It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Mc740052
propbably a publicity stunt for the show no doubt
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Astrocyte
I'm extremely sympathetic to transgender issues, but I think the media is being, well the media, and using the wrong example in Bruce Jenner to make the case palpable to the average Joe six pack.
Remember the media circus at the OJ Simpson trail were we first met the Kardashians? The Kardashian circus is never ending, and now Bruce Jenner is going to have his own reality show about his transgender journey. Please! Me thinks some former Olympic star is hurt that he/she just isn't getting enough attention.
Keep up showing the short documentaries about children and young adults, that we all can relate to. But Bruce Jenner is just too creepy and circus like to represent transgender issues and their impact on regular people.
In my opinion, Jenner's in your face publicity on this issue, all created probably to promote his new reality show, creates more problems than it solves.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Astrocyte
So, I am even more confused now.
In another thread (transgender toddler), I was assured that transgender does not involve surgery, drugs, etc.
Which is it?
Serious question at this point.
Also, who the hell cares about what junk Jill Benner has between her knobbys?
Also also, didn't he just kill someone in a car accident?
originally posted by: Astrocyte
In considering how to write up this post, I want to make a few things clear: I have great sympathy for Jenners emotional struggles. However, I do not for a second believe that the "soul" is gendered. I also do not believe that the brain is "gendered"...
The march toward gender-specific clothes was neither linear nor rapid. Pink and blue arrived, along with other pastels, as colors for babies in the mid-19th century, yet the two colors were not promoted as gender signifiers until just before World War I—and even then, it took time for popular culture to sort things out.
For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.
In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.
I find the whole notion of "psychological gender" and having a "soul of a woman" to be contemptible in it's naivety. It implies, yet again, how utterly dissociated we are as a society from the way our minds work.