of "code" that are giving him a soft voice and feminine face. I don't know about the middle-aged transsexual men, though. Is that "coding" or environmental influences? Anyway, like you, I wouldn't be bothered by any of this if it were not for the enormous political influence that gay and transsexual activist groups have acquired.

    I'm pleased but surprised to learn that anyone still remembers Alias Clio.
  102. @Clyde

    Kim Kardashian is a media whore who is addicted to the spotlight like Bruno Mars is addicted to cocaine, so maybe she should one up Bruce Jenner and announce that she is becoming a “man” just like Cher’s daughter Chaz Bono. The Kardashian family is already a family of sideshow circus freaks anyways. So nothing would surprise me if it’s coming from them.
     
    Its all about the millions the entire family is making. You are simplistically implying that she is a vain and stupid media whore when the facts are that she is worth millions from it. So she has a higher money IQ than 100 iSteve posters put together. So much for our wit and brilliance!

    Kim Kardashian is an American reality television star, model and spokesperson who has a net worth of $65 million
     

    Kris Jenner Net Worth Here. ... Estimated Net Worth: $25 Million.
     

    Spokesperson? Who or what is she speaking for?

  103. @Anonymous
    Basically the same haircut Pete Rose sported in 1972. Think of him as girlish?

    Basically the same haircut Pete Rose sported in 1972. Think of him as girlish?

    No!! Pete has always been tough as nails and a fierce competitor. He has never weakened despite the abuse-shaming over his gambling.

  104. @Tracy

    I am afraid I got rather lost in your 3rd paragraph, starting with the sentence “And why wouldn’t brain-wiring, affected by hormones in utero, not matter?” I’m not trying to attack your argument or your grammar – though there is a double negative in there! It’s only that there seems to be an interesting point here that is just eluding me, and I wonder if you could recast this section to make it clearer. Are you saying that “brain wiring” is NOT relevant to a person’s sexual identity, or that it is but most people don’t see this?
     
    First, I have to tell you how cool it is to talk to Alias Clio! You're awesome!

    Sorry about my sloppy writing! To answer your question, I'm saying that brain-wiring is relevant to a person's identity. At least I assume it is. But it seems that there are a lot of folks out there who don't think it is -- and, strangely, they tend to be the same folks who see huge differences between men and women in most other ways (as I do, BTW, generally speaking, while knowing about the overlapping bell curves and all that good stuff). The same people who'd grant that disease can happen to any part of the body, and who'd also say that female and male brains are very different, as are our personalities, skills, interests (generally speaking) -- those same people, for some reason, exclude the brain and any (presumably) resulting subjective identity from being relevant in determining a person's sex. To them, it's all about the chromosomes and/or the genitals. But when there's a mismatch there, as in the case of the woman in the video I posted, then what?

    I'm having a helluva time trying to get all this across to some of my fellow trad Catholics (though I've been happily surprised by how so many of them "get" it, too!). I think that some are so fed up with all the LGBTQRS*-whatever activism and the PC nonsense put out by their "progressive" spokespeople, that they're "unable" to calm down, separate out the "T" part, and think about it aside from the LGB* stuff and related shenanigans.

    If I were a transgendered person, I'd be really pissed at being lumped in with that huge group! The person you described from Allure Magazine seems to have been suffering a true medical problem. To have that sort of problem would be bad enough, but to then have it all crazily politicized, to be lumped in with people who want to change the definition of marriage and who sue Christian bakers for not serving up the wedding cakes of their dreams, and to be jumbled up with Navy-Seals-now-named-"Candy" -- whew!

    Well, in a way “gender identity” probably does come down to “chromosomes”. As far as I’m able to tell from casual reading, the science of DNA is not advanced enough to know all about how the information in enormously intricate strands of DNA affects each person. Then there’s the fact that by definition these intricate strands differ from person to person. So it’s at least possible that somewhere in an individual like the one I mentioned, who looks girlish and feels inwardly feminine but has male chromosomes and genitalia, there are some wayward bits of “code” that are giving him a soft voice and feminine face. I don’t know about the middle-aged transsexual men, though. Is that “coding” or environmental influences? Anyway, like you, I wouldn’t be bothered by any of this if it were not for the enormous political influence that gay and transsexual activist groups have acquired.

    I’m pleased but surprised to learn that anyone still remembers Alias Clio.

  105. @syon,

    Your info on Iran was fascinating. Can you cite a source or add a link, please? I don’t doubt you, but I want to be able to back it up at a later date.

    Yes, “Detatchable Penis” by King Missle. It was a staple on Alternative Nation and 120 minutes circa 1992-1993. The son was completely absurd, but not political.

    — in typical Midwestern fashion, I finally looked in the mirror at age 19 and said, “You’re a faggot, now go make a life” —

    That made me laugh out loud at The Internet, but it’s probably a much healthier mantra than the victimhood narrative. You oughtta trademark it.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Your info on Iran was fascinating. Can you cite a source or add a link, please? I don’t doubt you, but I want to be able to back it up at a later date.
     
    The source is rather commonplace, I'm afraid:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran
  106. There’s a male to female transsexual who writes occasional posts at Slate Star Codex. Ozy has an interesting take on autogynephilia.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/15/ozy-a-response-to-spandrell/

  107. @Mark Minter
    I read this piece on this RadFem blog Cherry Blossoms Life a while back. I tried to find the thing but I guess it is now defunct. I did find a Rational Male comment I made about this in the past:

    "The best definition I heard of this was from a RadFem blog, Cherry Blossoms. (Yes, not one of them had a photo for an avatar in comments. The owner of the blog is extremely fucking ugly. I’m the sure whole crowd was real special).

    "Anyway she had a post about a restaurant that wouldn’t allow this support group of transsexuals to meet in the back room of his restaurant anymore. It seems they were going in the women’s bathroom and pissing all over the seats. So the actual female patrons were raising hell.

    "And so I guess RadFems get even more pissed off about men pissing on the toilet seats then typical women, so they fucking despise t-girls. I think the blog post headline was “Of course, Transsexual men piss on the toilet seats.” (I am sure that is major plank in the RadFem platform “The Patriarchy exploits women and also pisses on the toilet seats”)

    "And Ms Cherry Blossom went on the say that “Women are the object of desire and these transsexuals were not women trapped in the body of men, but creeps that also want to be the object of desire.”

    "At first I thought, “Jeez, pretty hard from a bunch of ugly RadFems.” I thought they were all about embracing the GBLT thing. I figured they hated the idea of competition. But they were most serious about the “Women having the genius of creating life” with their magic vaginas and a TS just doesn”t get to be in the fucking club.

    "But after reading that, every time I see some photo of some TS on a match site, I think, “Yeah, that ugly RadFem makes sense here. Sure looks like what this TS is doing”. Their photos go over the top in slutty attire and attention whoring poses."

    So I tend to agree with Bailey in a way, that these are not "girls trapped in boys bodies. Trannies usually do go way way to the extreme in both worshiping and presenting particularly the most sexual adornments to gain what they perceive is the social power that women have. And they flaunt it in far more audacious manners. I agree with with Ms Cherry Blossom, they want to be the "object of desire". I think they become both fascinated with the power that women have and covet the attention they generate. It seems to coincidental that these men described, the highly masculine men, that when they reach some point that could be termed as "the male wall" desire to convert to women. And then they adopt the trappings.

    Jenner has been in the middle of what is the biggest attention whoring factory ever. Literally a member of a whole enterprise based on nothing else but "look at me". Look at both the extremes those people have gone to in order to achieve the attention and the money they have generated for doing so.

    One last point. I was re-reading sections of The Tyranny of Ambiguity, this book by Simon Sheppard on how women increase the difficulty and cost of sexual access to men and in doing so enhance the social status and increase the rents that women seek from men. It's a pretty amazing book. I read most of it last summer and after another six months of constantly reading Manosphere and now Dark Enlightenment writings, I realize first, how prescient Sheppard was, and then second, that he wrote it 20 years ago, alone, all based on private experimentation, observation, and study.

    He listed 80 things that were signs of the feminization of society. Keep in mind this was in the early 1990s and these things might have been present but not so obvious to most of us. Things like "A rewriting of history", "A stagnation of culture, a constant borrowing of styles and fashions from the past", "Unscientific and anti-scientific fact", "Derogation of National Culture", "Underming of Authority". And I listed these because many of the rest are too long for this comment or are somewhat technical in that you need to have read prior sections of the book. The list is pretty amazing, especially for 20 years ago.

    He lists several origins for this feminization: Gentrification so females feel safe, the nature of politics because manipulation is a female trait, the cumulative effect of wars due to loss of the most masculine men, reproductive control, female control of sex due to affluence, and a strange one:

    "Environmental pollution, things like hormones from female bodies using birth control pills entering the environment via urine."

    I know that seems like a strange one. But imagine Jenner living in that constant cloud of estrogen, constantly exposed environmentally to all that Kardashian crap.

    Makes you wonder.

    If a guy isn’t willing to sit down while he pees, he ain’t identifying as a woman, even if he does run around in a dress.

  108. @e
    New Reader,

    Can you give the link to the research that suggests, " people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person"? Thanks.

    (Of course, we already know that people who can code AND learn foreign languages are more likely to be male than female).

    BTW, you call yourself "New Reader" and write of homosex, so I'll just throw this out: do you read "West Hunter" and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality? (And I seem to recall one he did in which transsexualism was the inspiration.)

    I’ll note that the community of people interested in Constructed Languages has a much higher-than-normal rate of homosexuality. I’d guess that linguistic ability and interest is connected with ‘feminine’ brain wiring – not really a shocking hypothesis.

    • Replies: @e
    "I’ll note that the community of people interested in Constructed Languages has a much higher-than-normal rate of homosexuality. I’d guess that linguistic ability and interest is connected with ‘feminine’ brain wiring – not really a shocking hypothesis."

    Yes, women are known for their verbal abilities and most studies show they pick up new languages more easily than males.

    And that's why I added, " Of course, we already know that people who can code AND learn foreign languages are more likely to be male than female." Those with the whole package--high verbal and math and spatial abilities are more often male.
  109. @cipher
    "(whose latest flop sci-fi movie is coming out soon)"

    Coming out soon. Indeed!

    I saw it! It’s BAD. I mean, horribly, horribly bad in ways you can’t even imagine. I can love big dumb action movies, even adore them. I loved Guardians of the Galaxy.

    This thing has no sense of life, no fun, no joy, nothing. Not even good fetish wear like The Matrix.

    By the way Steve, I’d love to hear your take on it. If you can stand the ordeal. Ponderous it was.

  110. @New Reader

    The point I have tried to make over and over again on this blog is that it is highly likely that many of these radical lesbians with clearly masculinized phenotypes are likely examples of what happens when a fetus is exposed to excessive levels of male hormones in the womb or early childhood. Remember the default phenotype for a fetus is female. So for a female to develop with a masculinized phenotype, exposure to male androgens is a likely issue.

    The disturbed dysphoric psychology and masculinized phenotype go hand in hand.
     

    The fetal hormone explanation for homosexual orientation seems to have gained ground in recent years. Like the Freudian orthodoxy before it, the hypothesis seems plausible. All the better with this one, because there's even less evidentiary backing than there was for the "weak father, smothering mama" hypothesis, and no ethical way to test it that we know of.

    The first issue I'd raise would be that the hormone hypothesis tends to conflate homosexuality and gender non-conformity. You know, sissy boys and dykey girls. In South Africa under apartheid, one thing that government did was force gay men to get sex change operations, supposedly on the theory that homosexual men were really women in male bodies. Let's just say it didn't work out too well.

    I'd say that, while homosexual orientation and gender non-conformity sometimes DO appear together, I strongly dispute the ideas that they are part of one syndrome. There might be some links, but we don't know what they are, because frankly, we know very little about the brain at this point. My own experience and observation, though, would suggest that it's quite a bit more complicated than that, with no "one size fits all" explanation.

    Something else to keep in mind is that we're all the products of innumerable traits, processes, and influences, many of which haven't been named. So this hormone deal causes girls to become dykes in the womb, right? Well, as the brain is developing, there are all kinds of forces at work. They have effects that haven't been charted. We haven't come close to knowing all there is to know.

    Let me try to give an example that has nothing to do with sex or gender, but nonetheless has application in this discussion.

    I have a friend with multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that causes the body's immune system to attack the mylein covering on nerves. My friend says that having MS has given him some insights into the brain, and how things you'd never think were related to each other are in fact connected, or at least seem to be.

    His example is that, after it came on, his ability to find his way around a store went to hell, and so did his ability to do simple arithmetic in his head, and so did his ability to tell left from right. And those things I just mentioned, according to him, seem to come from the same cause, i.e., a nerve junction got destroyed. He says he has an identifiable yet unnameable sense (which in itself is an approximation -- not really a thought, and not an emotion) that's identical in each of those situations.

    So, to him, left/right, direction finding, and arithmetic (especially anything involving reciprocals) are all rooted in the same mental process, whatever that is.

    My point here is that we have these traits that we all recognize in ourselves and others, including gender identity and archetypes, and sexual orientation, but we don't really have a clue about the connections. Why, to give another example, are people proficient in foreign languages and certain types of computer coding, much more likely to be homosexual than the average person?

    The correlation has been noted, as has been, say, the greater proportion of economists being homosexual. Left-handedness and homosexuality are more correlated, although I'm a right hander. If there's a genetic component, how determinative is it and how does it pass through time?

    Conclusion -- Everyone (including the gay researchers who look for the genetic explanation, mistakenly in my view thinking it would spell the end of anti-gay bigotry) needs to be pretty humble about this "search for a cause." Not only are there different kinds of transsexuals, and wide differences within the gay population, but we have a very, very rudimentary understanding of links among traits, and the processes that give rise to traits and links.

    “I have a friend with multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that causes the body’s immune system to attack the mylein covering on nerves.”

    Your friend could try this:

    http://robbwolf.com/2014/01/27/paleo-solution/

    It’s a stricter version of the paleo diet and some people report good results

  111. I had a bolt out of the blue concerning “autogynephilia.” Maybe it’s a tributary of a human impulse that’s more common than we realize?

    For a few seconds, I thought of it as an intense, reversed version of taking a dude ranch vacation and playing cowboy for the duration. (Indeed, there is a “cowboy dress code” of sorts.) Or think of those stories you read about the guy who has impersonated a medal-winning solider for a long time. And there’s a phenomenon called “cosplay,” where people dress up as characters. There are Civil War re-enactments.

    Then the are actors. The woman who played “Aunt Bee” on The Andy Griffith Show hated the typecasting, but in the final months of her life she was observed dressed in her show clothes, and insisted on being called “Aunt Bee.” Can there be much doubt that Charlton Heston thought of himself as some version of Moses? And there are some actors in Westerns who pretty much “became” their characters in real life.

    Now, it’s true that the aforementioned people aren’t getting surgery. But who knows what the heterosexual “Tri-Ess” transvestites are doing sexually, or just thinking, when dressed up? Then there are the people who get operated on to have “Star Trek” ears.

    What do they say? Life’s a stage?

  112. That made me laugh out loud at The Internet, but it’s probably a much healthier mantra than the victimhood narrative.

    I pretty much detest the victim dance. However, let’s also remember something — there really ARE victims, or maybe a better way to put it is that people really DO get “victimized.” The question becomes how to handle it, and that becomes a long, multifaceted conversation. Some “victims” pretty much lead with their chin, but I think it’s much more common for victims to maintain silence, which is also a long conversation.

  113. Earlier that week in the NY Times they had a story about the diverseness bestowed by trans MBA pupils:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/for-transgender-students-business-schools-are-a-transition.html

    There has to be some current equivalent of Howell Raines over there scanning the 4 corners for transmania stories and shouting, “Flood the zone”

  114. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @syon,

    Your info on Iran was fascinating. Can you cite a source or add a link, please? I don't doubt you, but I want to be able to back it up at a later date.

    @jimB

    Yes, "Detatchable Penis" by King Missle. It was a staple on Alternative Nation and 120 minutes circa 1992-1993. The son was completely absurd, but not political.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4

    @New Reader

    — in typical Midwestern fashion, I finally looked in the mirror at age 19 and said, “You’re a faggot, now go make a life” —

     

    That made me laugh out loud at The Internet, but it's probably a much healthier mantra than the victimhood narrative. You oughtta trademark it.

    Your info on Iran was fascinating. Can you cite a source or add a link, please? I don’t doubt you, but I want to be able to back it up at a later date.

    The source is rather commonplace, I’m afraid:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran

  115. @Steve Sailer
    Decathletes are usually large, strong men who are not very good distance runners. The typical gold medalist's strategy is to build a lead in the first 9 events, then hang on in the 1500 meter tenth event.

    Decathletes are usually large, strong men who are not very good distance runners. The typical gold medalist’s strategy is to build a lead in the first 9 events, then hang on in the 1500 meter tenth event.

    Here’s a quote that describes the average proportions of a world-class decathlete:

    Since decathletes score over a wide range of points on the scoring tables there is a wide range of shapes, sizes and body types. But as one gets closer to world-class level the sizes get remarkably similar, averaging about 6-0 to 6-3 in height and 180 to 200 pounds.[…….]The pole vault and 1500 meter run are particularly difficult for heavier athletes.

    The pole vault seems to be the most technically demanding event in the decathlon:

    POLE VAULT Technically this is the decathlon’s most difficult event. While grasping the upper end of a 14 to 15 foot fiberglass vaulting pole, the athlete races toward the pit, plants the pole in a takeoff box and swings himself up and over a crossbar, eventually landing in a foam rubber pit. Sound easy? It takes lots of practice.

    http://decathlonusa.typepad.com/deca/nature.html

  116. I’ll just throw this out: do you read “West Hunter” and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality?

    I intend this to be the last posting for a while. I finally managed to come up with an acceptable (to me) collection of postings, articles, and research. The three-part series in The Atlantic was mercifully unavailable in parts 2 and 3 — yikes, what an overwritten magazine — but I did find a clear and concise summary of the Cochran-Ewald hypothesis here:

    http://www.steamthing.com/gaygerm

    Yes, it certainly helps to have an education in genetics and germ theory. Alas, I am not a scientist or a specialist, but I’m a pretty quick study. I find the hypothesis interesting, but hard to reconcile with both the apparent overall steady rate of homosexuality in the world population and the apparent wide variations among small groups, i.e., this group of cannibals in New Guinea who have high rates of homosexuality, vs. that group of cannibals in Africa who’ve never heard of it, etc.

    Cochran and Ewald hypothesize an unspecified germ connection and appear to speculate no further on the germ or the mechanism. I see no particular harm in further research — studying rams, who have a high and constant rate of homosexuality seems promising.

    I am put off by Cochran’s ultimate goal, which is to eliminate homosexuality by eliminating the virus that he thinks causes it. Among other things, we don’t know what else the same virus, if it exists, might cause or prevent. Think “the law of unintended consequences.” And the characterization of homosexuals by Cochran is often depressing, hilarious, clueless, and ridiculous, all at once.

    But I’m accustomed to that, having read every objection and condemnation over the years, most of which (to me) boil down to the (mainly male) rejection of the aesthetics of (male) homosexual practices. In fact, when I talk with younger gay people, my advice is to sidestep any conversations even vaguely of that kind, and instead just get used to the idea that there is a big group of people who find what we do repulsive, and invent various justifications and religious objections later on.

    Okay, enough. I’m going to take a break. I’ve just spent a day doing more thinking and reading about this than I ordinarily do in five years. I’m overloaded by my own tendency to want to be thorough. I will read through everything I collected at my leisure, and maybe comment in detail some other time, if I think I have anything useful or interesting to say.

    • Replies: @e
    1) "I didn't realize the part 2 and 3 links listed in part 1 of the Atlantic article were dead."

    If you're still interested, here's 2 :

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germ2.htm

    here's 3 : http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germ3.htm

    2.) You might also be interested in the summary of the hypothesis here by Jayman

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

    or here, by anthropologist Peter Frost: http://www.unz.com/?s=homosexuality+and+the+pathogen+&searchsubmit=Search&authors=peter-frost&ptype=item&commentsearch=exclude


    3.) "I am put off by Cochran’s ultimate goal, which is to eliminate homosexuality by eliminating the virus that he thinks causes it."

    If you'll notice, he didn't advocate for its elimination. He stated that if the cause were found and happened to be the result of a viral infection, it would be likely it would be eliminated...which is true. What parent, you say, wouldn't want their progeny to get their genes into the next generation? (That and the fact that if it's a pathogen, it likely is responsible for more than simply a lack of attraction for the opposite sex)

    Cochran hates people who put the kibosh on investigation. I seriously doubt he minds homosexuals, but he can't stand the lack of logical thinking about the way it has remained in the population--NOT genetic. However, his charm does have to grow on one. That you are homosexual probably means you'll never find him charming and I understand that.

    There are other links to his being more detailed in his presentation, but I trust, as you say, you've read enough....for now.

    You might also find the book by the two West Hunter bloggers very worth your while if you enjoy reading about evolution. It's a favorite of many who frequent this blog, and no, homosexuality doesn't even get a single sentence, as I recall.

    Cochran and Harpending: "The 10,000 Year Explosion, How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution." A very good read.

  117. @Melendwyr
    I'll note that the community of people interested in Constructed Languages has a much higher-than-normal rate of homosexuality. I'd guess that linguistic ability and interest is connected with 'feminine' brain wiring - not really a shocking hypothesis.

    “I’ll note that the community of people interested in Constructed Languages has a much higher-than-normal rate of homosexuality. I’d guess that linguistic ability and interest is connected with ‘feminine’ brain wiring – not really a shocking hypothesis.”

    Yes, women are known for their verbal abilities and most studies show they pick up new languages more easily than males.

    And that’s why I added, ” Of course, we already know that people who can code AND learn foreign languages are more likely to be male than female.” Those with the whole package–high verbal and math and spatial abilities are more often male.

  118. @Tracy
    So you perceive this person to be a man?: Woman with Male DNA

    I wouldn't argue against the idea that 99% of the time sex is determined by chromosomes and that things line up well for most people. But there are cases that are a lot more ambiguous than "XX=girl" and "XY-boy," IMO.

    “So you perceive this person to be a man?: Woman with Male DNA. I wouldn’t argue against the idea that 99% of the time sex is determined by chromosomes and that things line up well for most people.”

    A woman with male DNA – i.e., sex chromosomes which are either XY or XXY – is a man.

    I’m not saying I don’t believe there are people with genuine, biological conditions which cause them to feel and even look like someone of the opposite sex, and that these conditions aren’t necessarily a mental illness; but those conditions are better described by using some other term rather than simply switching their preferred gender from “man” to “woman.”

    I’ve known at least one man who had sex reassignment surgery. Before doing so he had already fathered children. That satisfies the most essential requirement of manhood. Whatever his other issues, however he may have “felt” on the inside, however worthy of our pity and/or acceptance his reasons may be, it is laughable to say that he is now a woman.

  119. @New Reader

    I’ll just throw this out: do you read “West Hunter” and have you read the posts from Greg Cochran on homosexuality?
     
    I intend this to be the last posting for a while. I finally managed to come up with an acceptable (to me) collection of postings, articles, and research. The three-part series in The Atlantic was mercifully unavailable in parts 2 and 3 -- yikes, what an overwritten magazine -- but I did find a clear and concise summary of the Cochran-Ewald hypothesis here:

    http://www.steamthing.com/gaygerm

    Yes, it certainly helps to have an education in genetics and germ theory. Alas, I am not a scientist or a specialist, but I'm a pretty quick study. I find the hypothesis interesting, but hard to reconcile with both the apparent overall steady rate of homosexuality in the world population and the apparent wide variations among small groups, i.e., this group of cannibals in New Guinea who have high rates of homosexuality, vs. that group of cannibals in Africa who've never heard of it, etc.

    Cochran and Ewald hypothesize an unspecified germ connection and appear to speculate no further on the germ or the mechanism. I see no particular harm in further research -- studying rams, who have a high and constant rate of homosexuality seems promising.

    I am put off by Cochran's ultimate goal, which is to eliminate homosexuality by eliminating the virus that he thinks causes it. Among other things, we don't know what else the same virus, if it exists, might cause or prevent. Think "the law of unintended consequences." And the characterization of homosexuals by Cochran is often depressing, hilarious, clueless, and ridiculous, all at once.

    But I'm accustomed to that, having read every objection and condemnation over the years, most of which (to me) boil down to the (mainly male) rejection of the aesthetics of (male) homosexual practices. In fact, when I talk with younger gay people, my advice is to sidestep any conversations even vaguely of that kind, and instead just get used to the idea that there is a big group of people who find what we do repulsive, and invent various justifications and religious objections later on.

    Okay, enough. I'm going to take a break. I've just spent a day doing more thinking and reading about this than I ordinarily do in five years. I'm overloaded by my own tendency to want to be thorough. I will read through everything I collected at my leisure, and maybe comment in detail some other time, if I think I have anything useful or interesting to say.

    1) “I didn’t realize the part 2 and 3 links listed in part 1 of the Atlantic article were dead.”

    If you’re still interested, here’s 2 :

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germ2.htm

    here’s 3 : http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germ3.htm

    2.) You might also be interested in the summary of the hypothesis here by Jayman

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

    or here, by anthropologist Peter Frost: http://www.unz.com/?s=homosexuality+and+the+pathogen+&searchsubmit=Search&authors=peter-frost&ptype=item&commentsearch=exclude

    3.) “I am put off by Cochran’s ultimate goal, which is to eliminate homosexuality by eliminating the virus that he thinks causes it.”

    If you’ll notice, he didn’t advocate for its elimination. He stated that if the cause were found and happened to be the result of a viral infection, it would be likely it would be eliminated…which is true. What parent, you say, wouldn’t want their progeny to get their genes into the next generation? (That and the fact that if it’s a pathogen, it likely is responsible for more than simply a lack of attraction for the opposite sex)

    Cochran hates people who put the kibosh on investigation. I seriously doubt he minds homosexuals, but he can’t stand the lack of logical thinking about the way it has remained in the population–NOT genetic. However, his charm does have to grow on one. That you are homosexual probably means you’ll never find him charming and I understand that.

    There are other links to his being more detailed in his presentation, but I trust, as you say, you’ve read enough….for now.

    You might also find the book by the two West Hunter bloggers very worth your while if you enjoy reading about evolution. It’s a favorite of many who frequent this blog, and no, homosexuality doesn’t even get a single sentence, as I recall.

    Cochran and Harpending: “The 10,000 Year Explosion, How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution.” A very good read.

    • Replies: @New Reader
    I intended not to keep it up, and I still have that intention. But here I am sucked into a topic. Happens with me. Oh well. I now have 29 bookmarked articles, including the rest of The Atlantic's series (damn you); one 40+-page research paper; and a book recommendation. At some point I'll have to decide just how interested I really am.

    My comment about what I perceive to be Cochran's bias notwithstanding, it's not a disqualifier with me. I was simply being honest, having had a lifetime of fending off attacks from every direction. I can handle it, but I'd be lying or severely oblivious if I were try to say that it has no effect. The most disheartening aspect of all that is to see, over time, virtually every personality trait or interest presented as pathology if it's seen in someone who's also homosexual.

    Probably the most egregious, or at least one the most egregious, was reading some decades back that the military had observed that many closeted (by regulatory necessity) homosexuals had otherwise exemplary service records, and therefore being unmarried and having too good of a service record was grounds for suspicion. It reminds me of the tactics used in the Inquisitions, where, in the end, to be accused was to be guilty, and to be guilty ... well, you know.

    It's only been 55 years since homosexual conduct was a felony in every state, and the orientation -- if discovered or strongly enough asserted or exhibited -- grounds for exclusion from a wide variety of occupations. That's the generation I come from. And to my way of thinking, the current "acceptance," while certainly welcome, is quite shallow.

    So you perhaps can begin to understand the visceral negative reaction that someone might have to a hypothesis that frames homosexuality as a "Darwinian disease," even though it hasn't prevented the human population explosion during industrial times, and suggests that the "cause" of this disease is one or more other diseases. And so on.

    That said, I have a sufficient component of fearless curiosity to entertain these hypotheses, and if I've had enough to drink, even be entertained by them. At some level, I can throw this stuff on the anti-gay rationalization pile, at least until anything is proven rather than merely suggested or speculated.

  120. @e
    1) "I didn't realize the part 2 and 3 links listed in part 1 of the Atlantic article were dead."

    If you're still interested, here's 2 :

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germ2.htm

    here's 3 : http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germ3.htm

    2.) You might also be interested in the summary of the hypothesis here by Jayman

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

    or here, by anthropologist Peter Frost: http://www.unz.com/?s=homosexuality+and+the+pathogen+&searchsubmit=Search&authors=peter-frost&ptype=item&commentsearch=exclude


    3.) "I am put off by Cochran’s ultimate goal, which is to eliminate homosexuality by eliminating the virus that he thinks causes it."

    If you'll notice, he didn't advocate for its elimination. He stated that if the cause were found and happened to be the result of a viral infection, it would be likely it would be eliminated...which is true. What parent, you say, wouldn't want their progeny to get their genes into the next generation? (That and the fact that if it's a pathogen, it likely is responsible for more than simply a lack of attraction for the opposite sex)

    Cochran hates people who put the kibosh on investigation. I seriously doubt he minds homosexuals, but he can't stand the lack of logical thinking about the way it has remained in the population--NOT genetic. However, his charm does have to grow on one. That you are homosexual probably means you'll never find him charming and I understand that.

    There are other links to his being more detailed in his presentation, but I trust, as you say, you've read enough....for now.

    You might also find the book by the two West Hunter bloggers very worth your while if you enjoy reading about evolution. It's a favorite of many who frequent this blog, and no, homosexuality doesn't even get a single sentence, as I recall.

    Cochran and Harpending: "The 10,000 Year Explosion, How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution." A very good read.

    I intended not to keep it up, and I still have that intention. But here I am sucked into a topic. Happens with me. Oh well. I now have 29 bookmarked articles, including the rest of The Atlantic‘s series (damn you); one 40+-page research paper; and a book recommendation. At some point I’ll have to decide just how interested I really am.

    My comment about what I perceive to be Cochran’s bias notwithstanding, it’s not a disqualifier with me. I was simply being honest, having had a lifetime of fending off attacks from every direction. I can handle it, but I’d be lying or severely oblivious if I were try to say that it has no effect. The most disheartening aspect of all that is to see, over time, virtually every personality trait or interest presented as pathology if it’s seen in someone who’s also homosexual.

    Probably the most egregious, or at least one the most egregious, was reading some decades back that the military had observed that many closeted (by regulatory necessity) homosexuals had otherwise exemplary service records, and therefore being unmarried and having too good of a service record was grounds for suspicion. It reminds me of the tactics used in the Inquisitions, where, in the end, to be accused was to be guilty, and to be guilty … well, you know.

    It’s only been 55 years since homosexual conduct was a felony in every state, and the orientation — if discovered or strongly enough asserted or exhibited — grounds for exclusion from a wide variety of occupations. That’s the generation I come from. And to my way of thinking, the current “acceptance,” while certainly welcome, is quite shallow.

    So you perhaps can begin to understand the visceral negative reaction that someone might have to a hypothesis that frames homosexuality as a “Darwinian disease,” even though it hasn’t prevented the human population explosion during industrial times, and suggests that the “cause” of this disease is one or more other diseases. And so on.

    That said, I have a sufficient component of fearless curiosity to entertain these hypotheses, and if I’ve had enough to drink, even be entertained by them. At some level, I can throw this stuff on the anti-gay rationalization pile, at least until anything is proven rather than merely suggested or speculated.

  121. One other thing.

    My skepticism of the science is rooted in what I think is a clear-eyed view of the nature of scientific inquiry, and of the political, cultural, and other filters it passes through. Not to mention its outright corruption, as seen most recently with the “debate” over anthropogenic global warming, a hypothesis that’s clearly invalid on its face yet is still promoted as the product of a scientific consensus.

    As it pertains to homosexuality, the earnest British scientists of the 1950s decided to take part in what can only be described as the persecution of Alan Turing, whose code breaking ranks as one of (not the only one, of course) the principal contributors to the Allied victory in WW2. The man was compelled to take female hormones, and killed himself quickly. An authentic war hero, but none of that mattered because, after all, he was diseased.

    Science? Useful for sure, but not necessarily the last word. There are few, if any, magic bullets. Scientists regularly get it wrong.

    • Replies: @e
    In conversing with you I said about Cochran, "He stated that if the cause were found and happened to be the result of a viral infection, it would be likely it would be eliminated…". I should have said, "would be" rather than "would be."

    I caught my error when I scanned Jayman's summation of GC's posts on the topc on West Hunter. I was reminded that there is one post in general in which GC asks what would happen IF we were to find that the germ theory was correct.

    In looking back at Jayman's post (which I linked to above) I was reminded that there are, as Jayman points out, several more edifying/clarifying posts by GC on the topic, more than the few listed under the general category of homosexuality on his WH blog.
  122. @New Reader
    One other thing.

    My skepticism of the science is rooted in what I think is a clear-eyed view of the nature of scientific inquiry, and of the political, cultural, and other filters it passes through. Not to mention its outright corruption, as seen most recently with the "debate" over anthropogenic global warming, a hypothesis that's clearly invalid on its face yet is still promoted as the product of a scientific consensus.

    As it pertains to homosexuality, the earnest British scientists of the 1950s decided to take part in what can only be described as the persecution of Alan Turing, whose code breaking ranks as one of (not the only one, of course) the principal contributors to the Allied victory in WW2. The man was compelled to take female hormones, and killed himself quickly. An authentic war hero, but none of that mattered because, after all, he was diseased.

    Science? Useful for sure, but not necessarily the last word. There are few, if any, magic bullets. Scientists regularly get it wrong.

    In conversing with you I said about Cochran, “He stated that if the cause were found and happened to be the result of a viral infection, it would be likely it would be eliminated…”. I should have said, “would be” rather than “would be.”

    I caught my error when I scanned Jayman’s summation of GC’s posts on the topc on West Hunter. I was reminded that there is one post in general in which GC asks what would happen IF we were to find that the germ theory was correct.

    In looking back at Jayman’s post (which I linked to above) I was reminded that there are, as Jayman points out, several more edifying/clarifying posts by GC on the topic, more than the few listed under the general category of homosexuality on his WH blog.

  123. I’ve done my best to track down as much I could stand to track down. It’s been a little frustrating, what with the busted links. In any case, I’m reasonably thick skinned, and my side comments about bias are just that — side observations. If the logic and the evidence is there, well, then it’s there. He can be biased and I can be skeptical, but I’m not like, say, the dolt at Marquette University who yanked a professor’s tenure for criticizing a T.A.’s political correctness toward a student who opposes gay marriage.

    My angle would be different. I am, ah, conservative on the subject of homosexuality, in the sense that I’d argue that it’s always been with us; that it’s complex in its origins and its expression; and that scientific approaches need to be accompanied with, if not respect, appreciation, or acceptance of the class of human beings to be cured, then at least with considerable humility about whatever cure someone thinks they’ll discover.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS