Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.
I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.
Words
|
For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.
Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held
enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.
Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.