Bruce Jenner's Début as "Caitlyn"

[Sy_Noe]

They are the people who push ideas contrary to reason and the Faith. Agenda can be used pejoratively. And in this context I do mean it as that. I would not however deny that I have an agenda or that the Church has agenda. I do hope that I am speaking the truth. I also believe those who promote the agenda that leads men and women to mutilate their bodies are promoting falsehood. This should be uncontroversial. I’m sure those who promote the agenda I am against think I’m wrong. Only one of us can be right. There is no sense in pretending we both can be.

Here’s the problem and this applies to what Christine said earlier about it as well in reply to DaddyGirl. Others may reason and have a different faith and understanding as to what Jesus meant. You hope that you speak the truth. You speak what you believe to know the truth is. And others with a different understanding do as well.

 

[MugenOne]

The Blaze published an op-ed column headlined: “Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women.”

“Parents, be aware,” Matt Walsh wrote. “Soon the magazine rack in the checkout line at the supermarket will feature this profoundly disturbing image of Bruce Jenner.”

Walsh questioned why Vanity Fair “dolled up” Jenner in its Annie Leibovitz photo shoot.

“The idea is to make the 65-year-old grandfather look like a college girl, but the effect is that he looks like a distorted version of neither,” he wrote. “What he most closely resembles is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists.”

news.yahoo.com/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-media-call-him-her-173958832.html

 

[gracepoole]

The Blaze published an op-ed column headlined: “Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women.”

“Parents, be aware,” Matt Walsh wrote. “Soon the magazine rack in the checkout line at the supermarket will feature this profoundly disturbing image of Bruce Jenner.”

Walsh questioned why Vanity Fair “dolled up” Jenner in its Annie Leibovitz photo shoot.

“The idea is to make the 65-year-old grandfather look like a college girl, but the effect is that he looks like a distorted version of neither,” he wrote. “What he most closely resembles is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists.”

news.yahoo.com/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-media-call-him-her-173958832.html

I’ve come to lose a lot of respect for Matt Walsh lately. What began as passion for the Church’s teachings has turned into vitriol of late. His rhetoric isn’t helping.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Blaze published an op-ed column headlined: “Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women.”

“Parents, be aware,” Matt Walsh wrote. “Soon the magazine rack in the checkout line at the supermarket will feature this profoundly disturbing image of Bruce Jenner.”

Walsh questioned why Vanity Fair “dolled up” Jenner in its Annie Leibovitz photo shoot.

“The idea is to make the 65-year-old grandfather look like a college girl, but the effect is that he looks like a distorted version of neither,” he wrote. “What he most closely resembles is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists.”

news.yahoo.com/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-media-call-him-her-173958832.html

The worst of it is that it insults the dignity of Bruce Jenner. The media have provided him with what amounts to a public suicide of a famous personality. He’s been convinced that he can become a woman by killing off his famous male persona, burying him in a hole somewhere, and supplanting his Bruce persona with the invented persona of Caitlyn. It is horrible. The importance of the Bruce personality is being denigrated as false, so that eliminating him seems OK.

 

[Dawnia]

Is it lying to call a woman Protestant minister “Reverend”?

Or simply a sign of respect?

What could possibly gained by insisting on calling a transgendered person by anything other that what they present themselves as?

In any event I wouldn’t be lying as I am quite prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that this is a real medical condition, and that the treatment, as imperfect as it is, would appear to be the only thing at the moment that has any hope of (modest) success.

One of the treatments for advanced prostate cancer, that is non-curative but which can prolong life or mitigate some of the pain is, btw, castration (either surgical or chemical). It is recognized as a valid if non-curative therapeutic treatment. There’s some legitimate debate on whether gender reassignment surgery is in fact “therapeutic”, but so far it is the only known therapy other than psychiatric care which has proven ineffective so there is a parallel with castration for prostate cancer which removes or shuts down healthy organs to treat a disease.

What is so wrong about being charitable towards the afflicted?

How is calling someone by a title that is bestowed on them by a governing body anything remotely similiar to someone self-identifying themselves as something they are not?

A man who is castrated, is still a man. A man who has plastic surgery to look like a woman is still a man. The window dressing may change, but biology doesn’t.

 

[Lormar]

How is calling someone by a title that is bestowed on them by a governing body anything remotely similiar to someone self-identifying themselves as something they are not?

A man who is castrated, is still a man. A man who has plastic surgery to look like a woman is still a man. The window dressing may change, but biology doesn’t.

There is an article in the current National Catholic Register. It’s an interview with a man who thought he was a woman and had the operation. Seven or eight years later, he realized just the very thing you said - you can’t change nature.

 

[Lormar]

Things are changing quickly. Our culture is completely unhinged. The frightening thing is I can’t imagine what they’ll be pushing ten years from now.

I couldn’t agree with you more, but I do believe that fervent prayer, which includes daily Rosary, can change our destructive course.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

The Blaze published an op-ed column headlined: “Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women.”

“Parents, be aware,” Matt Walsh wrote. “Soon the magazine rack in the checkout line at the supermarket will feature this profoundly disturbing image of Bruce Jenner.”

Walsh questioned why Vanity Fair “dolled up” Jenner in its Annie Leibovitz photo shoot.

“The idea is to make the 65-year-old grandfather look like a college girl, but the effect is that he looks like a distorted version of neither,” he wrote. “What he most closely resembles is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists.”

news.yahoo.com/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-media-call-him-her-173958832.html

I’m liking Matt Walsh more and more lately. He’s right, of course. No amount of physical mutilation can make a man into a woman. It makes me sick that people are expected to feed into the delusion of a crazy man. Those that don’t fall in line are called bigots It’s sad the way that the media has started to refer to Bruce as a she.

 

[OraLabora]

How is calling someone by a title that is bestowed on them by a governing body anything remotely similiar to someone self-identifying themselves as something they are not?

A man who is castrated, is still a man. A man who has plastic surgery to look like a woman is still a man. The window dressing may change, but biology doesn’t.

I was pointing out that not all mutilating therapies need to be “curative” to be licit.

Look I certainly question the wisdom of mutilating a body to solve a gender identity issue. It’s a legitimate point of debate.

But that’s no excuse to behave uncharitably towards the person by ignoring the fact that (s)he is trying to present as the other gender. I don’t see how acting self-righteously towards the person will be useful in entering any kind of helpful dialogue with him or her. You need to meet the person where he’s at for that. Most of these cases aren’t so prominent in the media as Jenner’s, and behind every transgendered person presenting as the opposite to their birth sex, is an awful lot of pain and suffering.

Isn’t the Catholic thing to pray for them and comfort them in their suffering, and not add to it by acting hurtfully towards them?

There is an article in the current National Catholic Register. It’s an interview with a man who thought he was a woman and had the operation. Seven or eight years later, he realized just the very thing you said - you can’t change nature.

Anecdotal. For some it appears to have helped, for others not. Some people engage in life-altering chemotherapy for cancer; for some it works, for some others it buys a little extra time, for others it fails completely. But when it is the only therapy one has to offer…

I do believe however that it was John Hopkins, that once pioneered in sex-change surgery, that stopped doing them because their evidence was that it was of limited or no benefit and did not reduce the person’s angst. That may be the best argument so far against the surgery as it was at least scientific.

From what I’ve read, Jenner so far hasn’t had genital surgery (yet) so technically at least he’s still a male.

It’s a very nebulous area, to be sure, but I still think our first duty as Catholics is, above all charity in Truth, and sometimes Truth has to be revealed with great circumspection and reserve lest we cause more damage than we’re trying to cure by driving as soul away completely.

 

[gracepoole]

I was pointing out that not all mutilating therapies need to be “curative” to be licit.

Look I certainly question the wisdom of mutilating a body to solve a gender identity issue. It’s a legitimate point of debate.

But that’s no excuse to behave uncharitably towards the person by ignoring the fact that (s)he is trying to present as the other gender. I don’t see how acting self-righteously towards the person will be useful in entering any kind of helpful dialogue with him or her. You need to meet the person where he’s at for that. Most of these cases aren’t so prominent in the media as Jenner’s, and behind every transgendered person presenting as the opposite to their birth sex, is an awful lot of pain and suffering.

Isn’t the Catholic thing to pray for them and comfort them in their suffering, and not add to it by acting hurtfully towards them?

Yes, it is!

 

[RACJ]

Oh RACJ, you shouldn’t have! :blushing:

I’m afraid that our little secret has gone viral, Havard… Silly me.:doh2:

 

[mikekle]

How is calling someone by a title that is bestowed on them by a governing body anything remotely similiar to someone self-identifying themselves as something they are not?

A man who is castrated, is still a man. A man who has plastic surgery to look like a woman is still a man. The window dressing may change, but biology doesn’t.

This is exactly what I said! I guess some people have a hard time understanding such things though, namely the Media LOL, I have never laughed so much at hearing all them talk about this today…they truly act like he was done something supernatural, literally turned into a female!!

I would bet anything, when Bruce Jenner is at home tonight, he wont be any happier than he was yesterday, he will still be dealing with his mental problems, that wont go away just because he had some alterations to his body, I think he probably wants to think he will be happy now, but he wont…It would not surprise me to hear within 6 months, he will be admitted to a mental hospital or commit suicide, hes got some serious mental problems, this little change wont resolve any of that.

 

[OraLabora]

I would bet anything, when Bruce Jenner is at home tonight, he wont be any happier than he was yesterday, he will still be dealing with his mental problems, that wont go away just because he had some alterations to his body, I think he probably wants to think he will be happy now, but he wont…It would not surprise me to hear within 6 months, he will be admitted to a mental hospital or commit suicide, hes got some serious mental problems, this little change wont resolve any of that.

I have no doubt that this a very real possibility. All the more reason for compassion and prayer.

 

[pianistclare]

He is a man with male DNA. That will never change. Nothing can change that fact.

Well yeah. And he has ALOT of children!
How did he emotionally manage to or to desire to sleep with and impregnate women when he always felt he was something else?
In the Vanity Fair piece he says that he was always pretending to be something else.
Gee thanks “dad”.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well yeah. And he has ALOT of children!
How did he emotionally manage to or to desire to sleep with and impregnate women when he always felt he was something else?
In the Vanity Fair piece he says that he was always pretending to be something else.
Gee thanks “dad”.

He also said,he is still attracted to women,not men…

 

[lemongrass80]

Yes, you don’t become a real woman just by taking hormones and telling Vanity Fair readers you are a woman. As for 65 year old Jenner I would tell him that we have earned our stripes by being wives and mothers and in some cases, grandmothers.

So childless unmarried woman aren’t really women either than because we haven’t earned it. Got it.

 

[Path_Finder]

I’ve come to lose a lot of respect for Matt Walsh lately. What began as passion for the Church’s teachings has turned into vitriol of late. His rhetoric isn’t helping.

I have barely heard of the name but from what I read, that is beyond the pale.

 

[ManOnFire]

These people are activists, nothing more. Fake fake fake. What did Kim Kardashian do to deserve fame? Porn. We’re reaching an All Time Low. Praying that people will just turn off the garbage and keep it off. Classy Americans must be rolling over in their graves.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here’s the problem and this applies to what Christine said earlier about it as well in reply to DaddyGirl. Others may reason and have a different faith and understanding as to what Jesus meant. You hope that you speak the truth. You speak what you believe to know the truth is. And others with a different understanding do as well.

BUT if you have a ‘faith understanding’ that says X is Y, and someone has a’different faith understanding’ that X is not Y, those are two completely opposite things. One must be true, and the other not true.

If my faith understanding says that same sex marriage is disordered, and yours says, 'no it isn’t", well, ONE of us must be right, and the other MUST be wrong. There are no two ways about it. You cannot have a truth that “SSM is wrong for me because I’m a Catholic Christian, but it’s OK for somebody who is a Protestant, or a secular humanist, because they’re fine with it. Hey, it’s even all right if I’m a Catholic who is CONVINCED the Church is wrong, because of my 'well formed conscience”. Truth doesn’t work that way.

A person might be perfectly sincere and perfectly convinced of truth–and still be wrong. What are we to do, sit back and say nothing and let them carry on deluding themselves and others?

Bottom line is, if you argue that ‘nobody can really know truth for sure’, you’ve fallen victim to relativism and indifferentism. There is never a real answer, and people can just splash about in whatever pool of ‘personal truth’ or ‘conscience’ they choose. Everybody is his or her own pope with a direct line to the Holy Spirit to guide them to whatever they want to make their personal truth.

 

[bibcat]

I’m liking Matt Walsh more and more lately. He’s right, of course. No amount of physical mutilation can make a man into a woman. It makes me sick that people are expected to feed into the delusion of a crazy man. Those that don’t fall in line are called bigots It’s sad the way that the media has started to refer to Bruce as a she.

Exactamundo.