I'm sure Vanity Fair had something to do with how dolled up she was, and I'm sure that was all about having something sensational on the cover to make people drop their teeth when they saw it. That is not at all how she looks on an average day now, even when there are cameras pointing her way. I don't think that's how she identifies at all, the whole glam thing.
Did you read the article, OOTG? That's a whole different set of issues far beyond anything Caitlyn is doing or saying. And there's a lot of crazy stuff going on.
There is far more to identifying as a woman than having the physical equipment, and I think the use of the word "brain" might be off the mark. And, IIRC, when Lawrence Summers tried to define women's brains as different from men's, he was saying it in a very condescending way; i.e., women's brains are not as good as men's. To me, that's quite different from saying, "I was born a man, but I've always felt like a woman." Very tough to define. I'm more comfortable with women who have lived their whole lives as women setting the definition than I would be with letting men do it, whether they are still living as men or not. But I can see your point about Gloria Steinem.
As a society, we are not very comfortable with letting individuals define themselves as individuals, are we? We like to identify things and people as part of larger clumps of similar things, and when someone doesn't fit the mold, we get really twitchy.
PeggyC said:As a society, we are not very comfortable with letting individuals define themselves as individuals, are we? We like to identify things and people as part of larger clumps of similar things, and when someone doesn't fit the mold, we get really twitchy.
I don't get twitchy. I am comfortable with letting individuals define themselves as individuals. But I've always been the black cat in a family of princesses. I see myself as an individual and some of the princesses like me and some do not as I am too independent for their tastes. I like what Maya Angelou says, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I equate that article and all of the issues presented to Gloria Steinham and my life at that time. Irrelevant and nothing to do with my individual self.
oneofthegirls said:Peggyc, you can take a look at Cher's son Chaz for a female to male transformation.
Oh, I know. But he is extremely low-key about it. No grandstanding at all.
And to clarify, I don't get twitchy either. But a whole lot of other people do, and they make a lot of noise about it.
I only respond when I feel I have a listener to my response. If someone doesn't consider my response, I have no interest in what they are saying. I guess that makes me an outsider but I am comfortable with that. I have been all of my life. Those that love me show up in full force. Only a handful of people but they are my peeps. Others are an interesting sideshow that don't reflect my values. I have no problem with them
PeggyC said: oneofthegirls said:Peggyc, you can take a look at Cher's son Chaz for a female to male transformation.Oh, I know. But he is extremely low-key about it. No grandstanding at all.
Have you seen his documentary, Becoming Chaz? It is on Netflix.
Boy Meet Girl is a movie on Netflix that explained a lot to me.
Ah, no I haven't. Interesting that Jenner is making such a huge splash by comparison. I didn't know the Bono documentary existed, and he didn't get on the cover of Vanity Fair AND launch a new reality show. But I guess that's what happens when you are part of the Kardashian circus.
Worldwide, the Church reaches the faithful!
Papua New Guinea's Young Women Desperate for Contraception
Professor Mola also argued that church health services that refused to provide modern family planning should hand back a portion of their government funding to subsidise alternative providers. It's estimated that 20 to 25 per cent of the population live in areas serviced by Catholic health and therefore only have access to natural family planning.
So, your point being?
Are you suggesting that the government take up the health care costs of 25% of its citizenry so that abortion and contraception canbe made available to them?
Or are you suggesting the Church abandon its teachings?
Yes, it should "abandon its teachings," if those teachings actively contribute to living conditions that are inhumane. Yep. If the Church claims to provide health services, and it's the only such provider for a community, it should provide care that helps people live healthy lives and raise healthy families.
And on this score I don't give a rat's butt about Church tradition or teachings.
Let's return to civil discourse, shall we? Never post when feeling cranky!
Some good news...
I'm not so sure that this is a cause for celebration, as the lower rates were highest in pro-life states where obtaining abortions is becoming increasingly difficult; and there is some evidence suggesting that easy access to abortions nationally has alleviated the felony rate, associated with unwanted children becoming involved with drugs and crime.
mtierney said:Let's return to civil discourse, shall we? Never post when feeling cranky!Some good news...http://www.onepeterfive.com/a-cause-for-cautious-optimism-us-abortions-are-down-12/
Jasmo, i like your civil discourse. Personally, I never understood when a soul entered the body. A compilation of sexual material to my way of thinking for the first few weeks doesnot make up the greater commitment of a man and a woman wanting to raise a child for in my case, the next forty years of their life and counting. Obviously I disagree with the church's stand on the concept that life begins at conception. My belief is that the soul enters the body at different times and sometimes after birth.
Look forward to hearing this new Mass for Jesuits by an Oscar winning composer
Interesting profile on an Opus Dei priest -- particularly his observations re friendships among men
mtierney said:Look forward to hearing this new Mass for Jesuits by an Oscar winning composerhttp://ow.ly/2ZR62W
Morricone is the man.
From the NYT story about the Opus Dei guy
Finally, he wrote, gay culture has hurt male friendship because, “especially in big cities, two men or a small group of men seen socializing” are likely “to draw stares from others and the unspoken question ‘I wonder if they’re gay.’ ” Thus, “many heterosexual men skip the hassles and the embarrassment by not socializing much with other men.”
So I'm understanding this correctly, is he saying gays are not only destroying marriage, but friendship as well?
ridski said: mtierney said:Look forward to hearing this new Mass for Jesuits by an Oscar winning composerhttp://ow.ly/2ZR62WMorricone is the man.
You can watch and listen to a performance via the website of Italian Radio.
Actually, I don't think my response was uncivil. On the topic of preserving human life even if it means finding scientific means for avoiding pregnancy I am passionate. If that means birth control that is a little more vigorous than "natural" birth control, yes, I am going to be a little rude. I really dislike the attitude that says people must do their duty and have as many children as nature (or god) intends, even if it means they cannot provide for those children or give them adequate educations or medical care.
How do you justify telling people they cannot have access to any birth control when it means their children will starve or die of illness?
PeggyC said:Yes, it should "abandon its teachings," if those teachings actively contribute to living conditions that are inhumane. Yep. If the Church claims to provide health services, and it's the only such provider for a community, it should provide care that helps people live healthy lives and raise healthy families. And on this score I don't give a rat's butt about Church tradition or teachings.
I found your comments demeaning to the 2000 year old+ Catholic Church and your choice of language. Your response was a response to Dave's link in response to the positive link I had Posted on 6/10 about a Bishop's difficult journey to visit his parishioners.
Dave feels obligated to counter positive with a negative on this thread. It does cause confusion.
"Italian magazine publishes leaked version of pope’s eco-encyclical"
Is nothing sacred? ;-)
And this type of political missive is a proper thing for a religion to opine on, how?
ramzzoinksus said:And this type of political missive is a proper thing for a religion to opine on, how?
Read the official version when it is published on Thursday for details on that, I suggest.
Anyone and any organized body is allowed to have an opinion. Religions should not endorse political candidates. I don't know how that is handled in Italy, but it works pretty well here in the US.
Tom_Reingold said: ramzzoinksus said:And this type of political missive is a proper thing for a religion to opine on, how?Anyone and any organized body is allowed to have an opinion. Religions should not endorse political candidates. I don't know how that is handled in Italy, but it works pretty well here in the US.
Mr. Reingold - Mr. Zoinks thinks that accepting the reality of the causes of climate change is a "political" position. It didn't seem worth it to argue with him, which is why I just suggested he read it for himself.
[Edited to add] That being said, there is many a commentary which points out that environmental concern is not "political" but a religious/theological issue, with deep roots. An example:
"The issue of the environment has never previously received the specific, sustained attention from the Church that an encyclical affords. But, as I have noted before, if the issue is new in terms of being the focus on an encyclical, the theology I anticipate the text will contain will be quite traditional. This is Genesis, after all, which happens to be the oldest part of our tradition. Of course, from Genesis, Catholic Social Teaching has mined our Catholic belief in the universal destination of all created good. This is not a new idea. It is found in St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and throughout our tradition, But, it may be the least acknowledged or understood teaching of the Catholic Church in our spread-eagle, capitalist society, in which acquisitiveness is the norm and concern for others is rather lacking in esteem."
Very well stated, Nohero.
It will be interesting to read what the Pope has to say on Thursday.
I think this whole issue got off to a ridiculous start because it was taken on as a political issue rather than a humane one.
Going from "climate change" to "global warming" and back again! The competing sides in the UScan't even agree on what is or is not happening or what to call it!
Francis just might present views that are not dependent on who wins in 2016.
This article today from the Ledger describes how the Pope just sent Co-Adjutor Bernard Hebda to Minnesota from Newark, to deal with the crisis there, and wonders whether he will return:
3 Beds-2.5 Bath