Yes, You Need a Gym

It's almost New Year's Day and it's time for the resolutionists to crowd my second home, 12th Street Gym. But if you were to read social media - particularly the bowels of Tumblr - you'd wonder if anyone under the age of 25 has ever stepped on a treadmill, let alone used a squat rack. 

While others might look on these resolutionists with disdain, I say the more the merrier. For one, they keep my yearly membership prices low because 90% of them will be buried in a box of chocolates by February 14th and never return. But to the 10% that stay, those courageously sweating through their XL sweatpants on January 1st, I say "Bravo, and Welcome!"

There is no question that our current culture of political correctness is merely a hypocritical backdoor to express prejudice under the guise of sympathetic acceptance. Whether our social justice warriors are commending Caitlyn Jenner for her bravery or chastising a public school for an athletics program that "shames" overweight children, PC culture simply seeks to relegate those in the minority to the corners of their consciousness with frustrating strategy. 

It's easy to say PC culture comes from a "good place," but that's unfortunately untrue. PC culture is a product of those in the whitewashed majority narcissistically making social causes about themselves. It's a sneaky - and perhaps subconscious - way to profess progressiveness and liberalism while still standing at the top of the pyramid. 

It's incredibly condescending, and perhaps nowhere more than in the arena of "Fat Shaming." 

While LGBT individuals, ethnic and religious minorities, can brush off the condescension of "Liberal Guilt" as straight, white people being straight, white people, the social justice warriors who've charged themselves in the fight against "Fat Shaming" are neglecting a demographic that truly needs intervention and change. Obese people shouldn't be shamed - obviously - but their condition also shouldn't be ignored.

Unlike sexual orientation, gender identity, race, or religion, obesity isn't always a predisposition or choice, and when it is, it isn't a good one and one to be dealt with. We're not talking about someone's freedom to be who they are or safety practice a faith, we're talking about an epidemic disease, and one beginning at an increasingly young age. To end the discussion with the notion that "Fat Shaming" is bad - as it all too often does in the school gym class - is akin to saying cancer is something to be accepted, not addressed. 

The dumbbell is your friend.

Schools began by banning dodgeball, the one sport scrawny nerds like me actually enjoyed. Then the bully-buzzword spread to the whole notion of gym as a class. Many schools now offer alternatives to gym class, if they offer gym at all. Many kids already threatened by obesity are now being forced into a life with no other option, all under the guise of their own safety. 

But the plague has even spread into to fitness industry. While the fitness industry has always been a welcome mat for pop culture diets and quick fix fads, the gym has always been the place for those truly dedicated to their own health and fitness. But with gyms like Planet Fitness and local carbon copies, corporate brainiacs have capitalized on the "Fat Shaming" buzz to delude those in need into thinking the road to health costs $10 a month and comes with free pizza. 

The deplorable tactics by these so-called "fitness communities" should be nothing new to those in need of the utmost motivation, because they're akin to physicians who over-prescribe drugs and tackle diabetes solely through medication. It's truly unfortunate that Certified Personal Trainers are scoffed at as fly-by-night spin class instructors and not the gruelingly educated professionals that we are, because we seem to be the only ones who care. 

Places like Planet Fitness are perpetuating the false ideal that the fit are the bullies, the "Fat Shamers," by installing "Lunk Alarms" and removing squat racks, all to quell the insecurity of those desperately wanting the security of a healthy physique. 

I've got news for you, we aren't the enemy. 

Joining a gym is easy, but going for the first time is intimidating. It took me a long time to realize that the vast majority of meatheads at 12th Street Gym started exactly where I did, and that they were never judging me for fumbling my way through the beginning of my journey. If anything, I was only judged when I quit, slacked off, or assumed I was being judged. 

The gym - a real gym - is very much a community, and one you want to be a part of. Seeing someone struggle through their repetitions or on the stairclimber is inspirational, even to the fittest amongst us, even when the person struggling weighs 300lbs. It reminds us that we didn't join this gym - this community - because of a short lived resolution, but because it simply needed to be part of our lives, like paying rent or eating. The gym is a necessity of a healthy life, one that keeps you alive and off the operating table. 

Obesity is not something to be shamed, but the dialogue shouldn't end there. Obesity is something to be addressed, like anything else that sends you to the doctor's office. And the best way to address it is by signing up, swallowing your pride, and finding support in those who truly care about your wellbeing. And I assure you, those people are not social justice warriors who spout phrases like "Fat Shaming," they are those who will tell you what you are truly capable of and show you how to be the best man (or woman) you can be. 

"Drop the T"

Earlier this year, a Change.org petition to "Drop the T" began circulating around social media. The response was brutal, and rightfully so. The petition itself reeks of Log Cabin rhetoric and reactionary politics. 

"Drop the T" refers to the transgender community's role in the LGBT community and attempts to address an apparent rift between sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The verbiage is crude, and obviously comes from a less than compassionate place, but the idea of separating the T from the LGB does have a certain amount of objective credibility.

In the historical context of our community, we banded together at one time as sexual misfits. In the '60s and '70s there wasn't a lot of delineation between gender expression and those who engaged in same-sex intercourse. We sought solace in our collective differences by arranging gatherings and political rallies from the dimly lit bars and private clubs that accepted us. 

But things have changed. 

There are plenty of transgender individuals, as well as LGB ones, who have proven over and over that we don't share a broad enough range of political opinions to remain under one tent in 2015. Most notable might be Caitlyn Jenner, who's conservative opinions have drawn ire from LGBT advocacy groups. 

However, Jenner's viewpoints, as disturbing as they may be to veterans of the LGBT rights movement, may be emblematic proof that the transgender community is experiencing its own evolution. Like changes the LGB community experienced in the late '70s and early '80s, when we shifted from free-love to picket fences, transgender people like Jenner are expressing individuality that deviates from our all-encompassing umbrella, and it shouldn't come as a shock. 

Our older transgender friends came to terms with their identities in gay bars and Gayborhood community centers, and that bonded us. But Jenner came into her own with the support of her family and broadcasted it to the world. Whether or not you think she's a role model or a deplorable conservative, we can expect more of the same: transgender men and women who come out outside any traditional notion of the "gay community," and they're not going to be aligned with our causes by default.

This isn't a callous assessment, it's Cultural Anthropology 101. In fact, this petition expresses a reality, just from the wrong vantage point. Sexual orientation and gender identity deserve their own unique platforms, but most notably because this social conglomerate does a disservice to the transgender community by putting them on the back burner in lieu of the more socially accepted LGBs.

Groups like GLAAD and the HRC can continue to support the transgender community even if they decide to establish their own proprietary platforms, much the way many liberal lobby groups support each other. The transgender community could be more successful by isolating their own unique causes, challenges, and fights from their own podium instead of waiting for the LGBs to tackle our own first. 

As a gay man, I'm proudly supportive of transgender rights, as I am ethnic and religious minorities. But like ethnic and religious minorities, I don't share the same specific prejudices and discriminations and will never personally understand what a transgender person deals with the way I understand my fellow LGBs. 

It's possible for us to be an empathetic LGB community - a mark this petition sorely misses - without leading the transgender fight for them by affixing a letter to the end of our acronym. There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk hatred for the transgender community and nearly as much blind support in response to this petition, but none of that will change until both communities align ourselves in the most practical way. 

Step back and look at it with objectivity. Why wouldn't either community want to put ourselves in the best position possible for both of our futures? Perhaps focusing on our own unique struggles from our own unique camps would be the best way for us all to come together. 

AskMen and BroBible and the unexpected tolerance amongst the male-only audience

As I was browsing Facebook this morning, I stumbled upon the AskMen.com article, When Your Friend Comes Out To You. It was charming, accurate, and refreshingly geared towards AskMen's audience of online bros. 

Then, like the internet masochist I am, I went to the comments. Despite AskMen's vocally liberal tilt, I thought, "Oh, this is gonna be a disaster." I mean think about it: a website by men and for men. Sites like AskMen and BroBible are ruthlessly oozing in testosterone from football to memes wrapped up in big butts. They snatch their readers with photos of scantly clad women clutching svelte models that trigger internalized and unaddressed body image issues. 

Throw in an article about homosexuality, and insecurity is going to fly unchecked, right?

But that didn't happen. Long ago when internet comments became the anonymous playground for trolls, I wished someone would have invented an app that would allow you to opt-out from seeing the feed below every single article, forever. I'm glad I didn't, because I've noticed a trend in this, the last place you'd expect to find massive, unwavering, and unconditional support for the bros who bat left: sites catering excessively to men.

Maybe we're just not that threatening.

Beneath AskMen's Comes Out story was almost unanimous solidarity amongst all men gay or straight. With the exception of a very few, comments ranged from the simple, "gay or not he's my friend, grab a beer" to humorous reactions like, "get him to help me dress better." Some even shared their own heartfelt, personal accounts.

Even more astounding, every single negative comment was followed up by someone supporting the notion of the article and the friendships between all men, gay or straight. 

So where is this coming from, and why does it happen here, in the locker room of the internet? Why is social media and the comments sections that plague it chock full of rabid, anonymous homophobia affixed to some of the most benign coed articles, but here, on AskMen and BroBible, where dudes talk with dudes about dude stuff, tolerance and acceptance reign supreme?

It's been long assumed that male homophobia is an insecurity in most, that the most homophobic men feel that the very notion of two guys getting it on is somehow threatening to their masculinity. If that is truly the case, wouldn't it be most prevalent in a place catering almost exclusively to men, sites that flaunt this notion of masculinity? 

Perhaps it goes deeper, or maybe it's more dynamic. Maybe male homophobia is a byproduct of having a girl in the room. Maybe the homophobic men feel more inclined to display their masculinity through homophobia, one of the easiest and cheapest routes, when they feel they have something to prove. In a room full of men, men may be more inclined to showcase their character, whereas when they're around potential mates, more apt to display their animalistic dominance. 

Maybe. I'm not a sociologist. 

Or maybe AskMen and BroBible are just good sites read by good men. 

The P.C. Tipping Point

"Imagine the joy on a superhero's face when you hand out bags of julienne sliced carrots, beets, parsnips, and sweet potatoes. Princesses and ninjas will shriek with glee at the sight of these lightly seasoned, fry-like spears that pair perfectly with roasted chicken and pork tenderloin." 

On the eve of All Hallow's Eve, Trader Joe's latest radio spot has just confirmed that Halloween - and all the gayety that it once assumed - is officially dead. 

It should come as no surprise. Much like the October Christmas decorations that Macy's put up two weeks ago, Americans can't seem to celebrate a holiday without completely exhausting it, even one as whimsically senseless as Halloween.

In all likelihood, Trader Joe's advertisement was written with a winking eye of irony. After all, the Hawaiian shirt clad mustachios behind Germany's answer to Walmart - Aldi - has a niche market in the States, and that market is hipsters. 

The real grinch stealing the treats from our plastic jack-o'-lanterns isn't passing out kale, he's trolling out mind-numbingly hypocritical advice. It's that magical time of year when our adorable munchkins dressed as witches and wizards take a backseat to the anonymous experts and self-assigned champions of cause (a.k.a. white Millennials on Tumblr), to a social media blitz deconstructing a definitive list of appropriate Halloween costumes, and costumes that inappropriately "appropriate."

And you guessed it: it's not fun. In fact, it seems like the only thing you're allowed to dress like anymore is a slut. As long as you actually are a slut. After all, fishnets and high-heels might dub you a "slut-shamer" if you aren't willing to put out, with "affirmed consent" of course. 

If you've been around for the last decade you already know better than to dress like Pocahontas or Cinderella. Geishas and Gypsies are out too, because apparently they're still a thing. Don't touch a sombrero. Sari? Sorry.

My grandfather was Greek, so I think I can wear a toga, but probably only a quarter of one. Sorry to all you frat guys out there, but apparently your fraternities offend my cultural delicacies. Well, at least the fraction of me that's offended. Italian? Feel free to dress up like Mario, Luigi, or that crazy woman from The Real Housewives of New Jersey, but I sure as hell can't: "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!"

This is Halloween.

Aliens are okay, as long as this thing the Kepler discovered doesn't turn out to be alien-made, in which case aliens are off the table, as well as calling them "aliens." "Other-worlders?" No, "other" implies segregation, and we don't want to "otherize" anyone, even if they aren't human. 

Curly wigs? Be careful. Eye patches? Hmmm. You certainly can't paint freckles on your face if you want to be Annie. Blond wigs are a big no-no as they imply an unfair sexual ideal. Mental patients have been out for a while, which I guess includes Michael Meyers. So no straight-jackets. 

Animals are probably okay as long as they aren't anthropomorphized, and you should probably wear it as a protest against African game hunting. You know, put an arrow in Cecil the Lion and hand out pamphlets. 

Bloody soldiers seem to be okay because the deafening hum of Tumblr's political correctness doesn't extend to the military, at least not our own. 

If all of this madness makes you want to dress up like Cliff Huxtable giving Caitlyn Jenner a Hot Cosby, congratulations, you're a human being. But as much as you want to dress up like Cait-on-the-left/Bruce-on-the-right, don't do it. Why? I don't have a clue. Kids in the '80s dressed up like Bruce Jenner. For some reason Caitlyn is excused from ridicule, even if she's an awful person. And Bill Cosby? Well even Ghost Dad is just too controversial. 

So where is all this headed, and will it end? Without isolating every inhabitant on the planet (and perhaps beyond) within a cocoon of self righteousness, the exponential ladder to politically correct perfection is unsustainable.

According to South Park, it "lasted about 6 years last time. We got at least 5.9 years to go." South Park is no stranger to challenging our political sensitivities, and their latest season has been more socially relevant than the circus surrounding either of our election sideshows. 

This is all a bit of history repeating itself. The late-'80s and early-'90s spun a web of PC traps that forced us all to believe we were bigots until we finally hit a breaking point and began to mock ourselves with sitcoms like Seinfeld and the Simpsons. Twenty years and a generation later, Millennials have resurrected this false ideology and amped it up through the anonymity of the internet. For every text-book Lisa Simpson that plagued the 1990s there are hundreds more finding instant validation on social media today. 

But political correctness isn't just an annoyance, it's a convenient backdoor to segregation, xenophobia, and prejudice. Political correctness doesn't challenge us to be better people, it begs us to put diverse integration in the closet to quell the anxieties of those too afraid to embrace it, and even more afraid to admit it. 

When armchair activists criticize Ariana Grande or Justin Bieber for "appropriating" an "Africa-American dialect," they're asking us all to relegate a vernacular to one specific demographic. That could very easily be the definition of segregation. 

There is a difference between playing an offensive caricature and dressing as a cultural tribute. It's no surprise that those most offended, or rather those claiming minorities are offended, happen to be straight and white. Confusing buck teeth and a rice paddy hat with a Dia de los Muertos costume, the minions of political correctness believe any cultural reference is offensive, especially if the wearer isn't of that culture. That's troublesome in a country as diverse as the United States but somehow just as expected. 

I'm as gay as they come and if I ever saw a straight guy dressed up like Snagglepuss, I wouldn't see "cultural appropriation," I'd see a pretty damn awesome dude I want to be friends with. But I'm an adult. I get context. These activists aren't progressive, they're a hinderance, and they're a veiled expression of bigotry. 

Ironically, political correctness is not the answer to racial and cultural equality, but one more roadblock, one strategically dressed up in a costume cleverly masquerading as someone who cares about equality and integration, but is actually afraid to admit we're all just slabs of meat on a big blue marble. Get over yourself. None of us are special. So go forth and have fun. 

I'm Not Standing with Margie...

...and no self-respecting member of the LGBT community should either.

If you're unfamiliar with the story, on July 3rd, Margie Winters received a letter from Waldron Mercy Academy informing her that she was being let go. For eight years, Margie Winters had been a beloved teacher at Waldron Mercy in Merion Station, PA, just outside Philadelphia. After she was fired, friends and family, parents of her students and Margie's colleagues, quickly created a Facebook page declaring "We stand with Margie Winters." 

Margie, a lesbian wed to her loving partner, was told she was being fired because of her relationship. Why wouldn't any reasonable member of the LGBT community stand with Margie?

Because Waldron Mercy is a Catholic school.

It's difficult, even contentious, to draw a line when it comes to supporting those in our community. But without a line, our causes begin to unravel. Margie's dedication to Waldron Mercy, and especially her Catholic faith, is at odds with her inclusion in the LGBT community, as well as those who stand with her as a perceived sister in our fight for equality. Margie didn't choose to be a lesbian but she did choose to be a Catholic, to teach the principles of Catholicism at Waldron Mercy.

This is a church that teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong, that Waldron Mercy's LGBT students - likely far more confused than those in the secular school systems - are flawed. Margie chose to alienate her brothers and sisters in the LGBT community by claiming allegiance to the Catholic faith.

This is where we need to draw a line. We are a vast and diverse community, and not every instance of apparent marginalization is unjust. We aren't all good people.

As a secular person, it's hard for me to muster any more sympathy for those discriminated against by their church than I can for those fleeing Scientology. The atheist in me and the agnostic in many others surfaces with an objective, obvious, and a rational, "You knew what you were getting yourself into."

While Margie's position in the church, both as a follower and a religious educator, may have been hypocritical, I am by no means siding with the Catholic church. Should Margie should have been fired? Well, a more logical question would be to ask why Margie was working at Waldron Mercy in the first place. Or why a lesbian married to her loving partner would choose to embrace a religion that declares her love a sin. 

There are changes taking place in the Catholic Church. Pope Francis has quickly become the "People's Pope," and his fan base is growing. But his most evolved position on homosexuality is simply "who am I to judge?" and his stance on same-sex marriage is firm. In short, this is not the LGBT community's religion.

What's upsetting about Margie's situation is not that a respected teacher was fired, but that so many within the LGBT community have blindly run to her side without questioning her faith in Catholicism. Demanding a place for Margie at Waldron Mercy demands legitimacy in the Catholic Church. And while such demands will never be met short of a decree handed down from the Vatican, the Catholic faith is not one that deserves legitimization. It deserves ridicule and scrutiny.

Changes within the church are not made by parishioners. No one joins a 2000 year old religion with the intent of making change. Ancient religions are made to be followed, not challenged. Why any self-respecting member of the LGBT community would intentionally choose to join or remain in such a place is mind boggling. It's hypocritical to an institution already riddled with hypocrisy, and it backhandedly slaps the LGBT community in the face.

If you truly want to Stand with Margie, stand beside the thousands of LGBT members who've been cast out of their families in the name of their religions, the homeless kids looking for a bed, not a pew. 

I've always thought that those in the LGBT community had a unique advantage. While so many coast through life on pre-made plans, formerly religious members of the LGBT community have had the unfortunate luxury of seeing their faiths exposed for what they really are.

Margie likely saw this long ago and chose to remain in a church that openly regarded her lifestyle sinful. Meanwhile most of us are free to embrace unique paths in life, to challenge absurd notions of theology, and question their mythology from the objective position of exile. We're free to embrace unadulterated science and academia, not a 21st Century education shoehorned into books millennia old.

Being an outcast is truly liberating.

For years, the religious have argued that same-sex marriage would ultimately end at the altar. By demanding inclusion in a church that doesn't accept us only plays into their hands. Today we're asking the State to force Waldron Mercy to reinstate Margie Winters. What will we be demanding tomorrow?

We are in a rare position to flex a dynamic arm. To show that equality is as much about personal choices and self worth as it is about acceptance. Demanding legislation to change the Catholic Church's EOE standards doesn't change its heart. That's like demanding an apology from a bigoted celebrity. It's meaningless, and we should be showcasing just how meaningless this church is to the LGBT community, not demanding a place beside its relics.

The only way to Stand on the side of good at Waldron Mercy is to stand against the Academy, its employees and employers, and the leaders that rule it. The Catholic church is not a democracy, it is a kingdom. We should not be challenging it or asking for a place within its walls, but questioning its existence, asking why counties subsidize their programs, and why any self-respecting member of the LGBT community would ever want to be a part.

Sense8: Groundbreakingly Dull

Not everyone can be David Lynch, but writers keep trying. And trying is the problem. In the Lynchian world of cinema, there are two groups of writers: those who are David Lynch, and those who are not David Lynch. Still, sometimes it's fun to watch writers get lost in the fine line between provocative television and the depths of their own ass holes. This, unfortunately, is not one of those times.

Let me back up a bit. With all of the buzz surrounding Netflix's latest original series (how great is Netflix? Seriously), you'd think that Sense8 would be the online network's greatest triumph since House of Cards. Like Cards and Orange is the New Black, Sense8 tried to stand out by changing the game. Its writers and producers, the Wachowski brothers, conceived of the series as a vehicle to break down barriers that plague science fiction. 

While it may be true that some of the lesser science fiction serials and movies tend to evade issues of politics, sexuality, and gender, it can be agued that the most lauded works within the genre are steeped in the divisive politics of their respective eras. Star Wars broke down race and gender barriers, and the rebooted Battlestar Galactica made analogies to the war in Iraq and rigged elections their foundation for story telling. In fact, with the exception of some of sci-fi's hokiest incarnations, the genre is often the first to tread into the taboo. 

Sense8 certainly can't be faulted for its attempt to join the ranks of such groundbreaking events, but what it does in the arena of political and social advancement is two dimensional tokenism. Unfortunately, the hype surrounding Sense8 is fixated on its cast, not its content. Namely, (SPOILERS AHEAD)...

----------------

...one of the main characters is a closeted gay male soap opera actor, one is a lesbian played by a transgender actress, and a supporting character, another lesbian. That's great, but that doesn't tell Sense8's story.

Beyond its 21st Century cast, Sense8 is a story of eight individuals scattered throughout the world, psychically connected by what we believe to be an angel, played by Daryl Hannah. After the characters, the "sensates" are connected, we're carried from location to location learning a little about each of them, but ultimately not enough to care about more than one or two.

Dramatic music unbefitting each scene overshadows an underdeveloped storyline and weak dialogue. After you strip away the poor direction, we're left with a flat narrative dripping in arrogance. You'll easily recognize elements of the brothers' greatest project to date, the Matrix franchise, in each of Sense8's characters.

But the Matrix, a novel idea for its era, was ultimately killed of any value by its sequels. And Sense8, being somewhere between network television and a miniseries, doesn't have the bandwidth to send us on a trip across the big screen, even a bad one. 

Seemingly relying on their Hollywood reputation, the Wachowski brothers don't just try to take science fiction to a realm of gender neutral sexual ambiguity, they try to use science fiction as a vehicle for pious melodrama, something that hasn't been done with moderate success since Oliver Stone's Wild Palms. Only in Sense8, the campy comedic relief of Palms is replaced with a dull lecture that makes Crash look like an Adam Sandler movie. Sense8 is essentially castrated of the science and fiction that makes the genre exciting, leaving us with dramatic vignettes that make no sense. 

Exactly one hour into the series premier, something exciting finally happens, presumably in time to make you want to watch the next installment. 

It's difficult to tell if the premise is even worthy or knows where it's going, but there is potential in the mystery. How are these eight tethered together, and more importantly, why? But being left with a cast of stereotypes from the school of first-world hard-knocks, it's hard to care, and you're left to assume that the angel brought them together because no one else on earth should be forced to spend more than five minutes with one of these tired archetypes. 

What has made Netflix so great is, to date, we haven't been delivered cliches. Streaming original content requires an advanced level of writing and direction that can't rely on weekly focus groups. Releasing an entire series in one day is daring, and also risky, much like a blockbuster movie. Netflix caters to an audience that demands the unexpected, and often even its main characters are unlikable. But they are unlikable in a dynamic and interesting way. 

Netflix is bloody, it's sexy, it's provocative, and offensive. Its audience has network fatigue, they're intellectuals who understand that humans - even the most super - are flawed. But from Daredevil to Hemlock Grove, flawed as our heroes and anti-heroes are - we understand enough about them to understand why we identify with them, or why we revile them. Until Sense8, Netflix hasn't delivered a character disliked simply because they're an annoying cliche. 

What Sense8 has exposed are the growing pains of streaming original content. While some originals like Daredevil have proven that they can successfully engage us in what is essentially a pre-released series, or a thirteen hour movie, Sense8 proves the need for network consultation on behalf of writers and directors who've lost touch with their target audience. 

Even Netflix's most widely panned originals such as Hemlock Grove manage to engage our binge-watcing curiosity by being silly, grotesque, or just plain addictive. Were the premier of Sense8 aired on a major network, even the CW, it's questionable whether a second episode would have ever aired. 

Privileged Transgressions

Whether you think Caitlyn Jenner is a hero or just another media whore, owning a week of the internet has created a dialogue. And it's a dialogue that has been surprisingly supportive. But a similar story broke last week, and its timing couldn't be worse for the transgendered community. The only thing, it isn't similar in any way.

I'm talking, of course, about Rachel Dolezal, the President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP who's been "passing" as black for the last decade. The sympathetic arm of the internet has already started praising her as "transracial," or someone who internally identifies with another race, and begun comparing Dolezal's journey to Jenner's. If you're a South Park fan, you probably thought about Kyle's transition into a tall, black basketball player and his father's into a dolphin. 

As laughable as the subject should be, they've been taken under serious consideration by legitimate organizations. The difference between Jenner's journey and Dolezal's is that Dolezal's journey was one of deception full of stereotypical appropriations.

With overnight fascination surrounding the transgendered community, others have hijacked the prefix to demand the same respect. And it doesn't stop at the "transracial." Perhaps the most disturbing are the "transabled." You may remember the Taboo episode about Chloe Jennings-White, an able-bodied woman who uses a wheelchair because she believes she's disabled. She isn't suffering from conversion disorder, a legitimate form of hysterical paralysis, either. She can walk. Others have staged accidents to lose limbs or deliberately induced blindness. 

While these disturbed individuals do deserve psychological study, they don't deserve a sympathetic paring with the transgendered. In doing so, psychologists are dumbing down the field by ignoring the foundations of science, foundations rooted in cold hard facts. 

In science - hard science - the most obvious theory is often the right one, and always the first to be explored. But here - in soft science - sensitivity has become a variable that influences the study. With regard to the "transabled" or "transracial," the most obvious theoretical cause would simply be a cry for attention. These people see the respect bestowed upon the disabled or the tremendous perseverance of the racially marginalized and, in short, want a piece of the action.

By acknowledging "transability" or "transrace" as a unique condition befitting a psychological label, the field of psychology is taking a Creationist approach to science: seeking facts to support a baselessly pre-drawn conclusion. Ironically, allowing sympathy to trump science with regard to the "transabled" or "transracial" fosters a culture that demeans the truly disabled and racially disadvantaged. It sympathizes with the privileged. 

It may be knee-jerk, even easy, to draw a parallel between the transgendered and these dubious "trans" causes, but the transgendered who've come to terms with their identities are living honest lives. Legitimizing the "transabled" and "transracial" allows these people to live lies and usurp resources meant for those born or faced without an alternative.

Obviously, the transgendered community, the disabled, and ethnic minorities have espoused outrage against the self-assigned disadvantaged. Perhaps these fringe movements are a sign that First World privilege has reached its cultural threshold, wherein some people are so bored with the luxury of walking, sight, or being white that they seek stimulation by fabricating discourse. 

Whatever the cause, whether these individuals have body dysmorphic disorders or simply want attention, legitimizing their conditions by rewriting psychology's Bible, the DSM-5, will only serve to delegitimize the entire field of psychology. There is cause for sympathy in the soft sciences where subjects are concerned, but sympathy is not a variable in the lab. Logic has been lost by an overwhelming call to coddle everyone's innermost quirk. As we charge towards greater equality for our once-most disadvantaged and marginalized, able-bodied white people have once again proven that they can make anything about themselves.