# 20/20 The Bruce Jenner interview



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I'm surprised there's not a thread yet. I applaud him, I could only imagine how difficult it would be for the average Joe to come out, add fame and I'm sure that significantly multiplies it. I wish Bruce all the happiness in the world.


----------



## Sixto (Sep 16, 2005)

Me too.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

It's difficult enough for private citizen transgender people to deal with everything, but for somebody who has been in the public eye for decades it has to be monumentally more complex and difficult. Unfortunately for him at this point, there was no way to do this privately so I say - good for him, taking the reins and dealing with a public 'coming out'.

I've heard some (willfully ignorant) people say 'why doesn't he just do it in private?'. To them I would have to say - Uh, did you just arrive on this planet?

I haven't finished watching yet but I've enjoyed what I've watched so far and he really looks great right now!


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

The interview definitely made me look at him in a different light. I always found him to be kind of annoying on the show, but I truly feel for him knowing the internal struggle he has gone through his whole life. It's hard enough for anyone to transition. I can't imagine doing it while under the scrutiny of all those paparazzi. Hopefully, he will find happiness.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

There was no thread because no one cares....


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i wish him the best as his journey continues and he further explores his true identity, i'm sure the sharing of his story positively impacted many lives.

the revelation of political leanings also explained a lot, no wonder he's 65 and only now fully accepting himself for who he really is. i'm less surprised by his journey knowing hes observed fellow conservatives publicly lash out in judgment towards lgbt people, while using religious beliefs as cover - this couldn't have helped.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> There was no thread because no one cares....


Except for the 16.9 million that tuned in.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

JFriday said:


> Except for the 16.9 million that tuned in.


They're all the ones that read the supermarket tabloids. Nobody else cares. As far as I'm concerned, it's Jenner's life and he can do what he wants. It's not newsworthy, just tabloid gossip.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

dr. phil didn't seem to understand why the interview was important to so many, he shared his thoughts when jimmy kimmel asked if he wished he'd gotten it over diane sawyer:



> "It would be boring to talk to me about that,"..."First off, I would say, 'Look. If it's what you want to do, do it!"..."'What the hell's it matter what anybody else thinks?' That would be my first point."..."That would be the first 30 seconds [of the interview]."
> 
> While Dr. Phil referred to Jenner as a "hell of a nice guy," he said he wasn't sure what else he and the Keeping Up with the Kardashians patriarch would talk about for the remainder of the two-hour interview.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

sharkster said:


> It's difficult enough for private citizen transgender people to deal with everything, but for somebody who has been in the public eye for decades it has to be monumentally more complex and difficult. Unfortunately for him at this point, there was no way to do this privately so I say - good for him, taking the reins and dealing with a public 'coming out'.
> 
> I've heard some (willfully ignorant) people say 'why doesn't he just do it in private?'. To them I would have to say - Uh, did you just arrive on this planet?
> 
> I haven't finished watching yet but I've enjoyed what I've watched so far and he really looks great right now!


Thanks, Sharkster. You have stated my feelings much better than I would. I have a newfound respect for the guy. I'm happy I haven't had the identity problem he has, but I think he has handled it amazingly well. And I learned a lot from the show.
I wish him luck and love and all that's good.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

sharkster said:


> It's difficult enough for private citizen transgender people to deal with everything, but for somebody who has been in the public eye for decades it has to be monumentally more complex and difficult. Unfortunately for him at this point, there was no way to do this privately so I say - good for him, taking the reins and dealing with a public 'coming out'.


Haven't finished the entire show, but this is how I feel.
I have nothing but compassion for people in this situation, and that to the tenth power for celebs that have to do it under a microscope.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> dr. phil didn't seem to understand why the interview was important to so many, he shared his thoughts when jimmy kimmel asked if he wished he'd gotten it over diane sawyer:
> 
> ​"It would be boring to talk to me about that,"..."First off, I would say, 'Look. If it's what you want to do, do it!"..."'What the hell's it matter what anybody else thinks?' That would be my first point."..."That would be the first 30 seconds [of the interview]."
> 
> While Dr. Phil referred to Jenner as a "hell of a nice guy," he said he wasn't sure what else he and the Keeping Up with the Kardashians patriarch would talk about for the remainder of the two-hour interview.


Yeah, hasn't Phil transitioned to a more and more despicable POS this year. His new mantra is "how hateful can I be" and "how much can I milk this for and get extra money for my poor family." He excels in Honey Boo-Boo family and Mama Lohan, so Bruce Jenner is above Phil's pay-grade.

And his comment shows how jealous he really is because he didn't get it, knowing that truly reputable people don't want Phil's exploitation.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I'm sure that I would have cared about Bruce Jenner and her struggles if she were still known for being the Olympic champ instead of having hitched her fame wagon to some celebutard porn star donkey to play a supporting role in a train wreck freakshow for people who find the Jersey Shore too highbrow.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> Haven't finished the entire show, but this is how I feel.
> I have nothing but compassion for people in this situation, and that to the tenth power for celebs that have to do it under a microscope.


What Cearbhaill said. 100%. Everyone deserves the right to be who their true selves, whatever that may be.

I feel compelled to mention that the part that was uncomfortable to watch was how very NON-open-minded he (as he requested to be called in the interview) is about anyone who doesn't fit his idea of fitness or body shape.

tta


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> I'm sure that I would have cared about Bruce Jenner and her struggles if she were still known for being the Olympic champ instead of having hitched her fame wagon to some celebutard porn star donkey to play a supporting role in a train wreck freakshow for people who find the Jersey Shore too highbrow.


I agree with how you feel about the Kardashians but he didn't hitch his wagon to them. He married the mom when the were young kids. As much as they are fame whores, he has shown himself to be be a loving person to all their kids. He always seemed like a decent person. I don't think I can say the same for his ex.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

JFriday said:


> Except for the 16.9 million that tuned in.


Clear evidence of the stupidity of the masses. To quote an esteemed television reviewer --

_*"Jenner and his story have become part of the soul-sucking, attention grabbing Kardashian Death Star. That enterprise is perfectly suited to the form of click-bait "journalism" of the Web and social media. But devoting two hours of TV "news" to the subject is beyond pathetic. Sawyer is an accomplished television journalist with a very long resume. She simply looks sad chasing this manufactured and trite story that's much better suited to a media (sic) that services shorter attention spans. Rather than host this interview, she should have retired, or at least faced up to a sad reality: When two hours with Bruce Jenner is considered "news," it's time to get of the news business -- or help change it."*_



mr.unnatural said:


> They're all the ones that read the supermarket tabloids. Nobody else cares. As far as I'm concerned, it's Jenner's life and he can do what he wants. It's not newsworthy, just tabloid gossip.


This -- a million times this....


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

as mentioned in the interview, bruce was desperately needing the money, so i can see why he was tempted and agreed to participate the in the kardashian reality mess, but it's my impression his role on the show was minimal. admittedly, i know very little about them, i've never purposely sought to watch any kardashian or jenner on tv, and generally ffwd through anything to do with them (no interest in reality tv fame seekers).

now that he has his own reality show in the works (documenting his transition), responsibility will fall fully on him - i'll still wait before passing judgment, though.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Just watched the interview today. It takes a lot of guts to do that on TV. And more power to him. 

My daughter's boyfriend has a sister/brother that is transitioning - he has now changed his name and is living as a boy. He's still in high school. I only hope that with more awareness, especially with Jenner's interview, the world can be a little more accepting.

And I think that is what Jenner hoped to do - make it easier on all the people in the future that are going through this.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I have never seen the Kardashian reality show but I watched about 30 minutes of this interview, enough to form my opinion that Bruce is a really nice person. My lack of understanding about how a man can be married three times, have 6 children, claim he has always felt he was a woman, then convert to a woman in his mid '60s remains. If it makes sense to his children, that is good enough for me.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

All this because he came out as a Republican?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I thought it was a wonderful interview. Learned a lot about him. He struggled with this for a long long time. Before the Olympics. After. He had already told wives about it. He was on hormones in the 1980s. I'm glad he's finally able out and open with who he is and make the needed transition.


So long, Bruce. It was good to "know" you. Looking forward to "meeting" her soon.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

busyba said:


> I'm sure that I would have cared about Bruce Jenner and her struggles if she were still known for being the Olympic champ instead of having hitched her fame wagon to some celebutard porn star donkey to play a supporting role in a train wreck freakshow for people who find the Jersey Shore too highbrow.


Like the other poster said, this doesn't even make sense.  If Kim is the "celebutard porn star donkey", he married her mom in 1991, long before reality tv was really a thing and she (Kim) was 10 years old. Certainly not a "porn star" yet.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

It's a generation gap thing.


Older people know him as the Olympic athlete that won a gold medal in the Decathlon


Young people know him as a guy on Keeping up with the Kardashians.


Me? I'm old.

So, even with the Kardashian Konnection, Bruce is still the athlete guy to me.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> It's a generation gap thing.
> 
> Older people know him as the Olympic athlete that won a gold medal in the Decathlon
> 
> ...


And I know him mostly from this joke in the background of Mad Magazines parody of the "Hulk" TV show. Though I confess, the joke has a different tone now.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> They're all the ones that read the supermarket tabloids. Nobody else cares. As far as I'm concerned, it's Jenner's life and he can do what he wants. It's not newsworthy, just tabloid gossip.


Not necessarily. I watched it and I don't read tabloids. I know people who watch it because they have a trans person in their life or who are curious about the increasing visibility of the transgender rights movement. Overall it was a good interview and I think Diane Sawyer mostly did a good job.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I thought it was interesting that Bruce said Kim became much more accepting of the idea after talking to Kanye about it. Kanye has always seemed to me like nothing more than a narcissistic a**hole. So I was surprised to hear that something "good" came from him. 

I found it telling that all his older children were happy to participate in the interview and show their support, but the ones who have their own show apparently found it more important to preserve their images for their own show they can profit from rather than appearing on a "news" program where they probably wouldn't be compensated.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> *as mentioned in the interview, bruce was desperately needing the money, so i can see why he was tempted and agreed to participate the in the kardashian reality mess*, but it's my impression his role on the show was minimal. admittedly, i know very little about them, i've never purposely sought to watch any kardashian or jenner on tv, and generally ffwd through anything to do with them (no interest in reality tv fame seekers).


I think you've got this wrong. He said his income was falling in the late 80s. He married Kris Kardashian in 1991. She helped him revitalize his name and market himself throughout the 90s. "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" didn't start until 2007.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i very well could be wrong, i was going by how i remembered it being framed in the interview, if i get a chance i'll go back and look again.

but still, looking at it from your perspective, did any rebranding, decades after the olympics, compare to the money earned with the reality show?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i very well could be wrong, i was going by how i remembered it being framed in the interview, if i get a chance i'll go back and look again.
> 
> but still, looking at it from your perspective, did any rebranding, decades after the olympics, compare to the money earned with the reality show?


Of course not, but I don't get why that matters. It's not like he joined the family to capitalize on their fame/money. He was part of the family for 16 years before the TV show started. The fact that the TV show has made them all mega-wealthy is totally irrelevant (unless you're trying to say that he should have prevented Kris and the girls from making the TV show).


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course not, but I don't get why that matters.


i never even hinted that it was the reason for the marriage or he was using his family for fame, where did that come from? i was attributing the lure of the money to his agreeing to participate in the show, nothing more. you're reading way more into my comment than was intended (or said).


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Raj said:


> Not necessarily. I watched it and I don't read tabloids.


That doesn't mean you don't peek at them in the checkout line.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> That doesn't mean you don't peek at them in the checkout line.


Well to be totally fair I had a specific reason for watching. But yeah I just look at the headlines in disgust. The way they've treated him/her is really appalling. I think that is a total contrast to Dianne Sawyer who was pretty respectful while asking things that I'm sure people wanted to know, such as how sexual orientation and gender are not one and the same, how did the spouses feel etc.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Admittedly, I didn't watch the interview, because I can't stand Diane Sawyer's style. But, I did see excerpts on the news.

From what I gather, he still has all his "boy parts", wants to be called he, and is still attracted to women.

He still sounds confused to me.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Watch the whole thing

You'll learn that She will come out [full time] soon. And there won't be a Bruce anymore. Supposedly, that's happening soon. A name was not revealed, but it seems there is one. I believe there aren't current plans for surgery to change genitalia.

I don't think he's confused. Gender identity and who you attracted to are totally separate things.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I watched (and sincerely enjoyed) part 2.

It seems Comcast On Demand put up Part 2 twice!
Who can I call about this? <grin>
I was so glad I found it on On Demand, cause the DVR did not record it. Watched the whole 52 minutes, only to realize much was missing -of course! Part 1.


----------



## ngsmith (Jan 18, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Watch the whole thing
> 
> You'll learn that She will come out [full time] soon. And there won't be a Bruce anymore. Supposedly, that's happening soon. A name was not revealed, but it seems there is one. I believe there aren't current plans for surgery to change genitalia.
> 
> I don't think he's confused. Gender identity and who you attracted to are totally separate things.


Actually, I think you missed a statement from Jenner. She said she already had the two medical referral letters, and that she was "way ahead of you" (or words to that effect). Those are generally needed for genital surgery in the US. Other countries have different requirements.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Admittedly, I didn't watch the interview, because I can't stand Diane Sawyer's style. But, I did see excerpts on the news.
> 
> From what I gather, he still has all his "boy parts", wants to be called he, and is still attracted to women.
> 
> He still sounds confused to me.


A lot of transgender people don't get "the surgery" for whatever reason. Some for medical reasons, some just don't want surgery. It is major, risky, painful surgery. But he did say that sex reassignment surgery is down the road.

You cannot just wake up one day, fly to Thailand (or wherever) and get surgery. It doesn't work that way. Nearly all of the sex reassignment surgeons follow a set of standards called the WPATH standard of care. He explained that you need a year of experience living in the role (referred to as real life experience) before you're even allowed surgery. This is part of the WPATH standard of care. It is to help ensure that before you do something irreversible that you know what you're getting into. You also need sign offs from two mental health professionals, one has to be a psychiatrist or psychologist, the other can be a therapist/clinical social worker. Jenner said that he has the sign offs.

So there really is no choice but for him to be referred to as "she" if s/he wants to get surgery. You have to live the role. You have to present as a woman, not simply as a man in a dress. It is much deeper than just wearing clothes. It is your entire identity.

There are people who start the process then realize it's not all it's cracked up to be. They can get off the hormones and detransition back to their birth gender. But once you have had surgery that's pretty much it. So some level of gatekeeping is in necessary.

The other things were explained. He's being called "he" now for this interview and will fully come out at a later date (likely as part of the E! series). I think basically this was to control the tabloids. Remember this is Bruce Jenner we are talking about, not you or me who nobody really knows.

Being attracted to women is not uncommon. A lot of women born as woman are attracted to women. Same with trans women: So they are lesbians more or less. A lot of trans men are still attracted to men so they are essentially gay men. He did leave the possibility open to be with a man.

Nothing confused about it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i know this is a dangerous question, and it isn't asked to be confrontational, but it hasn't been discussed, so here it goes...

does anyone believe the diane sawyer interview was granted (at least in part) to help promote the launch of his new reality series, like movie stars grant interviews to different talk shows to promote their new movies?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Disclaimer: I've seen the bits of the interview that have aired on the news, but I didn't watch the whole interview (I can't stand Diane Sawyer anymore).



NorthAlabama said:


> i know this is a dangerous question, and it isn't asked to be confrontational, but it hasn't been discussed, so here it goes...
> 
> does anyone believe the diane sawyer interview was granted (at least in part) to help promote the launch of his new reality series, like movie stars grant interviews to different talk shows to promote their new movies?


Maybe it was, but so what?

If Bruce's coming-out interview and his new reality show end up helping people in the trans community, then I don't care how self-serving it is.

Bruce doesn't need to justify himself to me. It's his life. Let him do his thing and be happy, whatever that turns out to be.

Edited to add: I used "he" because that's the pronoun Bruce said to use right now. It's his choice.


----------



## Chapper1 (Jan 2, 2004)

I think part of it was for that purpose. I don't think there are many celebrities who do anything without wanting some level of publicity for it.

But, I think the overwhelming goal was to try and put an end to all of the speculation as she has dropped out of the public eye to continue the more major parts of the transition. She said numerous times that she wasn't trying to be a spokesperson for this community, but I suspect she hopes her story will give others in this situation some strength to keep fighting.

It was said a couple of times that the interviews took place a couple of months ago, before the car accident in early February. 

I wish her well in this process. I can't imagine just how difficult her life was up until this point and what she is going through now. I hope that when she emerges, she will finally be able to be comfortable with life.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

sgsmith said:


> Actually, I think you missed a statement from Jenner. She said she already had the two medical referral letters, and that she was "way ahead of you" (or words to that effect). Those are generally needed for genital surgery in the US. Other countries have different requirements.


I remember something about the referrals. But for some reason, I had thought Bruce had said he still wasn't sure and didn't have specific plans for that surgery at that time.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I've always liked him since iwas a kid and always thought his family treated him like crap, as far as one can tell from a TV show.

I sort of didn't want to watch this and feed in to the media thing, but my curiosity prevailed.

What a genuine and nice person. I hope he's OK and this goes as smoothly for as is possible.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I wish there were a way to thumbs up all of your comments, because I agree with you all and appreciate that you have so much insight.

I don't have anything to add except

:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up:
(I am only allowed to enter 8 thumbs up).


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

In the little bits of Keeping up with the Kardashians I saw, Bruce was usually being marginalized. Usually, by Kris. But now, really, some of what we saw all adds up now. When he moved out to get his own place, while still being married, that now really seems to be a part of the transition. At the time, it really looked like Kris was kicking him out. Maybe it wasn't exactly like that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i never even hinted that it was the reason for the marriage or he was using his family for fame, where did that come from? i was attributing the lure of the money to his agreeing to participate in the show, nothing more. you're reading way more into my comment than was intended (or said).


Then I'm not sure what you meant by this:



NorthAlabama said:


> bruce was desperately needing the money, so i can see why he was tempted and agreed to participate the in the kardashian reality mess


By the time the family had the opportunity to do the TV show, he had been part of the family for sixteen years, and based on the way the roles are depicted on the Kardashian show, I don't think Bruce had much choice about whether he could agree to participate or not. Kris and the girls were going to capitalize on their fame regardless of what he thought. He largely steers clear of the limelight, and now after seeing this interview, I understand why.



NorthAlabama said:


> i know this is a dangerous question, and it isn't asked to be confrontational, but it hasn't been discussed, so here it goes...
> 
> does anyone believe the diane sawyer interview was granted (at least in part) to help promote the launch of his new reality series, like movie stars grant interviews to different talk shows to promote their new movies?


I'm sure this interview didn't hurt in that regard, but if that were the primary reason, the interview would have been a week or two before the documentary series premieres, not several months before. Besides, ABC News has no stake in the documentary show, so why would they agree to participate in something that's purely for promotional purposes?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> i know this is a dangerous question, and it isn't asked to be confrontational, but it hasn't been discussed, so here it goes...
> 
> does anyone believe the diane sawyer interview was granted (at least in part) to help promote the launch of his new reality series, like movie stars grant interviews to different talk shows to promote their new movies?


You know what, I wondered this myself.

I am going to have to go with no.

First, he went to a competing network. I believe there was internal strife within NBCUniversal about it (E! is a NBCUniversal property).

Secondly, Jenner seemed genuine and almost embarrassed to be on there. You could tell Jenner was a bit nervous. Coming out for a trans person is a very personal and nerve wracking thing. Even worse is doing it on national TV.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> So long, Bruce. It was good to "know" you. Looking forward to "meeting" her soon.





jsmeeker said:


> ... She will come out [full time] soon. And there won't be a Bruce anymore. Supposedly, that's happening soon. A name was not revealed, but it seems there is one.


I'm gonna predict Bruce's new name when she reemerges: *Jenny Bruce*. You read it here first folks! 



NorthAlabama said:


> does anyone believe the diane sawyer interview was granted (at least in part) to help promote the launch of his new reality series, like movie stars grant interviews to different talk shows to promote their new movie


Sure, why not? But since he has been tormented by this since he was 7 or 8, and attempted hormone therapy about 35 years ago before losing his nerve, he gets a pass. The time is right ... in progressive thinking and in his level of maturity to handle it.

Note: I'm still referring to him as "he" since he addressed that in the interview. That'll change when SHE (i.e., Jenny Bruce) emerges in public.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Then I'm not sure what you meant by this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it was an overall response to comments questioning his motivation for participating in the family reality show, especially in light of how he was treated - was he seeking personal fame and attention?

based on the interview comments about hardship, i figured it might have boiled down to something much simpler...the money, and how it would help the family, not his personal desire to seek fame or publicity. sure, things had been getting better since the 80s, but the reality show made a big difference.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Where can I see the whole 2 hour interview?


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

Cearbhaill said:


> I have nothing but compassion for people in this situation


This is my position too. What a terrible thing for a person to feel their body is all wrong.

Years ago I had a friend who was transitioning, and it clearly was a central source of agony in her life.

Compassion is the keystone of civilization, it should be held in high regard.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

jilter said:


> Where can I see the whole 2 hour interview?


http://abc.go.com/shows/2020/listing/2015-04/24-bruce-jenner-the-interview


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

jilter said:


> Where can I see the whole 2 hour interview?


abc's website:

http://abc.go.com/shows/2020/listing/2015-04/24-bruce-jenner-the-interview​
eta: looks like i was a couple of hours late on that post!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JFriday said:


> Except for the 16.9 million that tuned in.


People like watching a train wreck?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

There's no accounting for taste.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I thought it was a very interesting interview. I hope all those comedians who have been making fun of him are proud of themselves. I also wonder if what were assumed to be botched plastic surgeries were really part of his transition and weren't botched at all?

I do find it interesting that he doesn't yet want to be called she. Especially since he says he has the signed recommendations for the sex change operation if he decides to get it.

I think he's really worried about how this is impacting his family. I had read he was having a crew film/document his transition, but that he has full rights over what/when/how or even if it is ever shown.

I also found it interesting that they stressed in the show that gender identity and sexual orientation are different things. I've never heard that before, but it certainly makes sense given that so many people are married to someone of the opposite sex before they transition.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Look....agree with the guy or not, but there is no denying that in the vast patchwork of humanity, there are people out there just like him. 

Historically, these people have been ridiculed and shunned by society, which probably accounts for a big part of that crazy high suicide statistic that was given. What was it....40 -something percent of transgender people actually ATTEMPT suicide? Not consider it. Not think about it. Attempt it. 

If you have a high profile guy like him.....an elite athlete......who is brave enough to come out and give an honest dialog about this subject in hopes that it will help others like him, then more power to him.

I have never watched any of the Kardashian things on TV, nor do I plan to start, but I did find him to be honest, forthright and willing to openly talk about something that potentially can help others. I didn't think I cared anything about watching the interview and actually told my friend that I was going to tune in for a bit, but I could not imagine anything Bruce Jenner had to say that I would want to hear for 2 hours.

I was very wrong. I watched the whole thing and I can honestly say that I feel that I now have a better understanding of what transgender people go through. I just don't see the negative to this. I wish he and his family well.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I posted earlier that I hoped Jenner's interview would help the community. In the interest of fairness, here's another opinion saying this interview may not be so helpful:

Trans people need an icon. But Bruce Jenner is the worst possible choice.



> So far, Jenners transition has served only to strengthen existing stereotypes of the trans community. Everything about the Kardashian familys public image centers around shock and dysfunction  the very image the trans people are trying to shed. To be a true idol for the transgender movement, Jenner will need to break with her reality-TV image and acknowledge the struggles of all transgender people. She needs to put the interests of the community above the interests of the Kardashian brand. Jenner is, after all, a champion  and a champion is exactly what the movement needs.


I suppose at some point I'm going to have to watch the interview, but I'm not looking forward to 2 hours of Diane Sawyer's earnestness. Ugh.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I think calling him the worst possible choice is extremely narrow minded in that it marginalizes his experience and shows the same lack of compassion and understanding that people living this life need to be free of


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

I haven't seen the interview. I'm under 40, have never seen any TV show having to do with the Kardashians, and know of Bruce Jenner being a former Olympic decathlon gold medal winner.

However, now after reading this thread, I wish I had recorded it at least.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

murgatroyd said:


> I suppose at some point I'm going to have to watch the interview, but I'm not looking forward to 2 hours of Diane Sawyer's earnestness. Ugh.


i'm not particularly a diane sawyer fan, my experience was the first hour went quickly, and once i'd made it to the halfway point, the second hour wasn't a big deal.

overall impressions of the interview did leave me feeling as if the better interactions were purposely drawn out in order to make it last the full two hours.


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

murgatroyd said:


> I posted earlier that I hoped Jenner's interview would help the community. In the interest of fairness, here's another opinion saying this interview may not be so helpful:
> 
> Trans people need an icon. But Bruce Jenner is the worst possible choice.
> 
> I suppose at some point I'm going to have to watch the interview, but I'm not looking forward to 2 hours of Diane Sawyer's earnestness. Ugh.


I TIVOed it the other night - and we watched it last night. I was actually much better than I had expected. Tastefully done.

Transgendered folks have been popping up on TV since Christine Jorgensen, Rene Richards and the various folk Phil Donohue introduced us to so many years ago. Yet for some folks this is all "news stuff" and worthy of kneejerk reactions. I've had friends who went this path since the mid-70s - its not an easy path, its expensive, and tough enough with the usual snark in grocery stores and daily life. I can't even imagine the strength it takes to do something like that for a nationally known athlete. Add in religious feelings and a conservative background as even more to overcome.

Looks like Bruce (only name I know to use so far) is doing as well as possible for someone tall (6'2in), starting so late in life (65) ...

And about the Washington Post article from an "Inside Edition" staff "reporter". Understand that Zooey, the person who wrote that article in the WaPo is a newly minted trans-person that didn't see fit to even mention her own background in the article. She is also quite busy trying to become a trans spokes-person herself - so her motives are in question.

How can I even respond to the dichotomy of nearly back to back sentence like this in her article:

Jenner has already shown that her public transition is more about promoting herself than promoting the transgender community.

Though she had a major platform in her reality television show and celebrity, Jenner stayed quiet, leaving her transition in the hands of the media.

Jenner is, after all, a champion  and a champion is exactly what the movement needs.

=================
As near as I can tell, Zooey hadn't even seen the show at the time she did her "review" or article or whatever it is, so she is merely speculating that it was more Kardashian grandstanding. From actually watching the interview, I did not think it was, other than Bruce being quite proud and protective of the various children and grandchildren.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I do find it interesting that he doesn't yet want to be called she. Especially since he says he has the signed recommendations for the sex change operation if he decides to get it.


Even if there is never surgery, Bruce is still transgendered and can still live as and identify as a woman. Not every transgendered person goes through with surgery to change genitalia


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

Somewhere I read that she will rename to Heather. Not sure where I read it I think it is something he talked to one of his ex wifes about. 

I wish her luck. I couldnt ever imagine what it is like and Im sure this has torn her heart for many many years. It will be nice for her not to live a lie anymore.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> Even if there is never surgery, Bruce is still transgendered and can still live as and identify as a woman. Not every transgendered person goes through with surgery to change genitalia


Understood. I just found it interesting that he far enough along in the transition that he has the approvals, which I understand takes some time to get, yet he doesn't yet want to be called she.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Jstkiddn said:


> I have never watched any of the Kardashian things on TV, nor do I plan to start, but I did find him to be honest, forthright and willing to openly talk about something that potentially can help others. I didn't think I cared anything about watching the interview and actually told my friend that I was going to tune in for a bit, but I could not imagine anything Bruce Jenner had to say that I would want to hear for 2 hours.
> 
> I was very wrong. I watched the whole thing and I can honestly say that I feel that I now have a better understanding of what transgender people go through. I just don't see the negative to this. I wish he and his family well.


This. Until recently, I didn't even know what a Kardashian was. 
I do feel for anyone struggling with these things and thankful for not personally having those issues. (There, but for the grace of God....)
I tried to watch it On Demand a couple of days ago but the app wouldn't work. I'll probably give it another shot. I hope the exposé helps him and his loved ones.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Understood. I just found it interesting that he far enough along in the transition that he has the approvals, which I understand takes some time to get, yet he doesn't yet want to be called she.


the approvals are for the surgery. Bruce can become "she" whenever. That doesn't need approval. But right now, he isn't quite ready to be Her full time all the time. That will happen soon, apparently. And it will happen before any surgery happens. If it ever does.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Given the environment I felt sure her name would begin with a K.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I feel bad for him (her?) and the struggles that have gone on for all those years. That and the poor guy is gonna be one high profile and unattractive older "lady" from here on out.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Given the environment I felt sure her name would begin with a K.


Kiki?


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

He should just add an "ine" to his current name. I know a woman named Brucine. Nice lady.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Speaking of news stories on transgendered people, did anyone else catch any of NBC's series of stories last week on transgendered children? YOUNG children. Not teenagers. But kids that were like 5 or 6.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

jsmeeker said:


> Speaking of news stories on transgendered people, did anyone else catch any of NBC's series of stories last week on transgendered children? YOUNG children. Not teenagers. But kids that were like 5 or 6.


you mean the ones that aired on nbc nightly news, then repeated on today, msnbc, cnbc, usa, bravo, e!, and oxygen? (ok, i'm joking about the last 5)

kidding aside, it was the best work i've seen from kate snow, only wish they had been more in-depth, very remarkable parents (i think the kids ages were 4 & 8). maybe we'll see more if they air on dateline...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> you mean the ones that aired on nbc nightly news, then repeated on today, msnbc, cnbc, usa, bravo, e!, and oxygen? (ok, i'm joking about the last 5)
> 
> kidding aside, it was the best work i've seen from kate snow, only wish they had been more in-depth, very remarkable parents (i think the kids ages were 4 & 8). maybe we'll see more if they air on dateline...


Yeah.

Of course, I only saw it on main NBC nightly news and Today.

And I agree about the pieces. Very well done. I would have never ever thought a 5 year old would be able to genuinely identify as a different gender. But there it was.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Understood. I just found it interesting that he far enough along in the transition that he has the approvals, which I understand takes some time to get, yet he doesn't yet want to be called she.


Can you imagine the media circus when he tells everyone the new name and goes out in public as the woman formally known as Bruce Jenner?

I imagine he wants to keep it on the down low. As he said, he's been out in the public and no one ever knew. So, for all we know, he spends 99% of his time as a woman now, but goes out as a man to keep the paparazzi at bay.

He did say that this was the last interview as Bruce. So he may be living a very private life as a woman right now.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Not likely since he's filming a show about his transition


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I posted earlier that I hoped Jenner's interview would help the community. In the interest of fairness, here's another opinion saying this interview may not be so helpful:
> 
> Trans people need an icon. But Bruce Jenner is the worst possible choice.
> 
> I suppose at some point I'm going to have to watch the interview, but I'm not looking forward to 2 hours of Diane Sawyer's earnestness. Ugh.


The feedback I get from the trans community is overwhelmingly positive.

That said, they are not all one big happy family. There are people who disagree with a lot of things. Transgender people are diverse as society itself, perhaps even more so where you have people with varying degrees of being "out."


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Understood. I just found it interesting that he far enough along in the transition that he has the approvals, which I understand takes some time to get, yet he doesn't yet want to be called she.


It takes a year. That's really not a long time. I know people who have had SRS in less than a year so that year is not really a strict rule.

I suspect not wanting to be called "she" in this particular interview is to control the gossip.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Speaking of news stories on transgendered people, did anyone else catch any of NBC's series of stories last week on transgendered children? YOUNG children. Not teenagers. But kids that were like 5 or 6.


Many if not most trans people knew something was different by 4-5 years old. How they deal with it determines what age they end up transitioning, if at all.

Look up Kim Petras and Jazz Jennings who are two of the more famous ones.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Raj said:


> It takes a year. That's really not a long time. I know people who have had SRS in less than a year so that year is not really a strict rule.
> 
> I suspect not wanting to be called "she" in this particular interview is to control the gossip.


Given that he's 65 and has been going through this for decades, I guess 1 year really isn't that long in the grand scheme of things.  I hope he is able to introduce the public to she when he decides to do so and not because of some sneaky paparazzi photos.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Diane Sawyer went out to dinner with her. I presume it was in an actual restaurant. 

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that nothing has leaked.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Diane Sawyer went out to dinner with her. I presume it was in an actual restaurant.
> 
> Honestly, I'm a little surprised that nothing has leaked.


I got the impression they at at his house. I could be wrong though.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JFriday said:


> I got the impression they at at his house. I could be wrong though.


Yes, the interview was at his house. Toward the end of the interview, they walked down the hall to the bedroom and Bruce showed Diane a dress from his closet.

But I think they said that Diane and "her" were going to go out to dinner shortly after the interview.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

I didn't get the impression they were going out for dinner, they could have had dinner at the house.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

dthmj said:


> I didn't get the impression they were going out for dinner, they could have had dinner at the house.


Same here


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I thought he had invited her to his house for a dinner party.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

busyba said:


> I'm sure that I would have cared about Bruce Jenner and her struggles if she were still known for being the Olympic champ instead of *having hitched her fame wagon to some celebutard porn star donkey to play a supporting role in a train wreck freakshow for people who find the Jersey Shore too highbrow.*


Oh, so that explains it. I don't pay attention to ANY of that crap, so much so that I had no idea he was in on any of that. And here I was scratching my head, wondering why so many people actually gave a crap about some Olympic athlete from 40 years ago. That explains it...they DONT give a crap about the athlete...just the "reality" TV star. Mystery solved. Thanks.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Wow that was even more cynical than the post you quoted.

Disregarding the assumption that anyone only cares about him because of his very small presence on a very popular show, I submit that any exposure that helps humans care more about each other and learn more about the difficult challenges they face is probably good.

Bruce Jenner is still the same Olympic Champ. Just because you forgot about him doesn't mean everyone else did.


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

Apparently #PaintYourNailsForBruce is a thing in Australia now, and catching on world wide.

I think it's kind of cute, guys (and girls) painting their nails to show support for Bruce.  Hopefully it will make him feel a bit more supported in his choice.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bradesposito/paint-your-nails-for-bruce#.iaPYV5Okyw


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Joules1111 said:


> Apparently #PaintYourNailsForBruce is a thing in Australia now, and catching on world wide.
> 
> I think it's kind of cute, guys (and girls) painting their nails to show support for Bruce.  Hopefully it will make him feel a bit more supported in his choice.
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/bradesposito/paint-your-nails-for-bruce#.iaPYV5Okyw


That's cool. I remember in the interview he was looking forward to being able to wear nail polish long enough for it to chip.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

Serious questions here. 

Once he goes through with the surgery and becomes a woman physically, is she then still considered a trans or simply a woman?

Also, he stated that he only likes women. So will she then be a lesbian after the surgery?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

He speaks to both points in the interview


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> He speaks to both points in the interview


Sort of.

I'm more interested in how these questions are addressed in the LGBT community.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Supfreak26 said:


> Sort of.
> 
> I'm more interested in how these questions are addressed in the LGBT community.


i've never known anyone to put their sexual orientation or gender self-identity up for popular vote by others.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> i've never known anyone to put their sexual orientation or gender self-identity up for popular vote by others.


ohhhh...

time for a poll.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> Serious questions here. Once he goes through with the surgery and becomes a woman physically, is she then still considered a trans or simply a woman? Also, he stated that he only likes women. So will she then be a lesbian after the surgery?





MonsterJoe said:


> He speaks to both points in the interview


I wasn't very satisfied with the non-answer on sexual preference and it seemed that Diane Sawyer wasn't satisfied either, as she brought it up again later in the interview. I understand Jenner's point that sexual identity and sexual preference are two completely separate things. But I don't see how that's an answer to the question about whether Jenner would be considered to be homosexual if s/he presents as a woman and is sexually attracted to women.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Supfreak26 said:


> Serious questions here.
> 
> Once he goes through with the surgery and becomes a woman physically, is she then still considered a trans or simply a woman?


That all depends on how narrow minded one is..Some states will grant F legal status without surgery, others require surgery, but if you ask someone who'd been through it the answer is usually they "have always been <targeted gender> inside" and I have to respect that.


Supfreak26 said:


> Also, he stated that he only likes women. So will she then be a lesbian after the surgery?


 I would imagine his answer is "it's complicated"
But then isn't all love that way?

Best quote I've heard come out of the discussions
"who you go to bed WITH is not directly tied to who you go to bed AS"


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> Serious questions here.
> 
> Once he goes through with the surgery and becomes a woman physically, is she then still considered a trans or simply a woman?
> 
> Also, he stated that he only likes women. So will she then be a lesbian after the surgery?


Those are all just labels. Labels only matter to those who need to separate people into categories.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

busyba said:


> Those are all just labels. Labels only matter to those who need to separate people into categories.


I agree...and I'll say that I really found myself questioning the whole idea of gender identity to begin with, as I was watching this. What is the point of it, other than just being a label?

If you have a penis you're supposed to act and dress a certain way...if you have a vagina, a different set of rules. Cross over the line too far and you are shamed and ridiculed. Why?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> I agree...and I'll say that I really found myself questioning the whole idea of gender identity to begin with, as I was watching this. What is the point of it, other than just being a label?


I have it on very good authority that it's crucial in deciding whether or not to be angry about someone being in the same public bathroom as you.

But that seems to be the extent of it.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Ya I wanted to try to work that in there but I didn't manage to.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

You're welcome.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

busyba said:


> I have it on very good authority that it's crucial in deciding whether or not to be angry about someone being in the same public bathroom as you.


something different must be going on with other people in public bathrooms than anything i've experienced - how does someone verify another's gender identity (without violating other laws in the process)?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> ... I understand Jenner's point that sexual identity and sexual preference are two completely separate things. But I don't see how that's an answer to the question about whether Jenner would be considered to be homosexual if s/he presents as a woman and is sexually attracted to women.


Is it more confusing or clear to consider that his XY chromosomes are attracted to another person's XX chromosomes? 

Personally, I was a male trapped inside a female's body ... until my mom gave birth to me! 

I never understood the fabricated controversy about which public washroom a transgendered (or transvestite) person uses. I don't interact with other people in a public washroom beyond a possible nod and "howdy" on my way entering or exiting, and only if we made brief eye contact. I am on a focused mission to do my business and get out as soon as possible -- after washing my hands, of course.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

MonsterJoe said:


> I agree...and I'll say that I really found myself questioning the whole idea of gender identity to begin with, as I was watching this. What is the point of it, other than just being a label?
> 
> If you have a penis you're supposed to act and dress a certain way...if you have a vagina, a different set of rules. Cross over the line too far and you are shamed and ridiculed. Why?


Historically it's because it's not the norm. And many people vilify, prosecute, slander, punish and ridicule those that don't fit into that norm. Especially when it "grosses them out" for whatever reason.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> They're all the ones that read the supermarket tabloids. Nobody else cares. As far as I'm concerned, it's Jenner's life and he can do what he wants. It's not newsworthy, just tabloid gossip.


Yep, this is what I think. This is all about people wanting to see a freakshow. I'm not saying Jenner is one, and he has every right to do what he wants, but it's one of those shows where people are tuning in to see something strange. ABC puts him on the air because of huge ratings, but really, is it anything more than that?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Yep, this is what I think. This is all about people wanting to see a freakshow. I'm not saying Jenner is one, and he has every right to do what he wants, but it's one of those shows where people are tuning in to see something strange. ABC puts him on the air because of huge ratings, but really, is it anything more than that?


This interview wasn't a freak show. And really, it wasn't all that strange.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> That all depends on how narrow minded one is..Some states will grant F legal status without surgery, others require surgery, but if you ask someone who'd been through it the answer is usually they "have always been <targeted gender> inside" and I have to respect that.
> I would imagine his answer is "it's complicated"
> But then isn't all love that way?
> 
> ...


I understand all of that. That's not what I was asking. Jenner wants to be considered female after the surgery. That's easy enough. I guess what I'm asking is if you are once a transgender, are you always a transgender? As this becomes more acceptable in our society, how will we look at this going forward?

Also, how will we view sexuality after the surgery? In Jenner's case, it makes sense that she would be considered a lesbian after the surgery.

These are confusing topics for the vast majority of people, including myself. I'm just trying to understand it all.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

busyba said:


> Those are all just labels. Labels only matter to those who need to separate people into categories.


Nonsense. "Male" and "female" aren't unnecessary labels. I might see your point with sexuality but you are way off when talking about gender.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

When a married transgender person achieves the transformation, and they live in a state without gay marriage, does their marriage cease to exist?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> Nonsense. "Male" and "female" aren't unnecessary labels. I might see your point with sexuality but you are way off when talking about gender.


But why? Other than determine if someone may be able to inseminate... or become pregnant, what purpose does it serve?

There is scientific purpose in identifying sex, but there is no practical purpose in attaching anything additional to it.

Would these challenges exist if one's identity wasn't arbitrarily assigned by society based on their reproductive organs?

I wonder how many tg would have reassignment surgery if that was not the case and people were just free to be who they were


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> Yep, this is what I think. This is all about people wanting to see a freakshow. I'm not saying Jenner is one, and he has every right to do what he wants, but it's one of those shows where people are tuning in to see something strange. ABC puts him on the air because of huge ratings, but really, is it anything more than that?


next you'll be suspicious of abc airing the interview during sweeps weeks solely for the ratings (April 23 - May 20)...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

busyba said:


> Those are all just labels. Labels only matter to those who need to separate people into categories.





MonsterJoe said:


> I agree...and I'll say that I really found myself questioning the whole idea of gender identity to begin with, as I was watching this. What is the point of it, other than just being a label?
> 
> If you have a penis you're supposed to act and dress a certain way...if you have a vagina, a different set of rules. Cross over the line too far and you are shamed and ridiculed. Why?





MonsterJoe said:


> But why? Other than determine if someone may be able to inseminate... or become pregnant, what purpose does it serve?
> 
> There is scientific purpose in identifying sex, but there is no practical purpose in attaching anything additional to it.
> 
> ...


Some cultures do have more than two genders. This discussion has focused on someone making the transition from M -> F but there are also people who consider themselves agender and don't identify strongly with either gender.

Sasha Fleischman is one such person, who got set on fire during a bus ride one day because they were wearing a skirt.

(Yes, 'they' has a long history as a singular pronoun, but no remembers that except language geeks like me.)

It's really sad how some people are so insecure about themselves that they can't bear the thought of other people being different. So Sasha prefers wearing skirts, or at least felt like wearing that skirt on that day. BIG DEAL. It's just _fabric_, FFS.

Shouldn't people be able to go about their daily lives for being beaten or set on fire for being different?

Don't we have more important things to worry about, like kids going hungry and our friends and family dying of cancer and other stuff?

Why does this stuff matter so much to people?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

That's the crux of the issue. The more I think about it, the less I understand why it is.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> next you'll be suspicious of abc airing the interview during *sweeps week* solely for the ratings *(April 23 - May 20)*...


I don't know which planet you came from, but here on Earth a week is just seven 24 hr. days.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> That's the crux of the issue. The more I think about it, the less I understand why it is.


If you study anthropology, you find out pretty quickly how arbitrary gender is.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Supfreak26 said:


> I understand all of that. That's not what I was asking. Jenner wants to be considered female after the surgery. That's easy enough. I guess what I'm asking is if you are once a transgender, are you always a transgender? As this becomes more acceptable in our society, how will we look at this going forward?
> 
> Also, how will we view sexuality after the surgery? In Jenner's case, it makes sense that she would be considered a lesbian after the surgery.
> 
> These are confusing topics for the vast majority of people, including myself. I'm just trying to understand it all.


I would imagine once you're transgender you always are.

He's maintained that he's attracted to women although he did waffle a little when asked by Diane. He's single let him mingle.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I know this is really about Bruce, but I am not a Diane Sawyer fan, yet I found her to be very good in this interview.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

JFriday said:


> I would imagine once you're transgender you always are.
> 
> He's maintained that he's attracted to women although he did waffle a little when asked by Diane. He's single let him mingle.


I must've missed that. I thought he clearly stated that he was only into women.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> But why? Other than determine if someone may be able to inseminate... or become pregnant, what purpose does it serve?
> 
> There is scientific purpose in identifying sex, but there is no practical purpose in attaching anything additional to it.
> 
> ...


Male and female can be used as descriptors much like skin color, hair color, height, weight, etc. That's probably the main reason we identify people by their sex. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Can be == should or must be?

That's what Im saying the problem is. Why do you need to know what somebody has between their legs? What functional purpose does it serve to identify people by their sex?


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

MonsterJoe said:


> What functional purpose does it serve to identify people by their sex?


For those people who are exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual, one reason to wish to know what is between their legs is to know if it's the kind they like.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

can you tell someone's sexual preference from the outside?

You could know someone has a vagina, and not know they aren't attracted to penises...so how did that help anything?


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Watch the whole thing
> 
> I don't think he's confused. Gender identity and who you attracted to are totally separate things.


Totally different things. I think the interview is important because it WILL help others who are going through, thinking about going through, having been through this transition.

As Rock Hudson and Magic Johnson helped people view people with AIDS differently, and with a bit more compassion, I'm hoping that this interview also helps others...both those in transition and others in society who want to understand it better and find ways to be more sensitive and supportive.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> Can be == should or must be?
> 
> That's what Im saying the problem is. Why do you need to know what somebody has between their legs? What functional purpose does it serve to identify people by their sex?


When you are describing a person to someone else we describe them as male or female almost 100% of the time. It's expected and completely acceptable.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> can you tell someone's sexual preference from the outside?
> 
> You could know someone has a vagina, and not know they aren't attracted to penises...so how did that help anything?


Not everyone with vaginas is attracted to penises. Not everyone with penises is attracted to vaginas.

Gender identity and sex have nothing to do with sexual orientation and attraction. That is only, usually, assumed to be the case if one is heterosexual (ie. penises prefer vaginas and vice versa, which we know isn't true if one is gay, lesbian, etc.).

Once he changes genders and is a woman.....if he prefers women, does that mean he is a 'lesbian'. Well, likely, but he will, technically, be a transwoman who prefers women. He would be the best judge of that. 
Just because he is becoming a woman does not mean he will then want to be with men.......that's a very heterosexist view of the world, to assume that.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

That was my point

You don't know someone's sexual preference, so what is the point in knowing outwardly that they have the reproductive organ you prefer?

The argument I am replying to is "people need to act like their sex so I can tell if I want them or not"

I think that is silly and am exploring why


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I guess it helps you know if you should even bother to try.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> That was my point
> 
> You don't know someone's sexual preference, so what is the point in knowing outwardly that they have the reproductive organ you prefer?
> 
> ...


Agree with you. What does "acting like your sex" mean, anyway?? Yikes....
I think your exploration is on target!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

getreal said:


> I don't know which planet you came from, but here on Earth a week is just seven 24 hr. days.


it only seemed longer due to smart alec posters - thanks for catching, error corrected.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Supfreak26 said:


> I must've missed that. I thought he clearly stated that he was only into women.


He did. I don't think you missed anything either. Bruce seemed to make that pretty clear. He's not gay. Unless, of course, it's saying something like "not that I know of". But I think that doesn't count as waffling. It's more of a joke.

But maybe both of us missed something?

PS: I'm not gay.

at least not that I am aware of.


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

MonsterJoe said:


> That was my point
> 
> You don't know someone's sexual preference, so what is the point in knowing outwardly that they have the reproductive organ you prefer?


Because if you learn they have the bits you do not find interesting you have narrowed the field.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Anybody remember "Tula", the Bond girl who was outed as Transgender many years ago? I remember reading an article from her (and she's XXXY, an unusual chromosome configuration) where she lamented that the laws considered her male even though she'd had the surgery, and specifically, if she were to be arrested, she'd be sent to a male prison.

There were court battles over this. In 1989 she was given the right to legally become a woman, but that was overturned on appeal in 1990. It wasn't until 2004 that it became legal to change your sex in Britain (according to Wikipedia).

These are issues that are things that most people never think about. But it seemed obvious to me that a transgender M-F should not be sent to a male prison, even back in the ancient days of 1989. 

Dan Bunten, the programmer who gave us the game M.U.L.E. (one of my all time favorite games) transitioned to become Dani Bunten. As Dani she wrote several articles I found fascinating. One of which stressed how difficult transition was, how most of her friends and family had abandoned her, and how she found that women were more accepting than men.

But the one that is relevant to this discussion is that she wrote about how she was only attracted to women, and fully expected that she would be a "lesbian" after her transition, only to find that a switch had thrown in her head and now she was attracted to men. She couldn't explain it, and she didn't really try, only marveled that it had happened. 

One statement she made that stuck with me was that she referred to the change as "becoming a flower, rather than a bee". I understood what she meant, but hadn't really seen it in that light before. 

I tried to find that article, but Google failed me. Much of what Dan/Dani said is only in the Wayback Machine now, but it's probably there somewhere and I'm just not finding it.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

JFriday said:


> I would imagine once you're transgender you always are.


"Transgender is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex." (Wikipedia)

I always assumed the 'trans' part in the word means someone is moving from one gender to another, ie. the (gender) reassignment process. So once done I don't consider someone to be still transgendered.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

pjenkins said:


> When a married transgender person achieves the transformation, and they live in a state without gay marriage, does their marriage cease to exist?


In some places in the world you have to divorce first in such cases, I imagine that would be the case in those states as well.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Supfreak26 said:


> Serious questions here.
> 
> Once he goes through with the surgery and becomes a woman physically, is she then still considered a trans or simply a woman?


Probably depends on who you ask I suppose, but according to law, themselves and everyone who supports them, they are considered women.



Supfreak26 said:


> Also, he stated that he only likes women. So will she then be a lesbian after the surgery?


If she identifies as a woman, dresses and behaves like a woman and according to law is a woman what do you think she labels herself as when she only likes other women? 

She has always been a woman, most know already at a very young age and has nothing to do with "wanting to be", they just are. I've heard that they've dissected brains of transgendered women and they found that their brains are more like female brains than male brains or even completely like female brains.

I've always thought that transgendered people are just another form of intersexuals (hermaphrodites) where something doesn't go right during pregnancy and in case of transgendered women, there wasn't enough testosterone during brain formation so the brain ended up being (partially) female instead.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)




----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

That is heavily airbrushed.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Janice Dickenson?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> That is heavily airbrushed.


Which differentiates it from every other Vanity Fair cover how?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Will ABC 20/20 have follow up/companion interview with Caitlyn?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

From a 65 year old man into a 45 year old woman! Amazing work!

New word: "*TransJenner*" _... Meeting a new lady on the internet and arrange for a special date, only to discover over a romantic dinner that she had previously won a number of gold medals at the Olympics ... 40 YEARS AGO ... as a MAN!_ *Transjenner.*


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

getreal said:


> From a 65 year old man into a 45 year old woman! Amazing work!
> 
> New word: "*TransJenner*" _... Meeting a new lady on the internet and arrange for a special date, only to discover over a romantic dinner that she had previously won a number of gold medals at the Olympics ... 40 YEARS AGO ... as a MAN!_ *Transjenner.*


Bruce only won 1 gold medal.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JFriday said:


> Bruce only won 1 gold medal.


Yeah, but for 10 events.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JFriday said:


> Bruce only won 1 gold medal.


One is a number.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

The loneliest number.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Not with 1M Twitter followers in 4 hours, it's not.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Cross-posting the link to this document because it was updated yesterday:

GLAAD responds to ABC News interview with Bruce Jenner, releases tip sheet for journalists


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> Will ABC 20/20 have follow up/companion interview with Caitlyn?


I was wondering, too? Or maybe the new series that was rumored to be filming will be released in lieu of an interview show?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I was wondering, too? Or maybe the new series that was rumored to be filming will be released in lieu of an interview show?


The reality show is real. 'I am Cait' will be on E! next month

http://www.eonline.com/news/662536/caitlyn-jenner-starring-in-new-e-docu-series-i-am-cait


----------

