are we just like not going to say shit about this because whoa I will be very honest and say it's my birthday and I'm kind of drunk and audrey is a pal of mine and also I've got vastly more experience with u wanted sexual encounters than most dudes could ever hope to have in wanted sexual encounters so this is where I am coming from: It's cool that the rape vics you know don't want to talk? That's alright. And I'm not saying you're old and out of touch with the younger generation of empoweeeed women but maybe you might be It's okay to be ashamed and it's also okay to not be ashamed and to be MAD and to want to use a big fuckin megaphone and shout your grievances and your pain and your hurt to the far corners of the earth, and it's okay to carry a mattress around to show everyone what kind of weight you're carrying internally because it's easy for people to see a mattress and not easy for them to see how confused you are that your friend didn't listen when you weren't okay with the naked stuff that one time? That's the new normal, is what I'm saying. So it's cool that you want to persist in believing your weird outdated shit about rape victims being normal if they handle it X way and weirdos if they handle it any-not-X-way but just know you're basically that old guy who starts lagging behind on everything now also you're wrong, there's that too
But don't you think it's reasonable that some people see what she did (mattress and sex video) as really weird? I would never say "she did [x] therefore she must be lying!" but I can't pretend like I don't think what she did was really bizarre. Re-creating your own rape and posting it online is extreme even with your younger empowered generation, and I think it's fair for the average person reading about this story to think she sounds a little crazy. And happy birthday!
Awww... someone need a hug? All I've ever said is that I don't believe her based on her reaction. It's got nothing to do with Audrey, or you fucking your brains out more than anyone else (yay?), it's about someone acting like a fucking lunatic and me going, "woah, that's pretty fucking weird", and questioning shit, and me forming the opinion that I don't believe her. Yep, I said it... I just don't automatically believe her just because she said it happened. I'm a monster, aren't I? But I love how that seems to have enraged your inner she-hulk feminist and you're somehow offended over my opinion... it's cute. It's also whining, and makes you look like you're throwing a temper tantrum, like a spoiled little girl who doesn't get her way. But happy birthday, and feel free to show us your tits. Everyone likes Birthday Tits!
Whoaaaa, I'm just going to back away from the keyboard. And Nett Daddy, the ice bin is getting low... Happy Birthday Pinkcup.
I hadn't been on my computer to type a properly thought-out response, but I had a bit of a twitchy reaction to this: There's just no other way to say this than: no, you're wrong about that. Not everyone responds to traumatic events the same way. They just don't, it's a simple fact and suggesting otherwise is, I think, actually insulting. Part of me wonders if you actually meant those words, or if you were trying to say something else? People have all kinds of responses to trauma. Some people internalize everything, refuse to share it, bottle it up and lock it away. Some people want to talk about it and share their pain as a way to help heal. Some people fall into a habit, or act out, or remove themselves from society, or try drugs, or cut themselves. There are ten thousand ways to respond to trauma. I know you've shared before that your ex-wife suffered from depression, so it's a little odd to me that you'd believe that all people respond the same way to emotional events. Depression can be triggered by traumatic life events, and certainly contributes to how people deal with them. Not to mention, depression itself can take a lot of forms. A friend of mine had his daughter die when she was young. He talks about her. A lot. He talks about when her upcoming birthday is and how old she'd be. When he has a good day, he talks about how she was there watching. He talks about the day she died, what "anniversary" it is. He casually references her in conversation, or say this or that thing was her favorite. To friends, to strangers, to anyone who will listen. He posts on social media and forums about her. It has been 6 or 7 years. That is extremely distinct from anyone else I've ever known who had a child die - for most of them, the conversation is intensely emotional, infrequently had, and certainly not with strangers. Is he not entitled to his own coping strategy, even though it is decidedly awkward and weird to engage a stranger in a discussion about a dead 8-year-old? If you were really emphasizing the "normal" word in your comment, as in there are certain ways that a large chunk of similar people respond to trauma, that might be more accurate (still feels weird to me depending on how many you lump into this). There are two big problems there, though - there are a lot of "not-normal" people in the world, and those people can experience rape as well. It's a little disturbing to basically say, "I can't relate to your coping strategy and find it uncomfortable, therefore it's suspicious." Given that this is he-said, she-said, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that she's lying. Saying that everyone responds to trauma the same, though, is not true.
To piggyback on this specific bit -- There was a time I thought this was a weird reaction to having a child die. Now I know dozens -- hundreds? -- of people in this situation, and realize that the variety in reactions is as vast as the varieties in people. There are people who want to punch somebody, anybody, in the face. There are people who still cry every week, 10 years later. There are people who put a picture on their desk at work, and there are people who get tiny tattoos in invisible places. At the risk of sounding like MoreCowbell, it's almost a statistical quirk of your social circles. If you have a circle that is inclined towards conservatism, and a reputation as a gruff, no-nonsense person, of course the people that you happen to meet who have been through trauma will react to it quietly and in a way that you would expect. I bet if you were a college-aged performance artist, Emma's reaction would be unusual, but still pretty much in keeping with how people you know process terrible events. I say that to say this: it can be dangerous to use one's own identity as the primary filter into the experiences of another group. There is a difference between "sexual assault victims" and "sort by: People I Know, search: sexual assault victims." There's a difference between "gay people" and "sort by: People Willing to Hang Out With Me, search: gay people." And as I found out, there's a big difference between the people who I happened to run into who had lost a child, and what that group as a whole looks like. I can't speak for why Pinkcup and Audrey may be offended, but I can say this much; words on a screen don't do much. It is not a problem to simply log out and not have to deal with somebody's opinion any more, and in that sense, being mad that some person you've never met (and never will meet) typed some characters that didn't gibe with your worldview. However, words communicate ideas, and ideas have power, especially when they're held by the sorts of people in charge of legislation and prosecution. You not believing Emma? No skin off anybody's nose. The prevailing notion that victims look, act, behave in a certain way, though? Has a definite real world impact on women who have a more difficult time getting justice for their assault. Somebody tweeting, "Man, Bruce Jenner is still a dude, he has a dick"? Go nuts, it's the internet. The idea that trans women are inherently fucked up or liars? Has a definite real world impact on the thousands trans people who have been beaten to death by partners. People making fun of Rachel Dolezal for lying repeatedly and with impunity about being black, and then being caught in her lies and doubling down on them? Well, that one I'm fine with.
I don't mean to derail the dead children and rape discussions, but I have a question: Do the people selling ads for Friends reruns on Nick at Nite want me to be having more sex or think that I am having more sex than watchers of other shows? I was flipping channels last night and stopped on a rerun, wasn't really watching, as I was working on something else. Then, these three commercials came on:
That's because your primary lens, for as long as I've seen you posting, is black and white. The reality of the situation is that male/female can be determined from a scientific standpoint - i.e. females have an XX chromosome for gender, and males and XY. You're one or the other. What you're 'mentally' identifying as is not really relevant as far as science goes. That being said, someone saying they identify as 'female' - despite being XY offends you less than someone identifying as 'black' - despite the fact that if you go back far enough for most Americans, you're probably going to find DNA that is 'black' versus 'white.' But since we're only going back as far as her parents and grandparents, we immediately say 'white' and end the discussion. In other words, if someone, despite scientific and genetic certainty being one sex can 'identify' as another sex and you're cool with that, why can't a person who appears to be 'white' not identify as being 'black' despite the much higher probability that there is some DNA that would support it? I'll tell you why. You are biased. Welcome to the club, by the way, it's called 'everyone' and they meet at the bar. I'll get the first round.
Let me go through this piecemeal, because there's a whole lot here that I disagree with. First of all: Rachel's story doesn't offend me. I could see how a person would be offended, but mostly I just think it's a situation ripe for comedy (and for some more trenchant observations, but the jokes have been goddamn amazing). Rachel also isn't getting guff for quietly identifying as black and going on living her life. She's getting guff because she sued Howard as a white woman, made up a fake father and had him lecture to students, made a big deal out of how hard it was to deal with her "natural" hair and, most recently, has come out as a Birther about her own birth. Even before we drill down to the identity politics portion of our show, there is a whole lot to tease apart. The situations aren't comparable. Second, thanks for the genetics lesson, but I am well aware of chromosomes and their relation to sex. However, gender, personality and social performance is about far more than that, and those things all have basis in science. See this science study, whose abstract reads: "The possible psychogenic or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones." Or this science study, whose abstract reads: "Gender identity—one's sense of being a man or a woman—is a fundamental perception experienced by all individuals that extends beyond biological sex. Yet, what contributes to our sense of gender remains uncertain. Since individuals who identify as transsexual report strong feelings of being the opposite sex and a belief that their sexual characteristics do not reflect their true gender, they constitute an invaluable model to understand the biological underpinnings of gender identity. We analyzed MRI data of 24 male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals not yet treated with cross-sex hormones in order to determine whether gray matter volumes in MTF transsexuals more closely resemble people who share their biological sex (30 control men), or people who share their gender identity (30 control women). Results revealed that regional gray matter variation in MTF transsexuals is more similar to the pattern found in men than in women. However, MTF transsexuals show a significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which supports the assumption that brain anatomy plays a role in gender identity." If you want to have a discussion about the interaction between gender dysphoria and SRS, and how best to align the different parts that make up a person's identity, then I'm open to having that conversation. But you're going to have to come with a lot more than XX/XY for that conversation to have any value whatsoever. So why is one situation worthy of scorn while the other isn't? Because they're different situations. I've yet to see a theory of transracialism that doesn't essentially amount to either an attempt to receive unearned social credibility, or a wholesale buying into a range of cultural stereotypes. Rachel is a particularly poor case because she so directly benefited from her identity. If you must make a parallel with a group of trans people, I suggest this case, where (if I recall correctly), a group of trans male students pretended to be female prostitutes pretending to be cops in order to rob unsuspecting johns. Finally, racial identity is still wildly less binary than gender identity, and "having some African heritage" is different than "identifying as a different gender." It's like comparing apples to oranges: sure they're round fruit, but the standards by which we should judge them are so different that the comparison is desultory in its facility.
It's easy, guys. A truly transracial person that identifies as black would have those dimples in their skull that Leonardo DiCaprio taught us about.
Wow, that's an amazing amount of obfuscation. The reality is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is sex is determined by genetics. Try as you might, you can say 'oh, hey, this person, this study, says otherwise' but the basic building block of sex is determined by genetics. Are you seriously trying to tell me that gender is determined by mind power alone? If so, I'm the starting forward for the Cavaliers. Other than the fact that I'm 6'2", white, and totally shit at basketball. But ok, that's how I identify. Any credence to that? In your book? I have no issue with gender dysphoria. What I have a complete issue with is that fact that someone who identifies that way is totally supported by you, but someone who is not identifying as 'purely white' but 'pretending to be black' IS an issue for you. If we all have the freedom to choose how we identify, whether it be gender (which is scientifically determined) or race (which can be scientifically supported) - the fact remains, you either are or you aren't. So if you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt in one case (gender)- then have the courtesy to give it in the other (race). Or don't. It makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a shit what gender or race someone identifies as, I only care how they treat me. If you're my friend, we're gold. If we're not, we're still gold, because ultimately I don't care what you think you are or identify as because to me it's all the same. We're trying to make the best of this thing called 'life.' Good luck.
Sex is determined by genetics. Gender is determined by neurology. Race, it turns out, is largely determined by societal judgment. Don't believe me? Examine the fact that Italians were at one time "not white", the fact that Obama identifies (and is identified) as black, and that the "one drop rule" was literally written into law. Cavs forward status is determined by your job. Do you see how all of these situations are distinct? Using the word "identity" to describe each of them, and then purporting that they're all equally malleable is just faulty logic. To use a pertinent example, your "identity" in this conversation is your username. It's tied to a set of expressed ideas, and it's the way that I am able to direct this particular post at you. In some sense, it is who you are. However, you can easily change your username and alter that particular identity. For all intents and purposes, you would be a different person as it relates to this conversation. On the flip side, you're a human being. That is also a layer of your identity. However, you can't alter that -- it is an example of an identity that is fundamentally immutable. This immediately basic example was to illustrate a very simple but fundamental point: there are some identities that are decided by you. There are others that are not. Where you draw those lines is up to you, and I'm willing to have that conversation, but your argument here doesn't get to that at all. You want to keep this in the realm of science? Please, have at it. I've provided multiple peer-reviewed studies that suggest that there's a replicable, scientific basis for Caitlyn's transgenderism. You haven't done much except claim that I'm biased based on the fact that I get annoyed at racism on here every few months. I have a different reaction to the situations because the situations are different. That's not hypocrisy, it's discernment.
So does this mean that Rachel Dolezal is black, if society as a whole judges her as black? I'm genuinely curious. Because I'm sure there's a few outliers that still consider Italians "not white." So if the majority of society were to say that she's black, does that mean there's credence to her self-identity?
My grandma doesn't consider Sicilians to be "real Italians," does that count? Should be fun at the wedding with FutureWife's family, who are all Sicilian immigrants.
That's a good question. Unlikely hypothetical that I hope answers how I feel about that -- there's a mixup at the hospital, and a black family gets a baby born to white parents. That baby happens to be extremely tan and have really curly hair, so nobody notices for years and years. The baby grows up thinking it's black, and everybody else thinks it's black too. If the mixup is discovered 30 years later, but that person says, "I'm black, I identity as black," I would shrug and say, "pretty much yeah."
I went to an Italian wedding where the grandfather of the bride got drunk and gave a toast about how the groom's mother was some "Sicilian bitch dog". Ever seen four groomsmen tackle a 75 year old man to the floor? I have.
So this is really only a one-way street of racial identity. Seriously, I'm just trying to understand. Because if there's a mix-up, that means a baby born to black parents would be placed with a white family. And there's no way that mix-up wouldn't be noticed immediately. But even in the unlikely hypothetical, this person would not be able to say they identify as white due to their upbringing. Is that correct?
I would say yes, but I suspect there might be plenty of hugging happening at your house already. You have the worlds greatest wingwoman (or so I hear) staying with you, no? Yes, that's the crux of this entire discussion. You seem to erroneously believe there is a single pathway from rape to reaction, and this sole avenue of coping leads to a place of shame, silence, private grief, and mild-mannered public behavior in the wake of this personal violation. Your position is that anyone who doesn't arrive at this place of genteel suffering obviously didn't originate from the same place of personal tragedy as the rape victims YOU know, so they're probably lying. Your position is exceptionally clear and void of nuanced understanding...hence why I don't believe it can go unaddressed. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with us....even though both Audrey and myself explained quite clearly (her moreso than me...je m'excuse) how very wrong your interpretation was based on actual, real-life experiences with sexual assault. Rape is often a gray area and the emotional fallout in the aftermath is more muddy than you seem to believe possible. Trying to communicate casually and even sexily with your rapist doesn't make you a "fucking lunatic," it makes you someone trying to control the narrative while your brain is scrambling to process. Carrying a mattress around as a visual aid to those who don't understand the weight of sexual assault doesn't make you a "fucking lunatic," it makes you a young performance artist (actually, I could totally see Marina Abramovich doing this so this might not be a great example of a young/old performance artist thing). And performing in a pornographic reenactment of your rape definitely doesn't make you a "fucking lunatic," especially when so many people have doubted and questioned her narrative that she felt obligated to silence those critics by showing them precisely how her sexual assault happened. Let's not even talk about all the people who purposefully reenact their rapes or childhood molestations with their partners because it's therapeutic, since you might think their healing process makes them "fucking lunatics" too. You can totally think her method of coping is weird, that's a fair assessment. But looking at all the evidence presented and still choosing to disbelieve her because of an outdated belief in how "real victims" act? Nope, not super compelling or even well-reasoned. If you want to poke holes in her timeline, or talk about how she didn't meet certain legal standards...okay, whatever. You can totally even judge her for not being a "good" victim, even though that's shitty and you would be a fucking terrible person for doing so. But outright disbelief? Just because she doesn't fit your mold? That's unintelligent and not really representative of your rational thinking skills as a mostly-reasonable adult. Offended? Mostly disappointed. A+ troll attempt though, do go on.