Rick Santorum seems to be getting in touch with his inner Christian.
If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. . . My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are.
That is a generous and loving statement.
But as is regrettably usual with Santorum, he then goes on…
I can criticize, and I do, for what people do, for their behavior. But as far as for who they are, you have to respect everybody, and these are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody.
So here is a hard question for him. Who, if anyone, should Jenner be allowed to marry, based on his (one has to assume sexual) “behavior?” And why? If he is a woman, must he marry a man? Jenner says he is only attracted to women. But if he’s a woman, Santorum’s religious beliefs, as expressed repeatedly about those of us who are homosexual, take that off the table, right?
So what is Santorum’s “compassionate and respectful” answer?
And again, why?
23 Comments for “Santorum and Jenner”
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s a good question.
Another also in line with a large number of state and local laws and ordinances being pushed by the GOP/religious right (I live in Texas so forgive me for being able to distinguish the difference): in which restroom should Jenner relieve himself?
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ve read more of Santorum’s comments. He’s doing the “local governments should be able to decide that” sidestep. Does he really think he can get through the primaries without taking a position on what is a hot issue in cities and states coast to coast?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Yeah – the “local decision” sidestep… never mind that efforts are underway in Austin to negate local ordinances in Houston, DFW, El Paso, etc. that would allow Jenner to use a public restroom other than his birth gender.
But then again, I’ll give him credit for at least trying to split the baby here — although if Jenner hadn’t come out as a conservative Republican, I wonder if his answer would have been the same.
posted by Houndentenor on
Think about this…what Santorum is trying to do is be a bigot while not sounding like one. It’s a tactic Republicans got away with in the 90s and 00s but I don’t think is going to fly in 2016 and onward. “Equal rights but not special rights” is too transparent to fly today. Santorum is a loathsome excuse for a human being. I’m embarrassed to belong to the same species.
posted by Jorge on
Think about this…what Santorum is trying to do is be a bigot while not sounding like one. It’s a tactic Republicans got away with in the 90s and 00s but I don’t think is going to fly in 2016 and onward.
People take conservative Republican positions on race and gender all the time. Why should sexual orientation be any different?
posted by Jorge on
So here is a hard question for him. Who, if anyone, should Jenner be allowed to marry, based on his (one has to assume sexual) “behavior?” And why? If he is a woman, must he marry a man?
You’re being a little obtuse here. Rick Santorum is making a comment about Bruce Jenner’s gender identity, not his sex. Gender identity is a social construct and very amenable to a live and let live philosophy.
Even I think Santorum is being just a little disingenuous. So it’s not his business what one person does behind closed doors? That is all too easy. But then, perhaps he’s been studying the secret language of Francis double-speak. No one mimicked the old Pope’s double-backhand so well.
posted by Lori Heine on
Rick Santorum is an asshat. It’s none of his damned business what Bruce Jenner does, and nobody appointed him anybody’s judge and jury.
No matter what the subject upon which Frothy Mix chooses to comment, with regard to someone else’s long-considered life decisions, he is an ignoramus.
Every proclamation to thunder forth from the social right is, as Shakespeare would say, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
If these people cared about building credibility with any segment of the public not totally sunk into imbecility, they would keep their mouths shut.
posted by Ricport on
Yes, Sanctimonium, Hucksterbee and the rest of the Talibangelical pigpen have managed to bastardize true conservatism into the shameful mess it currently is in. But they are at least upfront about their stance, as opposed to the eminently corrupt, colossally incompetent Hildebeast, who, will stand with us…as long as the polls are behind us.
What a choice we have shaping up. It almost makes one long for a benevolent dictatorship. If this doesn’t spur interest in third parties, I don’t know what will.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Mr. S. rant against privacy rights was not too long ago. Politicians are very good at making statements carefully preped to appeal to useful demographics
posted by Mary on
I don’t really think Rick Santorum has changed his views on gay rights in any way. But his seeming sympathy here for trans people is likely pity that he is trying to pass off as sympathy. People on the social right generally view trans people as mentally ill. Any decent human being would not provoke or insult a mentally ill person, for fear of making his illness worse. When he says we should “accept” Jenner for who he is he most likely is trying to take the genuine virtue of kindness toward the mentally ill and pass it off as a vague sort of liberalism – one that accepts who you are but is willing to criticize you for what you DO. Of course, none of this means that transgenderism really IS a mental illness. Apparently the Senator thinks he’s found one of those rare instances where a social conservative’s compassion can be put forward as something acceptable to the cultural Left. Since such moments rarely occur, thought he’d take advantage of it.
posted by JohnInCA on
Ha. Already walked back.
http://www.lisagraas.com/?p=1608
posted by Houndentenor on
For a second there it seemed like Santorum showed some human decency. We obviously misinterpreted his remarks. Our bad!
posted by Jorge on
Liberal gays overinterpreting Gay Catholic News. What a surprise.
I have to object, to your post, however. It is not indecent to conclude that Bruce Jenner is biologically male. That is one of the most ridiculously malicious things I’ve ever heard of.
There’s at least three ways you could look at it. Either the long-time Mr. Jenner is a woman because he feels as a woman (gender identity), he’s a woman because he lives as a woman (gender expression), or he’s a man because he hasn’t had sex-reassignment surgery (biological sex). They’re all problematic, even indecent, for one reason or another. Going by gender identity threatens social mores involving separation of the sexes that are present for very good reasons–largely to prevent antisocial sexual behavior. Going by biological sex has killed people. And even an individual’s gender expression (what I’d prefer the standard to be) can be controlled by coercive social and government forces.
And I also believe reasonable people can disagree and “argue” over how to define gender. In a democratic society important differences can and should be discussed openly and respectfully, with each people having an equal say. Yet even that is something Rick Santorum is not doing in the public square. I think he should make his policy positions on transgender issues known, but to do so now would be to bully a specific individual, and should not be done.
posted by Houndentenor on
Gender is a construct so we can discuss it and define it however we want. I was talking about what appeared to be a bit of human understanding between one person and another. Whatever I may think about various issues surrounding sexuality and gender, I do believe that everyone is entitled to the same standards of decency and respect. Meanwhile the hot issue in many cities around the country is over where such people may urinate. Seriously. That is the opposite of dignity and respect. For a moment I thought Santorum was positioning himself away from the transphobic crowd (or rather, those stirring up fear of gender nonconforming individuals for power and profit). I realize now that I was wrong. I should know better than to give a known bigot like Santorum any benefit of the doubt. I won’t make that mistake again.
posted by Jorge on
I was talking about what appeared to be a bit of human understanding between one person and another. . . . For a moment I thought Santorum was positioning himself away from the transphobic crowd (or rather, those stirring up fear of gender nonconforming individuals for power and profit). I realize now that I was wrong.
No, you were right the first time. I see absolutely no logical reason for you to conclude you were, except that you conflate progressive ideology with morality.
I think you should be more appreciative of the fact that one of the most infamous social conservatives in the country is making a step to try to create a country that is better for people who are his political opponents. Instead it seems to me that you will not be satisfied until he is bending his knee before you and renouncing not just his indifference but his belief system. I find this personally abhorrent, socially perverse, and politically suicidal.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m curious how you’re spinning “Obviously very troubled” as something benign and not transphobic.
posted by Jorge on
Um, hello? Bruce Jenner himself said he was living a lie for years.
posted by Jorge on
It’s much the same thing with gays (which is, of course, something Rick Santorum has a worse reputation on). People should have the right to their freedom to associate, even if they are compelled to do so in a different way than other people are compelled to do. Without that, gays kill themselves here, while in other countries the government kills them.
posted by Lori Heine on
I am rooting for Bruce Jenner. What he’s doing now is a lot more momentous than winning the decathlon in the Olympics.
It could very well be that Jenner can do more for transgender Americans than any Democrat could. When even someone as nutso as Santorum feels that he must tread somewhat carefully (not intelligently or even sensitively, mind you, but with more caution than otherwise), they have found a champion who might really advance their interests.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is not really too surprising that Jenner (or the rest of his family) has many conservative viewpoints. Economic class interest can (for better or for the worse) trump many other political and social policy concerns (now and in the past).
OK, he had to reached a certain point in his life, where he was ready to come out about his gender identity. Pushing people out of the closet — before they are ready — is (with few exceptions) a bad idea.
posted by Lori Heine on
TJIII, again, if only the world were that simple.
I don’t like categorizing people–one of the favorite hobbies of IGF commenters–but if I were to categorize those with whom I interact socially, I would need to conclude that they are overwhelmingly college-educated, most with advanced degrees, work in high-paying careers, drive expensive cars, have season tickets to the symphony–and are politically far to the left.
Are they in a bubble? They’re certainly encouraged to be. Their trendsetters cultivate a hands-off, entirely-theoretical sort of “compassion” that involves an idealized picture of those for whom they have compassion, based upon rarely if ever actually interacting with or listening to these people to find out what they want or need.
They aren’t bad, just led very far astray. I try to get them to think, and it is an effort something akin to yanking molars. Evidently, for them, it is just as painful.
As for your claim–not made on this thread, but made repeatedly on others–that the libertarian movement has been totally taken over by the far right, you really ought to venture forth from the bubble more. Again, I know the bubble well, because I spend most of my time in it, myself–hearing the same things you do. The difference is that I refuse to stay there.
Actually the official thinkers of the political right are telling their little minions a mirror-image of what yours are telling you. They’re hearing that the libertarian movement has been totally taken over by rabid, wild-eyed leftists. And because of the broadness of the libertarian movement, they can find just as many examples (if not more) that might support this.
I have come to realize that I’m pretty much a centrist, as libertarians go. I can’t stomach the far right, even there, but the left sounds just as crazy. I am not an anarchist, because I believe that no government would lead right back to frightened sheeple clamoring for big and oppressive government to take care of them. I am a minarchist, believing in small and manageable government that is restricted to doing only what it should do–which is not much, but certainly a few things.
But the anarchist wing of the movement is growing very fast. I increasingly hear very staid-looking professional types, of middle age and older, who call themselves anarchists without so much as batting an eye. To me, a lot of them still tend to sound like drunken college boys.
Libertarians on the center and the right even have a name for anarchist rhetoric. It’s become so common (because THEY have become so numerous) that it’s well-known in libertarian circles, even if unknown to you. We call it the “macho flash.” These are the people who talk about “smashing the state” and suchlike. Libertarians on the right (the sort you think have totally taken over the whole movement) shudder when they’re macho-flashed, and right-wing statist point to such rhetoric and say, “See? The left is totally taking over the whole movement!”
Try talking to somebody besides frat boys who were Young Republicans only last week. Or to somebody who’s actually read Ayn Rand, and formed a more critical (or at least complex) opinion of her writings. I’m trying to be friendly and gentle when I advise you that if you say to them the sort of things you say here about libertarians, they’re going to think you’re a clown.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—I don’t like categorizing people
Um. Isn’t calling a living entity, “people” classify as a category ;0)
Seriously,. I am not trying to suggest that their is a direct causality between economic class and party identification. If you misread or misunderstood my intentions, then I do regret it.
The relationship between economic class and party ID (and likely-hood of political participation) is probably more of a correlation, then a causality.
In the United States the most visible proponent of the libertarian philosophy has been Congressman Ron Paul and (more recently) his Senate-elect son.
They have gotten to define — in much of the public’s mind — what the philosophy is all about. Along with Ayn Rand disciplines, the Libertarian Party, Cato Institute, Milton Friedman self-identified libertarian celebrities, talk show hosts, etc.
The libertarian-left (in contrast) never had the resources — financial or political — to be in a position to define the libertarian philosophy.
Norm Chomsky is probably the closest thing to a living member of the libertarian left in America, and he has never had the resources to be the Ron Paul of the libertarian left. I am not even sure he had the desire to do so.
posted by Lori Heine on
Noam Chomsky (I believe his first name is of Hebrew origin; it is “Noam,” and is NOT short for Norman) is a very interesting writer, and is respected on the libertarian left very much the way Ayn Rand is on the libertarian right.
Unlike Ayn Rand–who went to her grave insisting that she was NOT a libertarian, and that she hated libertarianism–Chomsky has actually been known to use the word “libertarian” to describe himself. Therefore, it actually makes far greater sense to call him a libertarian than it does to use that term to categorize Rand.
Rand Paul has far more “resources” than his father, and can’t get large numbers of libertarians to take him seriously. The general attitude is that this is how un-libertarian our country is–that the closest a serious contender for president can get is Rand Paul.
As for your contention, on another site, that Reason is simply a right-libertarian magazine, this can only be reached the same way you might reach the conclusion that Chomsky’s first name is “Norm.” By not reading any of its contents. Authors like Gillespie, Chapman and Richman are continually pilloried, by commenters, as leftists. Do its readers tend to be right-leaning libertarians? A great many obviously are. But if you think Sheldon Richman is a conservative, you are smoking the sort of powerful stuff anti-libertarians accuse ALL libertarians of smoking.