| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, talking with my Dad who is post-op female for about 12 years now, her first comment was, "what did she look like yesterday, before the hair extensions and make up!" My mom added, "why would you use such an objectifying image to come out?"
So... Anyhoo, that another perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of it is that her earlier life is very much captured in the classic photo where she has her arms up in a V after the decathlon. While not a groundbreaking photo, it's iconic of the era and representative of the event which greatly defined the next decade or two for her.
I could see the desire to try to make a daring and iconic photo to anchor this new episode in her life as well. She's lived most of her life in the public eye, so having it be a magazine cover (much like the Olympic photo) isn't a big surprise to me either. Time will tell if it succeeds or was even a good idea.
Not saying I approve or disapprove, but I at least see how she got to this decision (or my interpretation of how she got there).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She's got a bit of a Jessica Lange thing going there.
^^^What she said.
But I dunno, man, Bruce Jenner was a weird looking old man.
Caitlyn Jenner is a weird looking old lady.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, John Steward would hit the nail on the head.
Lord Tyre, might I suggest your eyeglasses are overdue for a new prescription?
Who is this "Lord Tyre"? I would like to meet him.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Tyre, might I suggest your eyeglasses are overdue for a new prescription?Who is this "Lord Tyre"? I would like to meet him.
I think he's related to John Steward
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I note she went with Caitlyn not spelled with a "k," thus insuring the disgruntlement of the rest of the women in the family.
I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree.
However, this is intrinsically tied to my tastes, rather than the person.
Take into account that I also find the Kardashians hideously repulsive, which to some minds is grounds for revoking any and all metaphorical cards of cisgendered male membership.
In other words, not my thing, and I'm not sure if I am even the right 'market', but good on her.
I don't think anyone in the trans community questioned for a second if the millionaire white woman with TV contracts and easy access to Hollywood surgeons would transition well.
I'm happy she's happy.
Don't forget the photoshopping. It wouldn't be the first time for that magazine.
Don't forget the photoshopping. It wouldn't be the first time for that magazine.I don't think anyone in the trans community questioned for a second if the millionaire white woman with TV contracts and easy access to Hollywood surgeons would transition well.
I'm happy she's happy.
Closer to the point. Which was: "The media didn't waste any time treating her like a woman." - John Steward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I know the Kardashians are scary and all that, but is there a reason everyone is talking about how "shamefully public" Caitlyn is being about her transition? Is there a "right" and "wrong" way to transition? I mean, she's a celebrity. Everything she does is public—it just depends on whether she decides to frame it herself or let the media frame it for her. Apparently, though, it's not okay for trans* folk to do that?
My newspaper's editorial section has been kind of insufferable of late.
|
She certainly doesn't look 65!damn.
I'll have what she's having.
It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.
It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.She certainly doesn't look 65!damn.
I'll have what she's having.
It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.She certainly doesn't look 65!damn.
I'll have what she's having.
... Not to mention a small army of hairdressers, make-artists, and lighting technicians.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Not to mention a small army of hairdressers, make-artists, and lighting technicians.It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.She certainly doesn't look 65!damn.
I'll have what she's having.
Right. I'll have that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like ANYONE posing for the cover of Vanity Fair... Your point?... Not to mention a small army of hairdressers, make-artists, and lighting technicians.It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.She certainly doesn't look 65!damn.
I'll have what she's having.
That vanity fair is part of a disgusting media paradigm that creates an unattainable image of beauty for women?
Or that selling-out to that paradigm in order to avoid social-issues associated with being trans is harmful to the trans community and to women?
That's like saying autotune is offensive because it makes singers feel insecure. Beauty will always be appreciated, and showing off one's beauty should not be a crime—nor should Caitlyn be obliged to avoid magazine covers just because she is trans*/a woman. Not that we couldn't stand to de-emphasize beauty's importance a bit, but that's not the model's fault. :P
Moreover, how is it harmful to the trans community to show off the beauty of a trans* person? There's a major stereotype that being trans* is inherently unattractive, or even gross. That's a stereotype which Caitlyn is, in her own way, helping to erode. By showing off her sexuality (which is not something there is really anything wrong with), she is offering another way to view trans* people.
Mainstream variety is extremely healthy for any demographic. Trans* people tend to be viewed through very few windows by the mainstream—mainly as part of the "trap" joke, or as part of some "hilarious" scandalous reveal in a movie or TV show. I don't see why we have to be offended that Caitlyn is doing what any model does...while being trans*. To me, she's broadening the view most people have of transgenderedness. That seems like an extremely noble accomplishment.
The Klan's still scary, though.
Nope. The asterisk bugs me. I keep feeling like I need to scroll down and check for footnotes. I'm just gonna stick with "transgender", for now.
That's like saying autotune is offensive because it makes singers feel insecure. Beauty will always be appreciated, and showing off one's beauty should not be a crime—nor should Caitlyn be obliged to avoid magazine covers just because she is trans*/a woman. Not that we couldn't stand to de-emphasize beauty's importance a bit, but that's not the model's fault. :P
Moreover, how is it harmful to the trans community to show off the beauty of a trans* person? There's a major stereotype that being trans* is inherently unattractive, or even gross. That's a stereotype which Caitlyn is, in her own way, helping to erode. By showing off her sexuality (which is not something there is really anything wrong with), she is offering another way to view trans* people.
Mainstream variety is extremely healthy for any demographic. Trans* people tend to be viewed through very few windows by the mainstream—mainly as part of the "trap" joke, or as part of some "hilarious" scandalous reveal in a movie or TV show. I don't see why we have to be offended that Caitlyn is doing what any model does...while being trans*. To me, she's broadening the view most people have of transgenderedness. That seems like an extremely noble accomplishment.
The Klan's still scary, though.
Using media like Vanity Fair as part of coming out reinforces a stereotype that trans-people make the change for vain reasons. Cause you know, "vain" is right there in "vanity."
I'm pretty sure being Caitlyn Jenner does that all on its own. See re: Kardashians. People have been assuming stuff purely because she's "another crazy celebrity" without even seeing the picture. Pretty obnoxious, of course.
Kudos (hee) to her for ditching the "k", though.
Just like ANYONE posing for the cover of Vanity Fair... Your point?... Not to mention a small army of hairdressers, make-artists, and lighting technicians.It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.She certainly doesn't look 65!damn.
I'll have what she's having.
That vanity fair is part of a disgusting media paradigm that creates an unattainable image of beauty for women?
Or that selling-out to that paradigm in order to avoid social-issues associated with being trans is harmful to the trans community and to women?
no need to cut off ones nose to spite their face.
So, at the risk of going way, way off topic, I had a thought the other night that I'd be interested in hearing people's take on.
If we accept that someone's identify transcends the physical in the case of gender (transgender), should we also accept that someone's identify is transcends the physical in the case of race (transracial)?
Yes, I'm thinking of Rachel Dolezal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is SRS?
SRS = serious?
SRS = Severe Repulsion to Snakes?
SRS = Standard Repulsion to Spiders?
After a look at Wikipedia, I'm guessing it means Sexual Reassignment Surgery.
Also, please accept my apology for the use of the term "transsexual." The proper term appears to be "transgender." My previous post has been corrected.
Oh, I actually assumed it was "serious". P'derp.
|
Assistant Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, at the risk of going way, way off topic, I had a thought the other night that I'd be interested in hearing people's take on.
If we accept that someone's identify transcends the physical in the case of gender (transgender), should we also accept that someone's identify is transcends the physical in the case of race (transracial)?
Yes, I'm thinking of Rachel Dolezal.
No.
No we do not, because these things are not a matter of "well, this is just how I FEEL"
As every black woman on the internet has been saying: What Rachel Dolezal did is incredibly racist.
And as every trans woman on the internet has been saying : Rachel Dolezal co-opting trans language and sympathy to try and justify her racist crap is incredibly transphobic.
Trying to compare these cases is like comparing apples to the letter K because both can be red.
bugleyman, the two issues are completely different, and should be kept in their own threads.
And as every trans woman on the internet has been saying : Rachel Dolezal co-opting trans language and sympathy to try and justify her racist crap is incredibly transphobic.
I've literally paid no attention to anything the woman has said or written. I actually came up with the comparison on my own, and it honestly doesn't strike me as necessarily terribly different -- which is why I asked.
Consider the question withdrawn, and please accept my apology for any offense.