R Bruce Duncan wrote:
This greeted me on the front page of the Los Angeles Times this morning:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ar … olumn.html

Knight throws in Sociology, Art History, the History of Photography, and a brief bio of Annie, all of which show why he's on the front page of one of the best newspapers in the United States.

Even before reading the article, this raises "red flags" (bold). Just for openers, not sure I'd agree that the LA Times is "one of the best newspapers in the United States."

Shot By Adam wrote:
I'm so absolutely sick and tired of people calling this "courageous". I'm sorry, but a soldier running into gunfire to save a fellow comrade is courageous. A 65 year old self-absorbed freak show declaring to the world on a "reality" show that he wants to suddenly become a woman is not.

Ditto.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Even before reading the article, this raises "red flags" (bold). Just for openers, not sure I'd agree that the LA Times is "one of the best newspapers in the United States."

I know, I know Light and Lens.

The Times has only won 41 Pulitzer Prizes, including two this year.

The author of this story has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist 3 times.

'Nuf said.

RBD

Shot By Adam wrote:
I'm so absolutely sick and tired of people calling this "courageous". I'm sorry, but a soldier running into gunfire to save a fellow comrade is courageous. A 65 year old self-absorbed freak show declaring to the world on a "reality" show that he wants to suddenly become a woman is not.

I am convinced the while thing is a last gasp attempt to retain fame and fortune.  People around him should be trying to help him deal with what he is going through in private, rather than promoting what has become nothing more than a side show circus act.

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
The Times has only won 41 Pulitzer Prizes, including two this year.

The author of this story has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist 3 times.

Nice track record!

However, the LA Times has not once received the

                    "Rupert Murdoch Award for Excellence in Creative Storytelling",

which Fox News received numerous times, and totally outweighs this Pulitzer thingies!   

udor wrote:

Nice track record!

However, they have not once received the

                    "Rupert Murdoch Award for Excellence in Creative Storytelling",

which Fox News received numerous times, and totally outweighs this Pulitzer thingies!   

You are very droll, udor... for an English is a second language guy.

And ain't it great?

A news outlet gets an award for "Excellence in Creative Storytelling."?

RBD

Shot By Adam wrote:
I'm so absolutely sick and tired of people calling this "courageous". I'm sorry, but a soldier running into gunfire to save a fellow comrade is courageous. A 65 year old self-absorbed freak show declaring to the world on a "reality" show that he wants to suddenly become a woman is not.

You are so very wrong about the part I put into bold, that I have to point out to you that Jenner did not just suddenly want to become a woman.  How nice of you to call her a "freak show" as she never felt comfortable as a "he."   When it comes to being "courageous" that label is nearly always debatable.   I tend to agree with you that the media goes over the top calling most everyone labels like "courageous" when most people labeled as courageous are humble and argue that it was nothing.  If you wish to argue about what is courageous, we cannot do that here because this is not soap box.  The FACT is that transgenders get plenty of death threats because of who they are. It's obvious that they are not widely accepted, even here on the forums.

I have photographed many transgender, gay and otherwise different people from the "norm" as the media would say.   I've posted images of transgenders in my portfolio with absolutely no one able to tell the difference.  One transgender was so feminine in person that men were all over themselves flirting with her where ever we went.  It took a short time for her to trust me, but until I was told by her, I didn't know that she was once a "he" when we first met.  Some would say she was just "a little too perfect!"

Many transgenders have been murdered including some such people in my community, so they are in danger.  As confusing as it maybe to many of us, Caitlyn Jenner just happens to be a former Olympic champion whose decathlon record still stands as Bruce Jenner!  I don't what that is like to be in a male body, but otherwise feel, and think like a female.   I will say this, every one of us has some female and male hormones.  No human is 100% male or female.  That is a biological FACT!  It's a shame society is not more accepting of transgenders.  If society was, then the media would not blow up with this "news" about Jenner.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Many transgenders have been murdered including some such people in my community, so they are in danger.  As confusing as it maybe to many of us, Caitlyn Jenner just happens to be a former Olympic champion whose decathlon record still stands as Bruce Jenner!  I don't what that is like to be in a male body, but otherwise feel, and think like a female.   I will say this, every one of us has some female and male hormones.  No human is 100% male or female.  That is a biological FACT!  It's a shame society is not more accepting of transgenders.  If society was, then the media would not blow up with this "news" about Jenner.

A colleague mentioned on FB that Caitlyn is getting the "Arthur Ash Award" for being a humanitarian, which really stunned me, because I too know and knew quite a few people of the and LGBT and none of them got an award, despite their immense struggles.

But... I don't follow anything about the Kardashian's and get only peripheral info on what's happening, except maybe for Kendall, because she is in my industry. I also haven't watched the Interview or documentary..., as a matter of fact... I didn't even know that Bruce Jenner was an Olympian... absolutely no clue.

Anyway, my friend and colleague then explained to me that the reason he is getting the award, because he is the most prolific transgendered person in the media, and with her decision to do this in public, was helping a lot of transgendered you people with high risk of suicide and deep depression, to bring the issues to the public!

This made the situation so much clearer for me, and now I, since I see that this public display is more than a Kardashian'esque reality tv publicity stunt, a applaud Caitlyn to spearhead the awareness of the LGBT community!

I am actually getting so far to say that this transformation into the gender she felt to be all her life and helping with the national awareness, is probably the only really useful contribution to the public, that ever came out of the Kardashian clan!

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
You are very droll, udor... for an English is a second language guy.

And ain't it great?

A news outlet gets an award for "Excellence in Creative Storytelling."?

RBD

Thank you!

Long live Murica and satire!!! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You are so very wrong about the part I put into bold, that I have to point out to you that Jenner did not just suddenly want to become a woman.

Perhaps not, but the media insanity around this issue is relatively new.

How nice of you to call her HIM a "freak show"

There, fixed that for you. Until he has surgery and becomes a woman, he is still a he, regardless of what he "identifies" himself as being. I can identify myself as being a giraffe, that doesn't make me one.

When it comes to being "courageous" that label is nearly always debatable.

Perhaps for you. In this situation it's pretty black and white to me. What he is doing is a very, VERY far cry from being anything even remotely related to "courageous". I'm sorry, but when you are making a life-altering decision and doing so for television show ratings, I'm finding it impossible to accept that "courage" is an adjective that describes his situation, even in a minuscule amount.

If society was, then the media would not blow up with this "news" about Jenner.

I agree, but if he really was concerned about this as a true identity issue, he would have done this privately with support of his friends and family. Instead, he's opting to make a media circus out of it himself, and that is where I think he's losing a huge amount of respect from people. Make no bones about it, this is not about a gender identity issue, it's about ratings. Nothing more, nothing less.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

You are so very wrong about the part I put into bold, that I have to point out to you that Jenner did not just suddenly want to become a woman.  How nice of you to call her a "freak show" as she never felt comfortable as a "he."   When it comes to being "courageous" that label is nearly always debatable.   I tend to agree with you that the media goes over the top calling most everyone labels like "courageous" when most people labeled as courageous are humble and argue that it was nothing.  If you wish to argue about what is courageous, we cannot do that here because this is not soap box.  The FACT is that transgenders get plenty of death threats because of who they are. It's obvious that they are not widely accepted, even here on the forums.

"Courage" is a relative beast. For a person having extreme arachnophobia it may require more courage to touch a spider than for a police officer to confront an armed criminal... And I'm shure you will find some soldiers who prefer running into gunfire than to touch a spider.

Just as an example.

So better do not jump to the conclusion that Jenners courage isn't remarkable. Nobody here can really judge how much courage he needed or not...

udor wrote:
A colleague mentioned on FB that Caitlyn is getting the "Arthur Ash Award" for being a humanitarian, which really stunned me, because I too know and knew quite a few people of the and LGBT and none of them got an award, despite their immense struggles.

But... I don't follow anything about the Kardashian's and get only peripheral info on what's happening, except maybe for Kendall, because she is in my industry. I also haven't watched the Interview or documentary..., as a matter of fact... I didn't even know that Bruce Jenner was an Olympian... absolutely no clue.

Anyway, my friend and colleague then explained to me that the reason he is getting the award, because he is the most prolific transgendered person in the media, and with her decision to do this in public, was helping a lot of transgendered you people with high risk of suicide and deep depression, to bring the issues to the public!

This made the situation so much clearer for me, and now I, since I see that this public display is more than a Kardashian'esque reality tv publicity stunt, a applaud Caitlyn to spearhead the awareness of the LGBT community!

I am actually getting so far to say that this transformation into the gender she felt to be all her life and helping with the national awareness, is probably the only really useful contribution to the public, that ever came out of the Kardashian clan!

Since my dad was a coach, I follow sports, and the Olympics in particular, so I knew about Bruce Jenner previously as an Olympic Gold winner.  The Kardashian's are boring to me.   I have not and never will watch any of their so called "reality shows."   This gender confusion and how one identifies with one gender or the other would not be such a big issue if not for prejudice against what many just don't understand.   Not too long ago, there was a female athlete in the Olympics competing in track & field who was accused of being a hermaphrodite.   This sparked an interest with me in inner-sex or people born with male and female parts.  This is what I learned, the "total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female is one in 100 births" is far more common than I thought! 

This is an interesting read;  http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency  Someone who was dating Olympic champion Michael Phelps says she was born "inner sex"   http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/11/20/mic … -chandler/   Now IF Taylor Lianne Chandler had never come "out" as being born inner sex... evidently no one would have known ... not even Michael himself.   Taylor identifies herself as female and that's not my business, and I'm fine with that!  With Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner it takes the issue of gender identity to a bigger platform.

I personally have no problem with the issue and believe it's long over due.  More reason to allow marriage between two human beings regardless of the mix of sexual organs, religions, or ethnicities of said partners as long as they are both of age.  There are still places in this World where if you marry someone from the wrong tribe or religion, you can be stoned to death ... if you are the female that is.  "Honor killing" is what it's called.

How nice of you to call her a "freak show"

Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. Until he has surgery and becomes a woman, he is still a he, regardless of what he "identifies" himself as being. I can identify myself as being a giraffe, that doesn't make me one.

You are a bigot. 
big·otˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

I've posted medical information that 1 out of 100 births are of children with some level of ambiguous sexual organs, and that 1 or 2 in a few 1000's are surgically altered to conform to societies image of either male or female.   I was not aware that there are than many such people out there, but with the level of ignorance, intolerance, and even the threat of violence towards those people, I certainly understand why so many remain hidden from the public and society!

TomFRohwer wrote:

"Courage" is a relative beast. For a person having extreme arachnophobia it may require more courage to touch a spider than for a police officer to confront an armed criminal... And I'm shure you will find some soldiers who prefer running into gunfire than to touch a spider.

Just as an example.

So better do not jump to the conclusion that Jenners courage isn't remarkable. Nobody here can really judge how much courage he needed or not...

Oh I understand!

Shot By Adam wrote:
I'm so absolutely sick and tired of people calling this "courageous". I'm sorry, but a soldier running into gunfire to save a fellow comrade is courageous. A 65 year old self-absorbed freak show declaring to the world on a "reality" show that he wants to suddenly become a woman is not.

+1

Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. Until he has surgery and becomes a woman, he is still a he, regardless of what he "identifies" himself as being. I can identify myself as being a giraffe, that doesn't make me one.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You are a bigot. 
big·otˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

I've posted medical information that 1 out of 100 births are of children with some level of ambiguous sexual organs, and that 1 or 2 in a few 1000's are surgically altered to conform to societies image of either male or female.   I was not aware that there are than many such people out there, but with the level of ignorance, intolerance, and even the threat of violence towards those people, I certainly understand why so many remain hidden from the public and society!

What utter f*cking bullshit!!! 

The "B" card is played.  A crude, puerile attempt at "argumentum ad hominum".  Used to try and demean the status of someone who has an opinion you don't agree with.  You are the bigot, Mr. Walberg, for being intolerant of an opinion that differs from yours. 

The "Bigot Card" and the "Race Card" are just thinly disguised attacks on the First Amendment right of free speech. 

Your "medical information" is nothing more than an obfuscation.  It would also include, for example, hypospadias which is a urogenital malformation that has absolutely NOTHING to do with gender identity.   The medical fact is that gender identity issues are psychiatric issues, not anatomical or congenital anomaly issues.

KungPaoChic wrote:
I think there are all different levels of courage. It is hard to be different.

Look at the level of intolerance in this very thread.

Coming out is a huge thing for most people.

I am not a fan in general of the reality tv subculture and a lot of it smacks of attention whoring to me but I think coming out has to be really scary.

So it isn't the same kind of courage as charging into battle but putting yourself out there publicly, knowing that society, your family and loved ones can completely tear you down -- that can't be an easy thing.

I don't understand why people get so upset about other people's sexuality or gender identification.

They are human beings like anyone else.

I so agree with you!

R Bruce Duncan wrote:

I know, I know Light and Lens.

The Times has only won 41 Pulitzer Prizes, including two this year.

The author of this story has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist 3 times.

'Nuf said.

RBD

Yeah.  Right.
Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Sorry, not buying.

Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. Until he has surgery and becomes a woman, he is still a he, regardless of what he "identifies" himself as being. I can identify myself as being a giraffe, that doesn't make me one.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You are a bigot. 
big·otˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

I've posted medical information that 1 out of 100 births are of children with some level of ambiguous sexual organs, and that 1 or 2 in a few 1000's are surgically altered to conform to societies image of either male or female.   I was not aware that there are than many such people out there, but with the level of ignorance, intolerance, and even the threat of violence towards those people, I certainly understand why so many remain hidden from the public and society!

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
What utter f*cking bullshit!!! 

The "B" card is played.  A crude, puerile attempt at "argumentum ad hominum".  Used to try and demean the status of someone who has an opinion you don't agree with.  You are the bigot, Mr. Walberg, for being intolerant of an opinion that differs from yours. 

The "Bigot Card" and the "Race Card" are just thinly disguised attacks on the First Amendment right of free speech. 

Your "medical information" is nothing more than an obfuscation.  It would also include, for example, hypospadias which is a urogenital malformation that has absolutely NOTHING to do with gender identity.   The medical fact is that gender identity issues are psychiatric issues, not anatomical or congenital anomaly issues.

Why are you so angry?  I have no problem with you.   Shot By Adam changed my comment from "she" to "he" which is very much in keeping with the definition of a bigot who is so intolerant towards my opinion that he felt the need to change it.  mine was not a grammar error in regards to gender, it's a fact that the person formally known as Bruce Jenner wishes to be called Caitlyn Jenner and known as a "she" ... it's a matter of respect, and I am not the only one with respect.  You can call me a 'bigot" all you want because it does not hurt me.  However, I do believe myself to be tolerant towards others opinions.  I did not change the wording of someone else's opinion.   I am not attacking anyone by pointing out the obvious.

ernst tischler wrote:
Some seem to be confusing having tolerance and acceptance for transgender individuals with having tolerance and acceptance for the side show circus act that is Bruce Jenner.  Profiting and prolonging his time in the limelight by capitalizing on the suffering of others, being hailed as courageous while others struggle privately with gender identity issues, is not something to be honored. 

Bruce has already sold his reputation in exchange for money and fame with the Kardashians, the family infamous for being famous for nothing, except their ongoing questionable exploits.  It is anything to keep the people entertained and keep the cash flowing in.  His life long ago became whatever the producers told him to do.

So I don't believe any of this, my opinion is Bruce is a fraud.

I have no problem with transgender people, I have a problem with Bruce Jenner.

If tolerance and acceptance for transgender individuals is indeed mainstream and widely embraced, then why are we having this conversation?

ernst tischler wrote:
Some seem to be confusing having tolerance and acceptance for transgender individuals with having tolerance and acceptance for the side show circus act that is Bruce Jenner.  Profiting and prolonging his time in the limelight by capitalizing on the suffering of others, being hailed as courageous while others struggle privately with gender identity issues, is not something to be honored. 

Bruce has already sold his reputation in exchange for money and fame with the Kardashians, the family infamous for being famous for nothing, except their ongoing questionable exploits.  It is anything to keep the people entertained and keep the cash flowing in.  His life long ago became whatever the producers told him to do.

So I don't believe any of this, my opinion is Bruce is a fraud.

I have no problem with transgender people, I have a problem with Bruce Jenner.

How is he capitalizing on the suffering of others? Do you think he is pretending to be transgender for attention or because the producers wrote it in the script?

I am not a huge fan of reality tv shows but if there was no appetite they would go away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle … story.html

Who knows what it is like to be in her shoes?

I don't get the hate or the visceral anger some people seem to have.

KungPaoChic wrote:
How is he capitalizing on the suffering of others? Do you think he is pretending to be transgender for attention or because the producers wrote it in the script?

I am not a huge fan of reality tv shows but if there was no appetite they would go away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle … story.html

Who knows what it is like to be in her shoes?

I don't get the hate or the visceral anger some people seem to have.

He is capitalizing on transgender issues just like he capitalized on the sexuality of the Kardashians, prolonging his fame and bringing in more money.  Perhaps he really is honestly transgender, I don't care if he is and I don't think less of him if he is.  My problem is with the side show circus atmosphere that is being promoted by the media with the full participation of Bruce Jenner.

He has no more credibility than if Kim Kardashian came out saying she is transitioning to male.  That entire family has played so much fiction into their lives in exchange for a dollar, none of them can be trusted to be real about anything.

I don't hate him, I'm not angry with him...but I do think the whole side show circus is a big fraud, done for attention and cash.

If anything, I feel sorry for him, because there are others making money off what he is going through (if it is real).  He is being used as much as he is using the screwed up reality TV and manufactured fame system.

Shot By Adam wrote:
I'm so absolutely sick and tired of people calling this "courageous". I'm sorry, but a soldier running into gunfire to save a fellow comrade is courageous. A 65 year old self-absorbed freak show declaring to the world on a "reality" show that he wants to suddenly become a woman is not.

It's obvious we disagree, and we won't change each other's minds. But we should both be able to agree that courage is not a zero-sum quantity. We can all be courageous, or none of us can be, or anything in between. Saying that a greater example of courage discounts another example is like me saying that getting hit in the man basket is totally painless, because I once passed a kidney stone.

What happened to me has absolutely no bearing at all on what happened to you.

That said ... If nothing else, this is a very courageous act for a 65 year old man, regardless of the motives. He has more to lose, this late in life he runs the risk of a sex change overshadowing everything else he's done with his life, and he grew up in a time when homosexuality was a criminal offense in most states.

For a 20 something, it would be much less courageous. They still have time to carve out a legacy based on something else, and they didn't grow up in a world were sodomy was illegal, but killing someone that practiced sodomy was "illegal." There are young people today in that very culture that don't even know who Matthew Shepard is. Not many, but the fact that they exist at all says a lot about how we view these things today, compared to when Jenner was growing up.

Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. Until he has surgery and becomes a woman, he is still a he, regardless of what he "identifies" himself as being. I can identify myself as being a giraffe, that doesn't make me one.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You are a bigot. 
big·otˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

I've posted medical information that 1 out of 100 births are of children with some level of ambiguous sexual organs, and that 1 or 2 in a few 1000's are surgically altered to conform to societies image of either male or female.   I was not aware that there are than many such people out there, but with the level of ignorance, intolerance, and even the threat of violence towards those people, I certainly understand why so many remain hidden from the public and society!

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Why are you so angry?  I have no problem with you.   Shot By Adam changed my comment from "she" to "he" which is very much in keeping with the definition of a bigot who is so intolerant towards my opinion that he felt the need to change it.  mine was not a grammar error in regards to gender, it's a fact that the person formally known as Bruce Jenner wishes to be called Caitlyn Jenner and known as a "she" ... it's a matter of respect, and I am not the only one with respect.  You can call me a 'bigot" all you want because it does not hurt me.  However, I do believe myself to be tolerant towards others opinions.  I did not change the wording of someone else's opinion.   I am not attacking anyone by pointing out the obvious.

Light & Lens wrote:
Well, perhaps we can chalk it up to miscommunication.  If you call someone a bigot because they voice an opinion that is different than yours, then, by your own definition you have "defined" yourself as a bigot.   You may very well not be.  However, political correctness is in and of itself bigoted speech because it is intolerant of the right of others to express a different point of view.  The ability of and freedom to express a divergent opinion is part of what makes us free.  I do have a big issue with those who would stifle free speech in the name of whatever reason. 

With the particular issue that is the subject (sort of) of this thread, it is not bigoted to disagree with anyone's opinion stated.  It would be considered bigotry had someone advocated abuse of an individual based on the sexual orientation of the individual.   Haven't seen anything like that in this thread.  As for "correcting" the language in your post by a responder, not sure accusing him of bigotry is the right choice of words.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:

What utter f*cking bullshit!!! 

The "B" card is played.  A crude, puerile attempt at "argumentum ad hominum".  Used to try and demean the status of someone who has an opinion you don't agree with.  You are the bigot, Mr. Walberg, for being intolerant of an opinion that differs from yours. 

The "Bigot Card" and the "Race Card" are just thinly disguised attacks on the First Amendment right of free speech. 

Your "medical information" is nothing more than an obfuscation.  It would also include, for example, hypospadias which is a urogenital malformation that has absolutely NOTHING to do with gender identity.   The medical fact is that gender identity issues are psychiatric issues, not anatomical or congenital anomaly issues.

Nobody is attacking your First Amendment rights. Nobody is censoring you.

We just think you're intolerant. But nobody is saying you should be banned from the forum.

Furthermore, I'm regularly astounded by the fact that almost everyone that claims First Amendment rights totally lacks the knowledge of how they actually work. Model Mayhem is not the government. If they want to ban you for your intolerance, or ban me for being a left-wing, hippie wacko, there's nothing either of us can do. Because MM is not the government, and the Bill of Rights only applies to what the government can take away.

MM can do whatever it damn well pleases regarding speech, and all they have to do is give us a partial refund if we paid for membership and got banned. Or they can keep all the money, so long as they write it into their EUA.

Not that I'm calling for that. Just please, for my own sanity, understand the difference, rather than continuing to wrap an American flag around yourself like an impenetrable logic shield.

Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. Until he has surgery and becomes a woman, he is still a he, regardless of what he "identifies" himself as being. I can identify myself as being a giraffe, that doesn't make me one.

I called you a bigot because you "fixed" my opinion as you disagreed with my referring to Caitlyn Jenner as a "she."   I found it disrespectful of you to correct me as you would.  The fact is we are discussing a human being whom wishes to be referred to as 'she" and you do not have to respect that, but changing my comment is disrespectful in that you are in disagreement with me.  Come out and say it if you disagree, but don't change my words.  I may disagree with you, but I am not changing your words.

As for being a male or female human being verse being a giraffe ... it is far easier to change from one gender to another than it is to change from one species to another.  I could "call" myself male or female, thus look less foolish than if I call myself a giraffe.  It's hardly the same thing!

Light & Lens wrote:
Well, perhaps we can chalk it up to miscommunication.  If you call someone a bigot because they voice an opinion that is different than yours, then, by your own definition you have "defined" yourself as a bigot.   You may very well not be.  However, political correctness is in and of itself bigoted speech because it is intolerant of the right of others to express a different point of view.  The ability of and freedom to express a divergent opinion is part of what makes us free.  I do have a big issue with those who would stifle free speech in the name of whatever reason. 

With the particular issue that is the subject (sort of) of this thread, it is not bigoted to disagree with anyone's opinion stated.  It would be considered bigotry had someone advocated abuse of an individual based on the sexual orientation of the individual.   Haven't seen anything like that in this thread.  As for "correcting" the language in your post by a responder, not sure accusing him of bigotry is the right choice of words.

This is not about miscommunication.  I did not state that I "called" him a bigot because I disagreed with him.  I wrote what I did because I did not appreciate his changing my words.  There is a difference.  He did not like that I used the feminine gender in describing Jenner, and that is fine, but don't go changing my words stating that you are "correcting" me.  That is offensive to me.  I felt that it denies my opinion as valid.  It has nothing to do with "political correctness."   If you knew me personally, you'd know that not only am I for free speech, but I've advocated for it in open forums for many years now.  Like you, I am against ones speech from being "stifled" ... very much the opposite of changing someone else's words.  Certainly you are welcome to find the correct words if you think me wrong to take offense at someone changing my words.  If it is not "bigoted" to have done so, then what is it?

KungPaoChic wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUhDoCx8zc

I LOVE SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE! 

I was so fortunate to get to see Sly in concert!  He was a reputation of not showing up, but I lucked out. 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
This is not about miscommunication.  I did not state that I "called" him a bigot because I disagreed with him.  I wrote what I did because I did not appreciate his changing my words.  There is a difference.  He did not like that I used the feminine gender in describing Jenner, and that is fine, but don't go changing my words stating that you are "correcting" me.  That is offensive to me.  I felt that it denies my opinion as valid.  It has nothing to do with "political correctness."   If you knew me personally, you'd know that not only am I for free speech, but I've advocated for it in open forums for many years now.  Like you, I am against ones speech from being "stifled" ... very much the opposite of changing someone else's words.  Certainly you are welcome to find the correct words if you think me wrong to take offense at someone changing my words.  If it is not "bigoted" to have done so, then what is it?

Changing your words doesn't make him a bigot.
He's expressing his opinion that is different from yours.
Changing the pronoun is his take in the first place.

Jules NYC wrote:

Changing your words doesn't make him a bigot.
He's expressing his opinion that is different from yours.
Changing the pronoun is his take in the first place.

Alright, Jules, if you say so ... he may not be bigoted.  However I do not like it when someone changes what I wrote with the little snide comment "corrected that for you" that I do sometimes see on the forum.  If it were done in satire, or jokingly, I would be more accepting of it ... even see it as silly & funny.  However I believe it was done in a more serious, and cynical manner.  Certainly I wont let which gender of "she or he" anyone of us chooses to use regarding Jenner bother me, and I wont change it on other people's comments.  Just don't go changing it on mine when it's clear that I disagree with some of the people posting here.