All this Jenner stuff is dumb, I don't really have an opinion on it, and I swore a sacred oath not to complain about the subject. But I have officially reached my peak of annoyed. So apparently, she / he / it / blarg (I'll let you pick one, I really don't care which) won some sort of stupid happy-fun-time courage award, and the good (annoying) christian folk of central Indiana here are complaining because some pointless jar-head G.I. Joe didn't win it. The guy got his limbs blown off in one of the current "wars" in whatever unpronounceable Mohamed desert country conflict that's happening right now, and the good folks of America's favorite country, the USA, want to ram this guy's existence down my skull holes now, because apparently he was supposed to win the award over this mighty morphing gender ranger.
So since we haven't had a good debate in awhile, I serve you this steaming hot controversy. Which situation should rationally be seen as more courageous? The gender conflict with Jenner, or the role in warfare with Galloway. If I sound bias towards one, it was unintentional. I actually don't know since I don't respect either of them in any capacity. I'm just curious to know how much someone needs to voluntarily get mutilated in order to win this stupid award.
According to this article, he may have actually have won it? I have no idea what's happening. But the debate is still valid, and real-life people are actually split on what side to take. That means we get to decide for them.