Politics And Current Events

[AuthorTony]

*Shrug* I'm just trying to understand the limits & such. I mean, does this apply to people who want to become eunuchs? To people who want to become disabled, like shaf's link noted? Can their wife/husband stop this sort of action if the psychological tests prove they're sane?

I'm just trying to understand how far this "have at it, if that is what makes you happy" goes. I'm not trying to point out some premade conclusion of mine.

If a person wants to become a eunuch, why stop them? I mean, really, what harm is caused by it aside from them personally losing the ability to have sex. If the wife protests, so what? She can get a divorce. Plenty of wives stop having sex with their husbands and no one would dare say they should be forced to do so.

[Avyran]

Thanks for the answers.

[tifosi77]

In any event, I've said before that I draw a line short of transgender/gender reassignment surgery. What's frustrating is that if you are anything other than fully accepting and even praising of what Jenner has done, you are a bigot/homophobe/old-fashioned etc. I feel like the goal posts keep getting moved as to what needs to be accepted and encouraged in order to still be considered "progressive".

I can't understand feeling like a woman trapped in a man's body, but as far as accepting it, I don't know why anyone cares. What does it matter to any of our lives if Bruce Jenner wants to live as a woman and have the surgery to "go all the way"? How is it hurting any of us? I think the world would be a nicer place of people would "accept" that other people's life decisions which have no bearing on "us" are theirs to make.

True enough, but I think what bothers me in this situation is that I sincerely don't believe what he is doing is healthy or "good", by any stretch. I genuinely feel for him, because I can't imagine hiding those psychological issues from my family from decades, much less having a spotlight shown on us with the reality junk.

I am just a little put off by the "aw shucks, isn't this just great?" reaction in the media and elsewhere, without any real discussion about the significant issues that result from gender reassignment, etc. I think the man needs therapy and a compassionate ear. It's been chewing at me for a while, but I think the Arthur Ashe thing (as stupid and insignificant as that is) pushed it over the top for me. Look at the way his conversion has been met in the media and almost everywhere else. It's effusive, ecstatic praise. It's ESPY awards. I truly question, in the year 2015, how "courageous" that really is. And again, I don't care if he was on a Wheaties box during the Carter Administration.

Quick, without resorting to the Google Machine, name one other transgendered person.

Also, re his psychological issues.... that is why GRS candidates have to go through a pretty rigorous screening process. The fact that things high suicide rates accompany TG people is not a by-product of the reassignment, it is a by-product of years - decades - of living a dual life. There was just a study published that showed that internalizing this conflict does more lasting damage to LGB people than almost any amount of hazing or abuse (both physical and emotional), and I don't have a hard time believing that it would also be the case with the T community.

[tifosi77]

I don't see her making it out of the primary.

There simply is not a truly viable alternative for the Democrats. She'll be the nominee, but it will take her most of the primary season to lock in enough delegates.

[columbia]

10 more billionaires join Buffett-Gates Giving Pledge
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/news/co ... ett-gates/

The threshold and specifics aside, WK's death tax is one way to encourage more philanthropy from the grave (and even before you get there).

[count2infinity]

I dunno. I mean I Just can't see how someone choosing to modify their body in any form or fashion can affect someone who isn't their family or close friend. I mean I can't see how I for example have any right to accept or not accept what Bruce Jenner did. It's not my call. It's not my body. It's none of my business. I don't know what they are feeling. It shouldn't have any tangible effect on anyone outside of their loved ones.

I guess I just can't see why anyone would have a problem with what Jenner did. I can see why people would be annoyed with all the media coverage and all that stuff, but the actual change that Jenner had done was their choice and their body.. they can do what they wish. I mean it sounds like they had a ton of psychological tests done to prove they weren't crazy or anything, so who am I to blame them for wanting to change gender. Have at it.... if that is what makes you happy.

can't give this enough

[Silentom]

I dunno. I mean I Just can't see how someone choosing to modify their body in any form or fashion can affect someone who isn't their family or close friend. I mean I can't see how I for example have any right to accept or not accept what Bruce Jenner did. It's not my call. It's not my body. It's none of my business. I don't know what they are feeling. It shouldn't have any tangible effect on anyone outside of their loved ones.

I guess I just can't see why anyone would have a problem with what Jenner did. I can see why people would be annoyed with all the media coverage and all that stuff, but the actual change that Jenner had done was their choice and their body.. they can do what they wish. I mean it sounds like they had a ton of psychological tests done to prove they weren't crazy or anything, so who am I to blame them for wanting to change gender. Have at it.... if that is what makes you happy.

can't give this enough

∞

[Gaucho]

Yes.

[grunthy]

10 more billionaires join Buffett-Gates Giving Pledge
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/news/co ... ett-gates/

The threshold and specifics aside, WK's death tax is one way to encourage more philanthropy from the grave (and even before you get there).

Doubt it. If you force people to do something there is resistance. So WKs proposal most likely would not.

[ExPatriatePen]

10 more billionaires join Buffett-Gates Giving Pledge
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/news/co ... ett-gates/

The threshold and specifics aside, WK's death tax is one way to encourage more philanthropy from the grave (and even before you get there).

Doubt it. If you force people to do something there is resistance. So WKs proposal most likely would not.

The government confiscating and using the money to fund the war machine is not philanthropy.
The Giving pledge is the most efficient mechanism. These are generally entrepreneurs. People who understand efficient organizations.

[columbia]

That's why people would give their money to charity, EPP.

[Factorial]

I'm stating the obvious here but, unlike business, the primary goal of government is not efficiency.

[shoeshine boy]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/ ... index.html

congratulations Mike Huckabee! with one statement you now sound stupid AND like a pervert.

[grunthy]

I'm stating the obvious here but, unlike business, the primary goal of government is not efficiency.

Wrong. Depends on the agency or department.

[grunthy]

That's why people would give their money to charity, EPP.

You fail to understand that WK proposal is forcing them to either give to charity or the government. You cannot force people to do those things, as people will resist.

[columbia]

That's why people would give their money to charity, EPP.

You fail to understand that WK proposal is forcing them to either give to charity or the government. You cannot force people to do those things, as people will resist.

So you'd just give it to the government out of spite?

[Factorial]

I'm stating the obvious here but, unlike business, the primary goal of government is not efficiency.

Wrong. Depends on the agency or department.

I meant government as a whole Snappy.

[ExPatriatePen]

That's why people would give their money to charity, EPP.

I get what you're saying, but that's coercion. If you don't give your lunch money away I'm going to steal it. I'm just not comfortable with that.

[shmenguin]

In any event, I've said before that I draw a line short of transgender/gender reassignment surgery. What's frustrating is that if you are anything other than fully accepting and even praising of what Jenner has done, you are a bigot/homophobe/old-fashioned etc .

If you have no opinion about what Jenner did, you won't be labeled anything.

If you post something on Facebook, like I'm seeing today, where there's a picture of a soldier with a caption saying "THESE are the heroes", then it's up to you to prove to the rest of us that you're not the things you described above...because I don't know why it would bother someone to that extent otherwise.

[grunthy]

That's why people would give their money to charity, EPP.

You fail to understand that WK proposal is forcing them to either give to charity or the government. You cannot force people to do those things, as people will resist.

So you'd just give it to the government out of spite?

No. A lot wouldn't give it to either at first. Eventually they might give it to charity.

I feel that a lot of you are just super jealous of wealthy people's success and feel as though you have a right to dictate where and who gets their money.

[Gaucho]

I'm all for not paying taxes, but let's take it a step further then and do away with nation states, please.

[columbia]

That's why people would give their money to charity, EPP.

I get what you're saying, but that's coercion. If you don't give you're lunch money away I'm going to steal it. I'm just not comfortable with that.

It certainly is, but you have to think of it in two ways:

1.) Do you agree with the the idea? You certainly don't and I'm not sure that I would.

2.) What if it were enacted? Regardless of your opinion on 1.), of course people would just give it to charity instead of the government.

[ExPatriatePen]

I'm stating the obvious here but, unlike business, the primary goal of government is not efficiency.

Wrong. Depends on the agency or department.

I meant government as a whole Snappy.

I just can't believe you're actually arguing for someone to steal money from you drive down the road in the getaway car with the money flying out the open windows because they didn't have the sense to put it in a bag, they stop at a bar, spend it wildly as overhead, then get in a fight and buy stuff to help them beat other people up and then what's ever left over gets donated to the corrupt administrators of the local orphanage.

SMH

[ExPatriatePen]

I'm stating the obvious here but, unlike business, the primary goal of government is not efficiency.

Wrong. Depends on the agency or department.

I meant government as a whole Snappy.

I just can't believe you're actually arguing for someone to steal money from you drive down the road in the getaway car with the money flying out the open windows because they didn't have the sense to put it in a bag, they stop at a bar, spend it wildly as overhead, then get in a fight and buy stuff to help them beat other people up and then what's ever left over gets donated to the corrupt administrators of the local orphanage.

SMH

Wouldn't it benefit the orphans more to deal with them directly? Couldn't you use the extra to help more orphans or the elderly at the senior center next door?

[count2infinity]

Well if that's not hyperbole, I don't know what is...