Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Caitlyn Jenner

One comment on my blog post yesterday was this:

Caitlyn Jenner, you mean. She wants to be called Caitlyn, and showing tolerance to her would be respecting her wishes (even if you don't agree with her lifestyle.)

I meant no offense; I merely called her "Bruce", since I was summarizing an article which did so.

I have a question, though. How far back do you go, when referring to Caitlyn Jenner? I'm asking, because this came up in a Nancy Drew book review I did in February, long before Jenner's sex change operation. Specifically, I made the joke at Bruce Jenner writes Nancy Drew books, since multiple Nancy Drew books refer to the 1976 Olympics.

Do I have to redo my review and change that line to Caitlyn Jenner? Or is it okay to keep the reference to Bruce Jenner, since we're talking about things done long before his sex change operation? I don't want to offend anyone.

EDIT: I originally wrote something here about my wife Katie. I thought it was relevant, because she's also a Cate/Kate making a name change right now. People thought it was a backhanded insult, so I'm deleting it at their request.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Figuring out what names/pronouns to use for a transgendered person can be really confusing, especially when talking about the past.

Generally, I don't think you need to change things like your review that was made before the transition took place, but going forward you should use her chosen name even when referring to the time when she was still known as "Bruce." That helps eliminate confusion and avoid inadvertently causing offense.

This blogger does a really good job of explaining it. http://www.entirelyamelia.com/2014/06/10/amelia-teaches-trans-101-refer-trans-persons-past/

Stephanie said...

Michael, it seems to me that you're being a tad bit passive aggressive. Based on your Catholic faith and previous writings, I feel safe in assuming your opinion on Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.

If you don't agree, that's your right, but don't let your piety allow you to dismiss people's lives just because your church says so. We're all dealt the hands that we're dealt.

Katie not announcing her name change on a magazine cover has nothing to do with the subject, it's not a 'related note'. Your implication seems to be that your Catholic wife, who embraces her birth gender and takes her husbands name in marriage is a more valid human being than Caitlyn Jenner.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Michael. I know you meant no offense, and I thank you for being respectful with this. I agree with the comment above. I don't think it's necessary to change your review because it was made before the transition began, and at that time Caitlyn referred to herself as Bruce.

EJ Ramirez said...

When will you post you sea of darkness speedrun?

Elizabeth Pfeffer said...

I totally agree with that Stephanie said. I love you Michael and enjoy you very much but I think it's time you open you mind.

Jo said...

Michael, first of all, this is YOUR blog, you have the right to say whatever you want and if people don't like it... that's too bad... for them. You also have the right to believe whatever you want, we all do.

I noticed in general that people tend to say things like "I respect your opinion" when someone says something that is against their own beliefs, and then immediately afterwards they would say something like "you're ignorant for believing (whatever the topic is about)". Suddenly it's like a crime to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only. This needs to stop. We need to TRULY respect each other's opinions and not just say we do and then afterwards say something negative about the person him/herself.

If you're against gay lifestyle, good for you. If you're pro gay lifestyle, good for you. We all have our reasons of why we believe what we believe and criticizing each other for this is just not right at all, because it's just like pushing YOUR beliefs down other people's throats.

Sooo... if I were you, I wouldn't change a thing.

Abby said...

Don't change it. There's no reason for you to.

Stephanie said...

I don't see any comments requesting Michael to change his blog post. I believe he changed it for his own, personal reasons.

Katie said...

Michael,

people will be offended. Not offending people should not be our ultimate goal in life. If we can stand for God's truth and also not offend people, great! However, probably more often than not we'll have to make a choice. In that case, the words of Paul are quite helpful for me, and should be for you as well. You can find them here: Galatians 1:10 Not easy I know, but important.

Anonymous said...

I didn't detect any passive aggressiveness in Michael's post, but rather a genuine desire not to offend anyone. I understand the word choice of "have to" in regards to redoing his review may suggest otherwise, but from what all I've read and watched from Michael, I believe his intended meaning may have been more "Would it be better for me to redo my review, or would it be okay to leave the review as is?" No matter what he believes, I think that he truly does not want to offend anyone.