I'm of the unpopular opinion that I fucking love photoshop. Yeah, sometimes it's overdone. But the job of the photographer is to make the people look good, and they use tools at their disposal to do that. They aren't under a moral obligation to make sure you can see they have zits and stuff. It takes a lot of skill; there is no button you press and bam! Perfection.
Sometimes with lighting and such, you end up having a bad spot, or the pose is a little unflattering. And the camera really does add ten pounds, so if I do tweak that a little, I feel I am just taking it back off again. I admit I did it a tiny bit to my own (self taken) engagement photos- my clothes were in a weird spot and it wasn't cute. Same with some portraits I've done.
There are definitely bad photoshop jobs where the skin looks like plastic or the waist is just ridiculously tiny. But they're pretty obvious. Portraits are done as such a way so that the makeup, pose, and lighting are all as flattering as possible, and good photo editing just takes it a little step further.
Honestly in the pic her skin still has a lot of what seems to be acne scarring, like what she had as Bruce. So I wouldn't say they went to extremes there, because that would've been really easy to "fix". Most photoshopping is lighting and color adjustments because it lets you do things we can only wish our cameras would. I did have the photoshop thought cross my mind as it can take a long time to transition and she already has a feminine small waist- but it could just as easily be the corset thing helping with that. I'm sure she can afford more PS than most as well.
These photos don't look as photo shopped to me (I'm by means no expert on Photoshop) as the VF cover and she still looks amazing!
Holy hell she is stunning in those. She has that Jessica Lange-esque glamour about her. Good for VF for featuring a trans woman and an older woman as well. There is also a serious problem with the erasure of older women in media. So for me, this is a double win.
yeah I used to model and a lot of photographers would get rid of my freckles. My skin would look super creepy smooth and all one solid color. Did not look natural at all and did not look like me. And they almost always changed my skin tone; I'm naturally really pale and I always ended up looking super tan. One person even changed the shape of my thigh to look totally straight with no curve in it. Fucking weird.
I remember a girl I was friends with in college saw one of the photos and said, "Wow you're flawless!" And it made me feel like crap cuz I was thinking, "but that's not even me. That "flawlessness" is photoshop."
Yup. This is the exact same thing.
I wasn't trying to compare myself to anyone on the cover of VF at all. I was just saying that yeah, I have personally had experience with seeing myself photoshopped and it's weird. I was responding to the post I had quoted, where she said she felt like she looked way different in her E photos because she was photoshopped. Please point to where I said "My experience is the exact same thing as Caitlyn on the cover of VF"
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
FiancB said:
I'm of the unpopular opinion that I fucking love photoshop. Yeah, sometimes it's overdone. But the job of the photographer is to make the people look good, and they use tools at their disposal to do that. They aren't under a moral obligation to make sure you can see they have zits and stuff. It takes a lot of skill; there is no button you press and bam! Perfection. Sometimes with lighting and such, you end up having a bad spot, or the pose is a little unflattering. And the camera really does add ten pounds, so if I do tweak that a little, I feel I am just taking it back off again. I admit I did it a tiny bit to my own (self taken) engagement photos- my clothes were in a weird spot and it wasn't cute. Same with some portraits I've done. There are definitely bad photoshop jobs where the skin looks like plastic or the waist is just ridiculously tiny. But they're pretty obvious. Portraits are done as such a way so that the makeup, pose, and lighting are all as flattering as possible, and good photo editing just takes it a little step further. Honestly in the pic her skin still has a lot of what seems to be acne scarring, like what she had as Bruce. So I wouldn't say they went to extremes there, because that would've been really easy to "fix". Most photoshopping is lighting and color adjustments because it lets you do things we can only wish our cameras would. I did have the photoshop thought cross my mind as it can take a long time to transition and she already has a feminine small waist- but it could just as easily be the corset thing helping with that. I'm sure she can afford more PS than most as well.
**boxesboxes*
Agreed and I can appreciate why she wanted to take advantage of those tools -- and an amazing photographer like Annie Leibovitz -- for her debut. There's also the possibility she had plastic surgery, too. Are we going to begrude her that? What about the fact that she went on Diana Sawyer and not, say, TMZ.
I get and understand a little photoshopping, like getting rid of a pimple or maybe a dimple on the ass or a makeup smudge. But when the PS'r starts trimming down the waist or arms or thighs or making the bust bigger or a guys package larger or making the nose smaller then that is where it starts to irritate me. At that point they are basically saying that the person in the picture is not good enough as they are and the only way people will like/accept them is if they look like they did after photoshopping.
I am sure our wedding photog PS'd some of our pictures to brighten the color or what have you. But I at least still look like me, freckles and eye wrinkles and all. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
FYI - this is all in a general sense and not specifically talking about the VF cover.
yeah I used to model and a lot of photographers would get rid of my freckles. My skin would look super creepy smooth and all one solid color. Did not look natural at all and did not look like me. And they almost always changed my skin tone; I'm naturally really pale and I always ended up looking super tan. One person even changed the shape of my thigh to look totally straight with no curve in it. Fucking weird.
I remember a girl I was friends with in college saw one of the photos and said, "Wow you're flawless!" And it made me feel like crap cuz I was thinking, "but that's not even me. That "flawlessness" is photoshop."
Yup. This is the exact same thing.
I wasn't trying to compare myself to anyone on the cover of VF at all. I was just saying that yeah, I have personally had experience with seeing myself photoshopped and it's weird. I was responding to the post I had quoted, where she said she felt like she looked way different in her E photos because she was photoshopped. Please point to where I said "My experience is the exact same thing as Caitlyn on the cover of VF"
I never said that you stated that.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that your little modeling stint is not comparable to someone coming out as transgender. Thus the font.
yeah I used to model and a lot of photographers would get rid of my freckles. My skin would look super creepy smooth and all one solid color. Did not look natural at all and did not look like me. And they almost always changed my skin tone; I'm naturally really pale and I always ended up looking super tan. One person even changed the shape of my thigh to look totally straight with no curve in it. Fucking weird.
I remember a girl I was friends with in college saw one of the photos and said, "Wow you're flawless!" And it made me feel like crap cuz I was thinking, "but that's not even me. That "flawlessness" is photoshop."
Yup. This is the exact same thing.
I wasn't trying to compare myself to anyone on the cover of VF at all. I was just saying that yeah, I have personally had experience with seeing myself photoshopped and it's weird. I was responding to the post I had quoted, where she said she felt like she looked way different in her E photos because she was photoshopped. Please point to where I said "My experience is the exact same thing as Caitlyn on the cover of VF"
I never said that you stated that.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that your little modeling stint is not comparable to someone coming out as transgender. Thus the font.
yeah I used to model and a lot of photographers would get rid of my freckles. My skin would look super creepy smooth and all one solid color. Did not look natural at all and did not look like me. And they almost always changed my skin tone; I'm naturally really pale and I always ended up looking super tan. One person even changed the shape of my thigh to look totally straight with no curve in it. Fucking weird.
I remember a girl I was friends with in college saw one of the photos and said, "Wow you're flawless!" And it made me feel like crap cuz I was thinking, "but that's not even me. That "flawlessness" is photoshop."
Yup. This is the exact same thing.
I wasn't trying to compare myself to anyone on the cover of VF at all. I was just saying that yeah, I have personally had experience with seeing myself photoshopped and it's weird. I was responding to the post I had quoted, where she said she felt like she looked way different in her E photos because she was photoshopped. Please point to where I said "My experience is the exact same thing as Caitlyn on the cover of VF"
I never said that you stated that.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that your little modeling stint is not comparable to someone coming out as transgender. Thus the font.
ETA: Nor is it comparable to an engagement shoot.
Again, all I was doing was relating that it's weird to see yourself post photo-shop. Nothing more nothing less. Sorry I mentioned modeling?
yeah I used to model and a lot of photographers would get rid of my freckles. My skin would look super creepy smooth and all one solid color. Did not look natural at all and did not look like me. And they almost always changed my skin tone; I'm naturally really pale and I always ended up looking super tan. One person even changed the shape of my thigh to look totally straight with no curve in it. Fucking weird.
I remember a girl I was friends with in college saw one of the photos and said, "Wow you're flawless!" And it made me feel like crap cuz I was thinking, "but that's not even me. That "flawlessness" is photoshop."
Yup. This is the exact same thing.
I wasn't trying to compare myself to anyone on the cover of VF at all. I was just saying that yeah, I have personally had experience with seeing myself photoshopped and it's weird. I was responding to the post I had quoted, where she said she felt like she looked way different in her E photos because she was photoshopped. Please point to where I said "My experience is the exact same thing as Caitlyn on the cover of VF"
I never said that you stated that.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that your little modeling stint is not comparable to someone coming out as transgender. Thus the font.
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
This is HUGE for trans visibility. Trans visibility is IMPORTANT. Trans rights are IMPORTANT. Trans people are IMPORTANT.
Remember when Ellen came out and was on the cover people? Yep, I'm gay. That was fucking huge. Three little unimpressive words. Maybe you were unimpressed then too. But that was fucking huge. I was 11 or 12 at the time. And that moment, that second that this lady on my TV was telling the world she was what I was, what I was scared of saying I was, that was a fucking huge moment.
And now we've got this woman. This woman who used to be this huge athlete, this picture of masculinity, coming out as trans. Being sexy and womanly on the cover of a giant fashion magazine. And some 11 or 12 year old kid who is also this thing but is scared might be just that less scared.
So be unimpressed all you want. But I'm fucking thrilled.
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
Yeah, this is something I wanted to bring up as well but someone will probably say I'm mean.
It's great she transitioned and it's great she looks the way she wants. However, her legitimacy doesn't depend on how well everyone else deems her "passing". Her gender was just as female before her body was. Some people end up looking much more androgynous, either by choice or cost or some other factor.
I'm of the unpopular opinion that I fucking love photoshop. Yeah, sometimes it's overdone. But the job of the photographer is to make the people look good, and they use tools at their disposal to do that. They aren't under a moral obligation to make sure you can see they have zits and stuff. It takes a lot of skill; there is no button you press and bam! Perfection.
Sometimes with lighting and such, you end up having a bad spot, or the pose is a little unflattering. And the camera really does add ten pounds, so if I do tweak that a little, I feel I am just taking it back off again. I admit I did it a tiny bit to my own (self taken) engagement photos- my clothes were in a weird spot and it wasn't cute. Same with some portraits I've done.
There are definitely bad photoshop jobs where the skin looks like plastic or the waist is just ridiculously tiny. But they're pretty obvious. Portraits are done as such a way so that the makeup, pose, and lighting are all as flattering as possible, and good photo editing just takes it a little step further.
Honestly in the pic her skin still has a lot of what seems to be acne scarring, like what she had as Bruce. So I wouldn't say they went to extremes there, because that would've been really easy to "fix". Most photoshopping is lighting and color adjustments because it lets you do things we can only wish our cameras would. I did have the photoshop thought cross my mind as it can take a long time to transition and she already has a feminine small waist- but it could just as easily be the corset thing helping with that. I'm sure she can afford more PS than most as well.
**boxesboxes*
Agreed and I can appreciate why she wanted to take advantage of those tools -- and an amazing photographer like Annie Leibovitz -- for her debut. There's also the possibility she had plastic surgery, too. Are we going to begrude her that? What about the fact that she went on Diana Sawyer and not, say, TMZ.
***Fucking Boxes*** She had quite a bit as Bruce. Look at him back when he was a triathlete and then over the years, especially when he was on the Kardashians. Whatever floats your boat.
Also, I'm sure everyone who mentioned they wanted to see Caitlyn on TV and not photoshopped on a magazine cover is not trying to belittle her journey as a trans person, or poo poo her achievement of coming out and getting on the VF cover.
However, I'm not sure what you all are expecting to see.
When these celebs are on TV they have a ton of HD make up on, they have contouring done, their hair is professionally styled, the lighting is set up to be flattering, etc. Those are pretty much the real life incarnations of Photoshop.
What everyone else is suggesting is that those of you commenting about wanting to see her in person are missing the forest for the trees with thse comments.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
This is HUGE for trans visibility. Trans visibility is IMPORTANT. Trans rights are IMPORTANT. Trans people are IMPORTANT.
Remember when Ellen came out and was on the cover people? Yep, I'm gay. That was fucking huge. Three little unimpressive words. Maybe you were unimpressed then too. But that was fucking huge. I was 11 or 12 at the time. And that moment, that second that this lady on my TV was telling the world she was what I was, what I was scared of saying I was, that was a fucking huge moment.
And now we've got this woman. This woman who used to be this huge athlete, this picture of masculinity, coming out as trans. Being sexy and womanly on the cover of a giant fashion magazine. And some 11 or 12 year old kid who is also this thing but is scared might be just that less scared.
So be unimpressed all you want. But I'm fucking thrilled.
IMO this is not a great move forward for trans visibility though, and I'll tell you why. She's not on Vanity fair because she's a fashion icon or even because she's a celebrity. She's on the cover because she's transitioning and people want to see (and criticize) what "he" (note that I am not calling her that, but rather referring to the failure of the general public to understand that she gets to choose her pronouns) looks like now. That the featured shot says "Call me Caitlyn" tells me nobody on the editing team really 'gets' it, because that implies it's not her name.
I'll be impressed when they (or any magazine, for that matter) features a transgender/queer/otherwise-not-cis woman without making a big deal about that part. Like, focus on promoting her movie/show/book/whatever like they normally do with cover models. As is, I feel kind of uncomfortable with the way this is being presented.
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
This is HUGE for trans visibility. Trans visibility is IMPORTANT. Trans rights are IMPORTANT. Trans people are IMPORTANT.
Remember when Ellen came out and was on the cover people? Yep, I'm gay. That was fucking huge. Three little unimpressive words. Maybe you were unimpressed then too. But that was fucking huge. I was 11 or 12 at the time. And that moment, that second that this lady on my TV was telling the world she was what I was, what I was scared of saying I was, that was a fucking huge moment.
And now we've got this woman. This woman who used to be this huge athlete, this picture of masculinity, coming out as trans. Being sexy and womanly on the cover of a giant fashion magazine. And some 11 or 12 year old kid who is also this thing but is scared might be just that less scared.
So be unimpressed all you want. But I'm fucking thrilled.
IMO this is not a great move forward for trans visibility though, and I'll tell you why. She's not on Vanity fair because she's a fashion icon or even because she's a celebrity. She's on the cover because she's transitioning and people want to see (and criticize) what "he" (note that I am not calling her that, but rather referring to the failure of the general public to understand that she gets to choose her pronouns) looks like now. That the featured shot says "Call me Caitlyn" tells me nobody on the editing team really 'gets' it, because that implies it's not her name.
I'll be impressed when they (or any magazine, for that matter) features a transgender/queer/otherwise-not-cis woman without making a big deal about that part. Like, focus on promoting her movie/show/book/whatever like they normally do with cover models. As is, I feel kind of uncomfortable with the way this is being presented.
The fact that the "Call Me Caitlyn" is in quotes suggests to me that's something she actually said, not an editorial decision.
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
This is HUGE for trans visibility. Trans visibility is IMPORTANT. Trans rights are IMPORTANT. Trans people are IMPORTANT.
Remember when Ellen came out and was on the cover people? Yep, I'm gay. That was fucking huge. Three little unimpressive words. Maybe you were unimpressed then too. But that was fucking huge. I was 11 or 12 at the time. And that moment, that second that this lady on my TV was telling the world she was what I was, what I was scared of saying I was, that was a fucking huge moment.
And now we've got this woman. This woman who used to be this huge athlete, this picture of masculinity, coming out as trans. Being sexy and womanly on the cover of a giant fashion magazine. And some 11 or 12 year old kid who is also this thing but is scared might be just that less scared.
So be unimpressed all you want. But I'm fucking thrilled.
IMO this is not a great move forward for trans visibility though, and I'll tell you why. She's not on Vanity fair because she's a fashion icon or even because she's a celebrity. She's on the cover because she's transitioning and people want to see (and criticize) what "he" (note that I am not calling her that, but rather referring to the failure of the general public to understand that she gets to choose her pronouns) looks like now. That the featured shot says "Call me Caitlyn" tells me nobody on the editing team really 'gets' it, because that implies it's not her name.
I'll be impressed when they (or any magazine, for that matter) features a transgender/queer/otherwise-not-cis woman without making a big deal about that part. Like, focus on promoting her movie/show/book/whatever like they normally do with cover models. As is, I feel kind of uncomfortable with the way this is being presented.
The fact that the "Call Me Caitlyn" is in quotes suggests to me that's something she actually said, not an editorial decision.
Yeah I kind of interpreted it as her announcing that she has transitioned and is ready to be Caitlyn, not Bruce. And she's also letting the world know what her name is, because we weren't aware of the name before this, as PP mentioned. So she's officially introducing herself. Or at least that's how I thought of it. Like, "Hi world, nice to meet you as my real self, I'm Caitlyn!"
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
This is HUGE for trans visibility. Trans visibility is IMPORTANT. Trans rights are IMPORTANT. Trans people are IMPORTANT.
Remember when Ellen came out and was on the cover people? Yep, I'm gay. That was fucking huge. Three little unimpressive words. Maybe you were unimpressed then too. But that was fucking huge. I was 11 or 12 at the time. And that moment, that second that this lady on my TV was telling the world she was what I was, what I was scared of saying I was, that was a fucking huge moment.
And now we've got this woman. This woman who used to be this huge athlete, this picture of masculinity, coming out as trans. Being sexy and womanly on the cover of a giant fashion magazine. And some 11 or 12 year old kid who is also this thing but is scared might be just that less scared.
So be unimpressed all you want. But I'm fucking thrilled.
IMO this is not a great move forward for trans visibility though, and I'll tell you why. She's not on Vanity fair because she's a fashion icon or even because she's a celebrity. She's on the cover because she's transitioning and people want to see (and criticize) what "he" (note that I am not calling her that, but rather referring to the failure of the general public to understand that she gets to choose her pronouns) looks like now. That the featured shot says "Call me Caitlyn" tells me nobody on the editing team really 'gets' it, because that implies it's not her name.
I'll be impressed when they (or any magazine, for that matter) features a transgender/queer/otherwise-not-cis woman without making a big deal about that part. Like, focus on promoting her movie/show/book/whatever like they normally do with cover models. As is, I feel kind of uncomfortable with the way this is being presented.
Trans people are currently invisible in "mainstream society", in part because it is frequently very dangerous for them to come out. Dangerous professionally, emotionally, mentally, and physically.
We are not going to go from that sad state of affairs to having the level of trans acceptance you are describing without going through the educational period. As mentioned above, Ellen had the guts to come out publicly and it was huge in terms of changing the entire nation's perspective on gay people.
Yes, it would be awesome if we were at the place where it was NBD that a trans person was on the cover of VF. But we aren't at that place, and we aren't going to get there by just not mentioning it.
I don't think you are saying this, but it is also important to recognize that this is her process. She can do it however she wants. If she wants to never mention it, totally cool. If she wants to VF and talk about it, totally cool. It's not really about anyone else's comfort level, although everyone is certainly entitled to their feelings about all of it.
Yes. The photo is photoshopped. Because it's on the cover of a magazine. And they are all photoshopped.
I don't see why it's important to keep pointing out that Caitlyn was photoshopped. FYI so who was whoever was on last month's Vanity Fair. And while I'm not a physic I'd bet my paycheck next month's will be as well. It's Vanity Fair. Assume no one in that magazine looks like that regardless of being trans or cis.
and that is kind of my point.
I think Caitlyn looks beautiful and it's a powerful photo. However, I'm not impressed of ANY photo in VF or any of the other magazines because of air brushing and photoshop. I do not buy the magazines or look at them online for that reason.
It's cool she choose that as a way to come out, but at the same time I'm not impressed either because I do not think she actually looks like that.
But no one is saying you should be impressed because of how she looks? Its impressive that she is coming out, the achievement isn't being a PRETTY woman, its just being a woman.
that has the video if you want to see if she reaches whatever standard would be impressive.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
This is HUGE for trans visibility. Trans visibility is IMPORTANT. Trans rights are IMPORTANT. Trans people are IMPORTANT.
Remember when Ellen came out and was on the cover people? Yep, I'm gay. That was fucking huge. Three little unimpressive words. Maybe you were unimpressed then too. But that was fucking huge. I was 11 or 12 at the time. And that moment, that second that this lady on my TV was telling the world she was what I was, what I was scared of saying I was, that was a fucking huge moment.
And now we've got this woman. This woman who used to be this huge athlete, this picture of masculinity, coming out as trans. Being sexy and womanly on the cover of a giant fashion magazine. And some 11 or 12 year old kid who is also this thing but is scared might be just that less scared.
So be unimpressed all you want. But I'm fucking thrilled.
IMO this is not a great move forward for trans visibility though, and I'll tell you why. She's not on Vanity fair because she's a fashion icon or even because she's a celebrity. She's on the cover because she's transitioning and people want to see (and criticize) what "he" (note that I am not calling her that, but rather referring to the failure of the general public to understand that she gets to choose her pronouns) looks like now. That the featured shot says "Call me Caitlyn" tells me nobody on the editing team really 'gets' it, because that implies it's not her name.
I'll be impressed when they (or any magazine, for that matter) features a transgender/queer/otherwise-not-cis woman without making a big deal about that part. Like, focus on promoting her movie/show/book/whatever like they normally do with cover models. As is, I feel kind of uncomfortable with the way this is being presented.
I didn't interpret it that way. I mean, before this article no one but Caitlyn DID know that that was her name. So the point of the article is introducing her/telling her story as a trans woman, right? She doesn't need a movie or whatever to be on the cover. That's the point- it's a huge milestone, similar to Ellen's "Yep, I'm gay" cover as Magic mentioned earlier. I dunno, this is JMHO.
I don't know why anyone would expect or think that Caitlyn would have made an appearance during the Diane Sawyer interview. That was Bruce telling the world who he was. This magazine photo shoot is now introducing the world to Caitlyn obviously after some surgery was done.
I think this is amazing and huge. Who cares if it's photoshopped! This is groundbreaking.
I don't know why anyone would expect or think that Caitlyn would have made an appearance during the Diane Sawyer interview. That was Bruce telling the world who he was. This magazine photo shoot is now introducing the world to Caitlyn obviously after some surgery was done.
I think this is amazing and huge. Who cares if it's photoshopped! This is groundbreaking.
This is where I am, too. I don't really give a shit about the Photoshop bit. This is exciting for the trans community. This type of visibility gets the conversation started with people who may not otherwise have it. It's a start.
Also, speaking of photoshop, does anyone remember the bride a couple years ago who wanted to Photoshop the room she got ready in and some girl supported her saying she had experience photo shopping people like mermaids or something? I think she even posted a couple of her photos, which were terrible. Ah, good times.
Who are we to decide what is right or wrong about when someone transitions or if they would like to use photoshop, or if it is the real version of them. Why do they owe us more than they are willing to share? I understand that she comes from a media whore family, but this is very different. It is one thing to broadcast your marriage and then be upset when people talk about its failure. It is quite another to share parts of a deeply challenging (and personal) journey for the public good. Why is it so hard for everyone to just say "wow, that is brave, good for her" and move on? Why are we entitled to criticise her outfit, her makeup, her choice of when to transition publicly (!), and if the photos have been retouched?! This is exactly what winds up so many women on here about the male gaze and how women are viewed publically, yet here many people are doing the exact same things to her. What a sad test of "womanhood" in our society.
All we need to do is look at tragedies like Leelah Alcorn to see how hostile and terrible the discourse around this is. Can you imagine just how difficult it would be to transition? So maybe she would like to have a bit of photoshop (you know, like every OTHER woman on magazine covers). I bet she uses make up and has had plastic surgery. Is THAT real enough Caitlynn for the audience? Or do you feel entitled to more???
I just find it interesting that it is THIS cover that everyone is taking a stand on photoshop.
Who are we to decide what is right or wrong about when someone transitions or if they would like to use photoshop, or if it is the real version of them. Why do they owe us more than they are willing to share? I understand that she comes from a media whore family, but this is very different. It is one thing to broadcast your marriage and then be upset when people talk about its failure. It is quite another to share parts of a deeply challenging (and personal) journey for the public good. Why is it so hard for everyone to just say "wow, that is brave, good for her" and move on? Why are we entitled to criticise her outfit, her makeup, her choice of when to transition publicly (!), and if the photos have been retouched?! This is exactly what winds up so many women on here about the male gaze and how women are viewed publically, yet here many people are doing the exact same things to her. What a sad test of "womanhood" in our society.
All we need to do is look at tragedies like Leelah Alcorn to see how hostile and terrible the discourse around this is. Can you imagine just how difficult it would be to transition? So maybe she would like to have a bit of photoshop (you know, like every OTHER woman on magazine covers). I bet she uses make up and has had plastic surgery. Is THAT real enough Caitlynn for the audience? Or do you feel entitled to more???
I just find it interesting that it is THIS cover that everyone is taking a stand on photoshop.
DON'T indulge in superficial critiques of a transgender person's femininity or masculinity. Commenting on how well a transgender person conforms to conventional standards of femininity or masculinity is reductive and insulting.
I went on a bit of a FB rant about this and how so much of the focus is on how beautiful she is. Which, admittedly, is true. But doing so only reinforces the idea that a woman's story is only valid if she's conventionally pretty and it makes me wonder if we as society would still be as supportive if she wasn't. And, if so, what message does that send to trans women who aren't as "beautiful" or trans men who aren't "handsome" or "masculine."
I fully and completely support Caitlyn Jenner. I just don't support all the reactions to her.
I have an honest question. If this were your dad, would you still refer to her as "dad"? I noticed towards the end of the article when talking about Caitlyn's children, she's referred to as "dad" a lot, which struck me as a little strange because dad is such a male-oriented word. Is that an incorrect word to use now?
Or is it a totally subjective case-by-case thing like, there's totally no standard for that but (obviously) if Caitlyn prefers to still be referred to as "dad" by her kids then that's how it is?
It's just confusing to me that it would obviously be shitty to refer to her by male pronouns now because she doesn't prefer those, but what about male parental titles?
To the bolded, typically depends on person. A former friend of mine's dad transitioned into a woman and when she refers to her it's either by name or "my aunt". I don't know how it came about tbh but my guess is they had a conversation.
Who are we to decide what is right or wrong about when someone transitions or if they would like to use photoshop, or if it is the real version of them. Why do they owe us more than they are willing to share? I understand that she comes from a media whore family, but this is very different. It is one thing to broadcast your marriage and then be upset when people talk about its failure. It is quite another to share parts of a deeply challenging (and personal) journey for the public good. Why is it so hard for everyone to just say "wow, that is brave, good for her" and move on? Why are we entitled to criticise her outfit, her makeup, her choice of when to transition publicly (!), and if the photos have been retouched?! This is exactly what winds up so many women on here about the male gaze and how women are viewed publically, yet here many people are doing the exact same things to her. What a sad test of "womanhood" in our society.
All we need to do is look at tragedies like Leelah Alcorn to see how hostile and terrible the discourse around this is. Can you imagine just how difficult it would be to transition? So maybe she would like to have a bit of photoshop (you know, like every OTHER woman on magazine covers). I bet she uses make up and has had plastic surgery. Is THAT real enough Caitlynn for the audience? Or do you feel entitled to more???
I just find it interesting that it is THIS cover that everyone is taking a stand on photoshop.
I have an honest question. If this were your dad, would you still refer to her as "dad"? I noticed towards the end of the article when talking about Caitlyn's children, she's referred to as "dad" a lot, which struck me as a little strange because dad is such a male-oriented word. Is that an incorrect word to use now?
Or is it a totally subjective case-by-case thing like, there's totally no standard for that but (obviously) if Caitlyn prefers to still be referred to as "dad" by her kids then that's how it is?
It's just confusing to me that it would obviously be shitty to refer to her by male pronouns now because she doesn't prefer those, but what about male parental titles?
One of my friend's dad was transitioning. He prefers to be called Auntie Fiona.
As a photog I have a love/ hate relationship with Photoshop. I LOVE using it is correct any and all environmental issues - lighting, shadows, distracting objects, stains on clothing, even swapping out open eyes for closed ones in a large group shot when it's the only option. I appreciate using it for "best version of you" stuff - getting rid of zits (they come and go), evening out makeup - especially lipstick, cleaning up stray hair.
However, I'm not happy about being asked to "de-wrinkle" or slim people. I recently had to photoshop a portrait for my office in with the woman, twice my age, ended up looking younger than I. I was told to take out all her under eye wrinkles, clean the neck, laugh lines, even the skin tone and white the teeth. I'm ok if you want me to whiten your teeth, I don't mind evening out skin tone - but all your wrinkles? We should be proud of laugh lines. Own it. Personally, I have never had a man request I remove his wrinkles. If you don't want wrinkles, take better care of your skin or go for a permanent fix. This photog prefers taking photos of people who actually look like the person. That's why I don't do fashion photography, never have, never had any desire.
That said - I don't believe Caitlyn asked to be photoshopped. I think VF photoshops every single thing they run in their magazine. So I'm not going to say I wish this or that about an issue. I just wish the industry as a whole didn't photoshop every single little thing - but that wish only becomes a reality when society changes their view and puts their money where their mouth is on the subject.
I'm glad Caitlyn is making positive headlines. I don't care if it includes a photo or what the story is about as long as it is a well written, positive one. We need more positive stories that break down barriers and lighten folks. We desperately need to NEVER read another headline stating that someone has been bullied, harassed or God forbid - killed - bc of their gender or sexual preference. That's my real hope.
Heads up, "a transgender" is like saying "a black" or "a gay". Like you wouldn't say "Oh it's so great we have a black in the white house now" caues...people would look at you like you straight up crazy. Saying "Oh it's so great that our president is black" is better (still a weird thing to say).
Caitlyn is a woman who is also trans who is also a parent, an athlete and a lot of other things.
Heads up, "a transgender" is like saying "a black" or "a gay". Like you wouldn't say "Oh it's so great we have a black in the white house now" caues...people would look at you like you straight up crazy. Saying "Oh it's so great that our president is black" is better (still a weird thing to say).
Caitlyn is a woman who is also trans who is also a parent, an athlete and a lot of other things.
I think I have talked about this before on here but I'll say it again. It's called Person First wording. I learned it when talking about people with disabilities but it can be applied to most situations as well. You always want to put the PERSON first when talking about them and their describing factors. For example, you shouldn't say "that autistic boy" but rather, "that boy who is autistic." Same with the examples, MagicInk gave. This wording recognizes that the person you are talking about is a person, a human, above any other factors you may use to describe them.
Heads up, "a transgender" is like saying "a black" or "a gay". Like you wouldn't say "Oh it's so great we have a black in the white house now" caues...people would look at you like you straight up crazy. Saying "Oh it's so great that our president is black" is better (still a weird thing to say).
Caitlyn is a woman who is also trans who is also a parent, an athlete and a lot of other things.
I think I have talked about this before on here but I'll say it again. It's called Person First wording. I learned it when talking about people with disabilities but it can be applied to most situations as well. You always want to put the PERSON first when talking about them and their describing factors. For example, you shouldn't say "that autistic boy" but rather, "that boy who is autistic." Same with the examples, MagicInk gave. This wording recognizes that the person you are talking about is a person, a human, above any other factors you may use to describe them.
-----------------------------------------
I don't think person first language applies here, although I agree with your sentiment. I think the important thing is to take your cues from the individual you're talking about - how do they refer to themselves? Here's a great article about language and transgender individuals: http://time.com/3630965/transgender-transgendered/
Also, I don't want to derail or be nit-picky, but person first language in the disability world is not "person who is disabled" but rather " person who has a disability". This important distinction acknowledges that a person's disability does not define who they are, but rather is just something about them. This is why, imho, we shouldn't assume how a transgender person wants to refer to themselves and we should follow their lead.
Interestingly there has been a resurgence, especially in the autism community, of not using person first language, because some people with autism identify as autistic (rather than having autism). This is usually because they feel that autism really does define who they are and that having autism shouldn't be a negative thing that they need to distance their identity from by using person first language. In other words, they feel that person first language implies that disability is a negative thing.
I love this: "This wording recognizes that the person you are talking about is a person, a human, above any other factors you may use to describe them."
Re: ETF: Caitlyn (formerly) Bruce Jenner on VF
FiancB said: I'm of the unpopular opinion that I fucking love photoshop. Yeah, sometimes it's overdone. But the job of the photographer is to make the people look good, and they use tools at their disposal to do that. They aren't under a moral obligation to make sure you can see they have zits and stuff. It takes a lot of skill; there is no button you press and bam! Perfection.
Sometimes with lighting and such, you end up having a bad spot, or the pose is a little unflattering. And the camera really does add ten pounds, so if I do tweak that a little, I feel I am just taking it back off again. I admit I did it a tiny bit to my own (self taken) engagement photos- my clothes were in a weird spot and it wasn't cute. Same with some portraits I've done.
There are definitely bad photoshop jobs where the skin looks like plastic or the waist is just ridiculously tiny. But they're pretty obvious. Portraits are done as such a way so that the makeup, pose, and lighting are all as flattering as possible, and good photo editing just takes it a little step further.
Honestly in the pic her skin still has a lot of what seems to be acne scarring, like what she had as Bruce. So I wouldn't say they went to extremes there, because that would've been really easy to "fix". Most photoshopping is lighting and color adjustments because it lets you do things we can only wish our cameras would. I did have the photoshop thought cross my mind as it can take a long time to transition and she already has a feminine small waist- but it could just as easily be the corset thing helping with that. I'm sure she can afford more PS than most as well. **boxesboxes*
I never said that you stated that.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that your little modeling stint is not comparable to someone coming out as transgender. Thus the font.
ETA: Nor is it comparable to an engagement shoot.
Yeah, I think you are stretching a bit here.
She had quite a bit as Bruce. Look at him back when he was a triathlete and then over the years, especially when he was on the Kardashians. Whatever floats your boat.
Also, I'm sure everyone who mentioned they wanted to see Caitlyn on TV and not photoshopped on a magazine cover is not trying to belittle her journey as a trans person, or poo poo her achievement of coming out and getting on the VF cover.
However, I'm not sure what you all are expecting to see.
When these celebs are on TV they have a ton of HD make up on, they have contouring done, their hair is professionally styled, the lighting is set up to be flattering, etc. Those are pretty much the real life incarnations of Photoshop.
What everyone else is suggesting is that those of you commenting about wanting to see her in person are missing the forest for the trees with thse comments.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trans people are currently invisible in "mainstream society", in part because it is frequently very dangerous for them to come out. Dangerous professionally, emotionally, mentally, and physically.
We are not going to go from that sad state of affairs to having the level of trans acceptance you are describing without going through the educational period. As mentioned above, Ellen had the guts to come out publicly and it was huge in terms of changing the entire nation's perspective on gay people.
Yes, it would be awesome if we were at the place where it was NBD that a trans person was on the cover of VF. But we aren't at that place, and we aren't going to get there by just not mentioning it.
I don't think you are saying this, but it is also important to recognize that this is her process. She can do it however she wants. If she wants to never mention it, totally cool. If she wants to VF and talk about it, totally cool. It's not really about anyone else's comfort level, although everyone is certainly entitled to their feelings about all of it.
Formerly martha1818
I think this is amazing and huge. Who cares if it's photoshopped! This is groundbreaking.
Also, speaking of photoshop, does anyone remember the bride a couple years ago who wanted to Photoshop the room she got ready in and some girl supported her saying she had experience photo shopping people like mermaids or something? I think she even posted a couple of her photos, which were terrible. Ah, good times.
http://jezebel.com/jessica-lange-will-gladly-take-your-caitlyn-jenner-comp-1708337965?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
DON'T indulge in superficial critiques of a transgender person's femininity or masculinity. Commenting on how well a transgender person conforms to conventional standards of femininity or masculinity is reductive and insulting.