the hunt for essentials: unpacking transgenderism

July 27, 2008

The gender binary is the idea that biological sex exists primarily in two forms: male and female, and that each sex is assigned a gender which is allowed or capable of expressing only certain specific characteristics.  A conflict arises when we compare an obvious contradiction:  radical feminists believe that transgenderism increases sexism by enforcing gender norms; and trans supporters believe that transgenderism reduces sexism by relaxing gender norms.

Those two beliefs are diametrically opposed, they cannot both be true at the same time.  One must logically be false, and because the remaining one will be true then we won’t be able to prove it false no matter how hard we try. That is how logic works my friends, even if we wish it otherwise — and finding that truth becomes crucial when we consider that sexism affects every single human on the planet.

The following series of posts chronicles the very beginning of my hunt for that logical impossiblility and every effort towards fairness was made.  Except the more I searched official trans organizations for a particular answer to a very precise question, the greater number of mispresentations I uncovered, all without ever finding something which should be there and is not.   We will most likely track down this elusive thing in a later post, but for now let us concern ourselves with what we did discover.

The definition itself hints at the magitude of untangling required, because according to three official trans organizations themselves, transfolks are:

Students who are gender non-conforming are those whose gender expression (or outward appearance) does not follow traditional gender roles: “feminine boys,” “masculine girls,” and students who are androgynous, for example. It can also include students who look the way boys and girls are expected to look but participate in activities that are gender nonconforming, like a boy who does ballet. The term “transgender youth” can be used as an umbrella term for all students whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assignedat birth and/or whose gender expression is non-stereotypical.

So a girl who plays football is transgendered according to these folks.  The authors also chose subjective terms which fluctuate from culture to culture and over time.  As such, a reasonable person would have to question the purpose of it’s excessive vagueness — it appears either incompetent or dishonest; especially since the lawyers who either created this definition themselves or simply offered their endorsement, are known to use precise terminology and supposedly have been deliberating this issue for years. 

Of all the organizations claiming official status that I looked at, every single one used the same tactic: attributing any non-traditional gender characteristic or attribute to the catagory of transgender.  But the term non-traditional or it’s many variations is never itself defined, so a logical person is quite rightly confused as to what they are getting at.  Apparently your mom is trangendered, if she’s not barefoot and pregnant and baking your dad a pie right this very minute.   Your aunt who got divorced back in 1908 was apparently transgendered too!

Another  trans organization, this time at Wesleyan Univerisity, has this to say:

Genderqueer: A person who identifies as something other than a man or a woman. May or may not prefer a gender-neutral pronoun. 

FTM/ female to male: Assigned female at birth who identifies as something not female and often male.
MTF/ male to female: Assigned male at birth who identifies as something not male and often female.
Transgender: Describes people whose gender identity or gender expression fails to conform with societal expectations of what it means to be male or female bodied. Often shortened to trans.

Transexual:A person who identifies within the gender binary, but as the gender opposite of birth sex. They may be pre-op(erative), post-op, or non-op..

This definition for transgenderism is a little better, but notice the subjective phrase “societal expectations” which is still far too vague for our purposes.  We want a definition that will stand the test of time and culture and can withstand a logical examination.  Their rendition will not survive our inquiry and we want to give them a fair shot.

My definition is much more narrow:  anyone who thinks they are a different biological sex than their genitalia indicates at birth.  Which apparently matches what they call “transexualism”.  Let’s discuss.

Here we have some number of men who do not feel comfortable with traditional gender expectations.  No problem there, many women also do not feel comfortable with traditonal gender expectations — except we do not call these women transgendered, we call them feminists or possibly humanists.  And for some obscure reason, these men who are not transexual would rather huddle under the umbrella term which seems to mean “guy in a dress” rather then some other term which means “people who refuse to conform to patriarchy”. 

These men who are not transexual seem to equate dismantling patriarchy with wearing a dress or a vagina, which is why I used the phrase “guy in a dress”.  But a man doesn’t need to do either of those things; a man can tell patriarchy to sod off just by dumping that whole domination thing they seem to like so much.  Therefore, dismantling patriarchy is not a valid reason for wearing either a dress or a vagina, though it may or may not be a byproduct. 

(At the risk of sounding like I’m lecturing, there is a big difference between some thing being a cause, and some thing being an effect.   As soon as this distinction is mentioned, everyone says, “oh I knew that already”.  But as we shall see later, many people have a tendancy say they understand a concept in theory but when asked to put that theory into practice, the results are inconsistent.  That is common, so no reason to feel bad about it.  But this distinction between cause and effect does make a difference to the way some people think about transgenderism, and so it’s worth noting now for future reference.)

Personally, what I think happened is that many of these transfolk experimented with various men’s groups who were themselves supposedly exploring non-exploitative manhood, and none of these men’s groups provided a plausible excuse for a guy to fetishize either body parts or traditional female accessories.  So our transfolk ran back under the transgenderism umbrella.  That’s my hypothesis and we still have to test it. 

But we can’t test it just yet because so much transgenderism baggage remains blocking our path that even locating a proper starting place becomes a challenge.  And that, you see, is the problem — which is why the subject of this series involves delineating their current disinformation practices.  While I’ve been searching for a precise answer to a particular question, all that is available is elusive platitudes or illogical flatulence, which never quite explains anything other than how sad they are.

Most fetishists usually are sad, though, when people question their validity, so I’m not sure why I need to care just yet.  Let’s kvetch a bit before we get serious:

One of the things I discovered about transgenderism is that I can’t call it a fetish, even though they can’t explain why it’s not a fetish.  Apparently, that makes them upset and of course, if they are upset then they must be right and so I must refrain from calling it a fetish even though they refuse to explain why it’s not a fetish.  I’m still trying to wrap my head around all the Orwellian bullshit as you can see.

It seems to go in circles, like a Monty Python sketch.  If I question one thing, then their response is to play “distract the baby by shaking something shiny”.  Except I’m not a baby and so that doesn’t work on me.  So they talk about something else, usually how sad they are.  I already said I didn’t care.

Sadness is not proof of validity, but I guess they are too stunned by their own stupidity to realize proper order matters.  First comes proof of entitled right, then comes proof of violation of that right, then comes the tissue for their tears.  Shake your silver baby rattle again darling, and we’re still not skipping ahead just to alleviate your fears.

At the risk of ruining my reputation as an evil feminazi lacking in discernment, here’s a few things I noticed on my quest for my ultimate objective.  Each of them is a separate post, and already written if that matters.

1)  NO oppressed group has ever demanded anything other than full human rights. page AVAILABLE.

2)  No oppressed group has ever, as a requirement of their own liberation, demanded that a ‘controversial harm to others’ be codified into law, even before that harm is proven to be non-existent.   page not posted.

3)  NO oppressed group ever demanded automatic public acceptance just because some other group already possessed proof of entitlement to a right.  page not posted.

4)  NO oppressed group ever assumed they could dictate the rules for the majority.  page not posted.

5)  NO oppressed group ever assumed they had the luxury of refusing to factually address the criticisms, especially when that criticism involves harm to others.  page not posted.

6)  No oppressed group ever insisted their emotional distress was the sole basis for the establishment of a right.  Proof of entitlement to a right is required.  page not posted.

7)  No oppressed group has ever hid behind revolving excuses in order to jusify their entitlement.  — Well, except for the Men’s Right Activists, rape apologists, abusive personalites, and transgendered.  page not posted. 

Our purpose for this series is to eliminate the excess baggage surrounding transgenderism before we begin the hunt for that elusive thing I briefly mentioned earlier.  If you notice, I’m trying to be as organized, clear, and respectful about this topic as I possibly can, but of course my suckage still blows eternal.   Humble apologies.

42 Responses to “the hunt for essentials: unpacking transgenderism”

  1. Nine Deuce Says:

    I’m really looking forward to #5.

  2. thebewilderness Says:

    Are we to understand from these definitions of Transpersons that when they speak of cisgendered people they mean the tiny minority of people who are hyperfeminine and hypermasculine? Because that sure is what it sounds like.
    Criminy!

  3. Mary Sunshine Says:

    Sorry, I’m confused.

    Is air socially constructed?

    If not, is the meaning of the word “air” socially constructed?

    If air is not socially constructed and the meaning of the word “air” is socially constructed, then may we assume that the word “air” is useless in terms of specifying an actual material phenomenon on Planet Earth?

    Please clarify.

    Mary Sunshine
    standard disclaimer: “I’m just a mathematician”


  4. Yup I am soooooooooo transgendered. And therein lies the problem. I am sick of this subject having devoted far too much of my life to it when I could have done something productive like bang my head against a brick wall. So I’ll just confine myself to saying that I watched a wonderful TV programme last night with a psychiatrist who said that children who behaved in ‘non gender normative’ ways grew up gay.

    Which is kind of OT, but I just thought I’d mention it.

  5. Mary Sunshine Says:

    I have likewise given up on gender.

    Now I’m wondering about air.
    :-|

  6. delphyne Says:

    It’s nominalism Mary, and it’s been around for centuries:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/nominalism

    There’s nothing new under the sun, poststructuralism merely gave it a new outing. Their clever twist on it is that there’s no such thing as sex until they say there is. Thus they are men born in women bodies who need artificially constructed vagina’s and breasts so their body can achieve the womanhood that their brain already has, but when we point out that that’s impossible because a woman is a physical entity, not something that exists only in someone’s head, all of a sudden women don’t exist again and we’re imagining it.

  7. Mary Sunshine Says:

    Holy shit!

    Excellent link, Delphyne, thanks for that. Saved to my hard drive.

    Scary.

    In the meantime, I’m going to go on breathing, “air” be damned.

  8. Polly Styrene Says:

    PS I do like the logic of this one,,,

    FTM/ female to male: Assigned female at birth who identifies as something not female and often male.

    So if I identify as not female, but as say – a giraffe – I will still be FTM will I?
    No gender binary here, no sir, not indeedy.

  9. stormy Says:

    Hey Polly, I always identified as the giraffe, actually I refined it to ‘pre-op giraffe’. But I still reckon I can crash giraffe-only parties.

  10. Polly Styrene Says:

    It’s just the ‘not female and often male’ bit that slays me, s’riously. How do they think these things up – though (dread secret) I get paid to do this kind of crap as well, and we have biscuits (and sometimes sandwiches). Next week we’re being told about what our ‘behaviours’ should be. I mean there’s a whole new industry out there, which is just spouting crap.

    ::head-desk::

  11. stormy Says:

    Actually, it is the TW’s fault that they don’t get invited into FAB spaces. They are all for the “all inclusive” as far as claiming anyone and anything goes (for gender, self identification etc). Their (very male) friends aren’t welcome in FAB spaces. Now, if they would just shorten their guest list …

  12. Chantal Says:

    Dear

    It seems you are not that inquisitive as you think of yourself. Do you really believe that t-girls think their entire humanity is packed in their genitals? Do you really imagine that someone is going to lose her sense of humanity because of what you write? That is sadly childish. The transitioning process is a little more complex than chopping of testicles and penises. There is previous counseling and hormone replacement therapy that has obvious effects in other parts of the body; there is electrolysis and other methods of unwanted body hair removal; there is a complex process of facial feminization; and other things t-girls take care of also, to improve their voices, to mention one. Actually, there are some t-girls that will do everything but sex reassignment surgery! Those facts relegate your simplistic views to the psychological realm of your convictions: that castration is feminization or feminization is castration (I do not know what suits you better or if any one of them suits you). I hope you do not lose your sense of humanity because of that.

    That dichotomy that the views of feminists and t-girls are opposite is false, because there is a third possibility, so obvious, that I wonder why your “inquisitive mind” has failed to recognize it. Do not you think that it is possible that transgenderism and sexism are uncorrelated! In other words, that sexism will be the same no matter if there are or there are not t-girls in your beautiful world. Tell me if you need that explained. Therefore your argument is a fallacy honey.

    Further: I am a t-girl and I do not care what you think or anybody else thinks about it. I do not care if you accept me or you do not. I do not live to please you since you will not be willing to die instead of me. I do not think it is right. I do not think it is wrong. I think it is just as natural as anything else in the world, because I have never seen any evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural. It is rare: less than one in ten thousand men is a t-girl, whilst the odds that one of two is a functional imbecile are not to be disregarded.

    Did you know that there are many t-girls in computer science? So chance are that one of them wrote the program that allows you to communicate your deep inquiries. Chance are that one of them will be the nurse taking care of you the next time you go to the emergency room. I will stay as I am till the day I die or the day I decide that I will live not more.

    Moreover, if all this fuss is about where each one pisses, it is awfully boring. I do not need your toilet. I have mine.

    Kisses

  13. Luckynkl Says:

    I think it is just as natural as anything else in the world, because I have never seen any evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural.

    So the removal of penises and testicles, counseling, hormone therapy, electrolysis, body hair removal, facial feminization, and voice alteration is natural? It just occurs naturally in nature? I’d hate to see what you consider unnatural.

    Actually, there are some t-girls that will do everything but sex reassignment surgery!

    Well, sure. I understand. Not everyone has $25,000 laying around to have all these “natural” processes done.

    That dichotomy that the views of feminists and t-girls are opposite is false, because there is a third possibility, so obvious, that I wonder why your “inquisitive mind” has failed to recognize it.

    Hmmm… feminists seek to eradicate stereotypes and gender roles, and t-girls twist themselves into a pretzel trying to conform to them. I’d say that’s pretty opposite.

    So what’s the 3rd possibility? You’re only t-girls on Wednesdays and Thursdays?

    Do not you think that it is possible that transgenderism and sexism are uncorrelated! In other words, that sexism will be the same no matter if there are or there are not t-girls in your beautiful world. Tell me if you need that explained. Therefore your argument is a fallacy honey.

    Is this a trick question? Sexism will exist as long as the patriarchy is allowed to exist. Both you, your fellow t-girls, and your knuckle dragging brothers ARE the patriarchy, silly boy. You act as tho there’s a difference.

    Awwww. Was that make-up and frock you came in suppose to be a disguise, sweetie pie?

    Did you know that there are many t-girls in computer science?

    Well, sure. It’s a common interest of the male-born. So why should we be surprised?

    So chance are that one of them wrote the program that allows you to communicate your deep inquiries.

    Nah. WordPress was developed by Matt Mullenweg, Mike Little, and Michael Valdrighi. They’re not t-girls.

    Chance are that one of them will be the nurse taking care of you the next time you go to the emergency room.

    I spent most of the day in the emergency room yesterday. I looked high and low, but nope, there were no t-girls there. Probably cuz they were all in computer science classes.

    Oooo this is a fun game. Can I play?

    Did you know that all t-girls are born of women and come into this world 2 mms from women’s assholes?

  14. Polly Styrene Says:

    Well there are lots of non trans people in computer science Chantal so the odds are against wordpress having been written by a trans woman (not girl, girl is female child). But even if it was, WTF, has that got to do with argument? Are you saying their computer science skills would not exist if they hadn’t had hormones and surgery?

    And yes indeedy, I don’t think sexism would disappear if we just got rid of trans people. But while people are propagating the idea of ‘gender’ as anything other than a social construct, it will most surely continue to exist.

    Chantal, I personally do not give a flying f*** what you do with your body. I do care when you say that I have to accept someone with a penis into a space for born females. I do care when you say that gender is some real, inborn, essential quality. What you do with your body is none of my business however.

  15. Chantal Says:

    Darling

    The removal of penises and testicles, counseling, hormone therapy, electrolysis, body hair removal, facial feminization, and voice alteration does not occur spontaneously in nature (more or less in the same way as makeup) but it can only happen in nature. We are just human beings and, in consequence, animals, we are not gods, not demigods. We belong to the realm of nature.

    There are, however, spontaneous processes we care to stop, like a smallpox infection to give an example. Should we let infected people die on the grounds that smallpox is not our creation? Why do we dare to interfere with nature?

    Now, it is you who started the logical game.

    You wrote: “…radical feminists believe that transgenderism increases sexism by enforcing gender norms; and trans supporters believe that transgenderism reduces sexism by relaxing gender norms. Those two beliefs are diametrically opposed, they cannot both be true at the same time. One must logically be false…”

    I have just proved to you that from the fact that those beliefs cannot both be true at the same time it does not follow (in the sense of logical implication) that one of them is true, because there is a third possibility that, if true, makes those two beliefs false.

    As you can see your thinking is not completely logical. Therefore, according to your own standards (because we do not care about feelings, only facts and rigorous logical thinking) you are liar or a fucktard! Do you need an example or a formal proof to help you understand honey? Sorry, this is an ad hominem fallacy, but I could not resist. It is so funny.

    Hugs

  16. delphyne Says:

    Stopping a disease that would kill us seems sensible. Chopping off your willy not so much.

    Don’t you miss it Chantal?

  17. Branjor Says:

    “Just as natural” and “only happening in nature” are two very different things. Splitting the atom “only happens in nature” too but it is not at all natural because it goes against the atom’s natural tendency to stay together. Thus it is not “just as natural” as, say, the water cycle. Likewise, subverting the body’s natural female or maleness by hormone therapy and all the rest is not “just as natural” as the water cycle. Stopping a smallpox infection, while also not natural, is understandably desirable for the individual who is infected. It may not be as desirable for the larger natural processes the smallpox infection is a part of, such as eliminating an ecologically unsustainable human population.

    I am ambivalent about even responding to anything said by this “person” as their use of the terms “darling” and “honey” to address women is extremely disrespectful. If this were my blog I wouldn’t even allow him to post until he learned some respect.

  18. Branjor Says:

    ***Do not you think that it is possible that transgenderism and sexism are uncorrelated!***

    I don’t think it is possible that transgenderism and sexism are uncorrelated. Transgenderism affects attitudes towards gender (whether for the better or the worse), and gender, along with sex, are *the* primary means men have used to oppress women for the last five thousand years. If a world minus transgenderism would be just as sexist as a world with it (and I have no doubt that it would) that is only because other forms of sexism would be intensified and/or new forms of sexism would be invented.

  19. Luckynkl Says:

    The removal of penises and testicles, counseling, hormone therapy, electrolysis, body hair removal, facial feminization, and voice alteration does not occur spontaneously in nature (more or less in the same way as makeup) but it can only happen in nature.

    Dude, make-up isn’t natural either.

    We are just human beings and, in consequence, animals, we are not gods, not demigods. We belong to the realm of nature.

    You boys act as tho you just magically appeared on the planet by some random occurrence in nature. So did the stork bring you or were you found in the cabbage patch? Or is it just too painful for you to admit that you are born of woman? Not nature. Woman.

    You see, sweetie, there are only 2 kinds of people on the planet. Women. And their children. You can only be the child of a woman, never a woman. How’s that for a construct?

    Since you’re into gods and demi-gods, just think of women as such. We can exist just fine without you. It is you that cannot exist without us. Women get to decide whether or not to create you or whether you get to exist or not. The only thing you can create is a mess. See the difference?

    Now stop acting as tho there’s nothing women can do about you and your bratty little brothers and sexism. Do not mistake our kindness for weakness or powerlessness. We can take our beautiful world back any time we like. We always could. You see, darling, women put you and your bratty little brothers on our earth for our amusement, not vice versa. But many of us, don’t find you too amusing any more. Your mockery and disrespect of us is growing rather tiresome. Now I know you like to dress up in mommy’s clothes and all, but I suggest that you don’t push your luck, k? Cuz who knows? Maybe we’ll just get fed up and find your antics a little too tiresome and just stop producing you? Many of us already have. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Now hush up before we send you to bed without any milk, cookies, or cartoons.

  20. Chantal Says:

    Sweetie

    There you go again: claiming you are right because you are upset. At least we have found a quality we have in common! Please don’t cry, there is not need of it.

  21. Luckynkl Says:

    Oh, I’m not upset, little boy. I’m just having some fun and playing a little volleyball with you. Can’t you tell the difference?

    Trust me, you’ll know when mommy is upset with you. That’s when you get grounded to your room and get a time-out.

  22. Chantal Says:

    Honey

    Stopping a disease that would kill us seems sensible, until you consider that it amounts to play a little bit with natural selection and, therefore, with evolution. It amounts to play a little bit with biology (and we, girls, we are playful). Perhaps that’s what has produced the offspring of todays t-girls you are so freaked of and, in consequence, to the slaughter of penises and testicles that seems to scare you to death—with no reason at all, because you have nothing to lose in that affair. If it were so will you think of it as sensible as you look at it now? (Here I am back to the stopping a disease and so forth, don’t get confused, I am not talking about the chopping stuff.)

    Perhaps not at the quantum depths of molecular biology, but definitely at the level where human society emerges that is what has just happened: because the survival of almost everyone, not only the survival of the fittest(including mighty sweetie), is more or less granted now by law (and medicine) almost everywhere in western countries, all of it thanks to the society that emerged at the end of WWII, which killed so many people.

    My advise is this: the next time there is a war, do not even mention to stop it. Instead, align yourself with the mustache and fight really hard to clean the world of t-girls. (They will surrender if you promise to chop their penises.)

    P.S.
    -Mommy I am not a boy, I am a t-girl. Please stop calling me “little boy” or I will cry so loud that everyone here will think you are not politically correct. (Gosh, now I need a tissue.)
    -By the way: I do not miss it. I do not need it. Well, at least not hanging in between my legs. My sense of humanity wasn’t packed in it. Do you miss it?
    -oops!

  23. thebewilderness Says:

    It never occurred to me that Transpersons were likely to be creepy stalker guys, until now.

  24. m Andrea Says:

    I was out doing pure unmitigated evil all day and this is what I find when I come home. Believe it or not, this was the most coherent trans in the spambox. I really would like to talk to some of these folks, or at least hear what they have to say in response to what is going on here, but unfortunately this is the result.

    I apologize for inflicting this on all of you. Apparently wordpress can put specific people in permanent moderation while everyone else can post as usual. Perhaps that is what I should do from now on.

    I’ve been wondering why the transgendered can craft these beautiful sob story comments in which every sentence has a subject-verb-predicate, and contains a clear reference to the previous sentence, but can’t seem to apply that same clarity to anything besides how sad they are.

    This puzzles me. It also puzzles me how, when supposedly pointing out the evils of radical feminists, this same grasp of the english language is evident. And yet, when asked why transgenderism is not a fetish, there is only gibberish replies.

    I originally said in this post that radical feminists believe one thing, and trans people believe the opposite. So it IS true to say that those two groups hold diametrically opposite beliefs and one of them must be false.

    “Do not you think that it is possible that transgenderism and sexism are uncorrelated! In other words, that sexism will be the same no matter if there are or there are not t-girls in your beautiful world. Tell me if you need that explained. Therefore your argument is a fallacy honey.”

    Dear god we have a problem if you think that what I wrote in this post was a logical “argument”. It’s only laying out the initial assumptions.

    The offical trans organizations themselves are claiming that transgenderism REDUCES sexism. Go look for yourself, I did.

  25. stormy Says:

    I am ambivalent about even responding to anything said by this “person” as their use of the terms “darling” and “honey” to address women is extremely disrespectful. If this were my blog I wouldn’t even allow him to post until he learned some respect.

    Right on Branjor. IRL whenever some male uses such terms I just feel like punching them out. And it’s ONLY males that use such terms towards females. The thinly veiled friendliness really does not disguise the true purpose — as a venomous put down. And here, Chantel uses it, and uses frequently. Therefore, not really convincing me (or probably anyone else) that chopping off one’s penis and throwing on a frock makes them ‘one of the girls’. It does make me more resolute in my belief that FAB spaces should exist. Thanks for clearing up any doubts I may have had.

    And the use of the term “t-girls”, the diminutive, I guess to make themselves less threatening? Another thing that really pisses off radical feminists is when MALES refer to adult females as ‘girls’. So Chantel, a really MALE thing to do, right on brother!

    mAndrea, you should know by know never ever leave you computer, you must remain in SIVWOTI mode at all times. :P

  26. m Andrea Says:

    Well the thing is I have used that “dear” crap too, sorta sarcastically, and then I have sincerely used it ironicly as well as affectionately. But then I realized it was probably confusing to people to use it so many different ways, so I had to either cut down or stop completely.

    The other thing is that we are taking the transgenderism ideology down to the ground here — I am not fucking around, though I may give that appearance being a feminazi an all. Obviously these folks are going to feel threatened and get pissy. Have some compassion, their pet ideology is going down. Would you poke an animal while it dies? I probably shouldn’t let it vomit everywhere though.

    Some uninformed folks are under the impression that we only have two choices: accept transgenderism as true and let them decide what a woman is, or accept transgenderism as false and keep our lovely genderized binaries exactly the way they are. There is always a third option, and we just haven’t gotten to it yet, but oh hell yes we will in time.

    The third option is that it’s a fetish which harms no one. And as soon as we get to that point I will happily take the transgendered shopping myself.

    But we do need a comment policy of some sort and frankly I hate to get all bossy since only a few regulars post, but we do need some guildelines. Obviously I like my ideas challenged and of course different viewpoints are welcome. The main thing for me is that sob story routine which always gets substituted for an actual reason and also want to remind folks to have some compassion. You’d get pissy too if a man was trying to define for you what it means to be a woman in order to benefit himself — oh wait… lol


  27. What M Andrea – you mean the one that goes ‘ you are cruel and heartless’?

    And?


  28. [...] 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm (Uncategorized) The main page to this post is here, and holds six more extraneous bits of baggage which must be cleared away before we can proceed.  [...]


  29. [...] Transgenderism Deconstruction series is temporarily being interrupted to briefly discuss a few problems which are affecting how the [...]


  30. [...] of an ongoing series of posts exploring transgenderism, Miss Andrea has written The Hunt for Essentials: Unpacking Transgenderism posted at miss Andrea’s. She draws attention to the often loose and vague definitions of [...]


  31. [...] aligning all radfems with the trans-exclusionary radfem (TERF) activists, which I resent), links to yet another post from Miss Andrea that argues that transgenderism should be regarded as just another… and that transwomen are wrong and probably deliberately deceptive for claiming that it’s [...]


  32. [...] of an ongoing series of posts exploring transgenderism, Miss Andrea has written The Hunt for Essentials: Unpacking Transgenderism posted at miss Andrea’s. She draws attention to the often loose and vague definitions of [...]

  33. charlie Says:

    I am aware that this discussion has been over for almost a month now, but having read this well-thought-out article and the discussion that followed I simply had to put in a few of my thoughts.

    First off, I am very curious to know your thoughts on transmen. While I am aware that you, being as you so proudly claim a radical feminist, understandably hold much contempt for males. What, then, is your opinion on those who are born biologically female but view themselves as male?

    Secondly, I tend to disagree with what you say about radical feminism and transgenderism being at odds with each other. From my experience, the transgender issue is an internal one, focused on changing oneself because the physical self is not aligned with one’s identity. And from what I have read of your radical feminism, it seems to be focused outward, trying to change your surroundings because they are not aligned with your perception of what the world should be.

    Of course, I am hardly an expert in your beliefs and theories, and so if I am making some horrible sort of misconception or simply being ignorant, please educate me.

    One last thing: Luckynkl said, “We can exist just fine without you. It is you that cannot exist without us. Women get to decide whether or not to create you or whether you get to exist or not.” But men are necessary for conception, are they not? Whether or not they are required afterward, on a biological level they are at least needed to provide sperm. Unless there is a way around this that I, being uneducated, do not know of. If this is the case, again, please do educate me.

  34. thebewilderness Says:

    I am aware that this discussion has been over for almost a month now, but having read this well-thought-out article and the discussion that followed I simply had to put in a few of my thoughts.

    Of course, I am hardly an expert in your beliefs and theories, and so if I am making some horrible sort of misconception or simply being ignorant, please educate me.

    Charlie,
    Google is your friend. Please educate yourself, then, then put in a few of your educated thoughts.
    KTKSBYE


  35. She shoots, she scores! A win for thebewilderness.

  36. Polly Styrene Says:

    And from what I have read of your radical feminism, it seems to be focused outward, trying to change your surroundings because they are not aligned with your perception of what the world should be.

    Well all radical politics are aimed at trying to change the world. That’s the idea of them. If you just want to adjust yourself so you that you learn to like an unjust world, you have psychotherapy instead……

  37. m Andrea Says:

    A cat brought a slightly injured baby squirrel into the house Sunday, right as I had finished typing a long reply to Charlie (hi). The squirrel kept hopping UNDER the cat, which confused him so much he stopped trying to kill it and so a fat load of furballs all circled ’round and watched the baby squirrel with his new momma.

    Then my internet connection broke, AGAIN. This time it was the wiring. Now I’m having penises wander around, poking at things as penises are wont to do. So a temp electric solution was found, but then my mouse ran away with the squirrel. The mouse is found, the squirrel is gone, and penises are still wandering around gleefully scribbling dollar signs everywhere.

    Anyway, hi Charlie. The nice thing about having a brain is that we can do fun stuff with it, like change our minds upon further exposure to new elements, like so: While individual transfolk have their own special snowflake reasons for needing to transition and this need is not begrudged, at heart it all stems from the same place regardless of biological sex. Transgenderism is an abnormal mind/body dysfunction, with the exact mechanism identical to body-snatching alien abductions and amputation disorder.

    Part of the problem is that we keep going over the same criticisms over and over, but transfolk keep thinking these criticisms do not require refutation. And they never refute the criticism in the thread in which the criticism is discussed — they always pick a different thread to ask a stupid question as if a question somehow refutes the criticism made by radical feminists — yet that question has been decimated in another post.

    In other words, they’re not being honest. So I’m just going to skip all that and say they are either insane or stupid, or both. Arguing “with” them is exactly like arguing with an alcoholic.

    For the past 50 years science has not been able to prove any meaningful brain differences in biological sex. Even the most anxious to prove such a distinction admits that the variation expressed by members of the same sex is far greater than the variation between the (two) sexes. That is not a minor point. Add to that all the careful feminist evidence over the past 300 years which draws the conclusion that it is culture which genderizes one’s character, not biology. That is a second major point.

    So now we have clusterfuck of morons who recently claim that switching body parts is imperative for normal healthy brains, but lack the necessary ability to recognize that as the late comers to the show, it is their responsbility to prove their contradictary assertion.

    In response, I have developed a new argument yet to be posted, one which is designed to piss vanilla girls off. Hope they have a sense of humor and take it as the learning experience in which it is intended. I am busy trying to make it as vicious as possible, which as everyone knows is difficult for feminazis as vileness goes against our gentle and compassionate nature.

  38. Polly Styrene Says:

    Aww you are stealing my ideas M Andrea. I too have a new argument (ok I nicked it from someone else), but who said I couldn’t plagiarise.Everyone else seems to be doing it….

  39. m Andrea Says:

    I have been stealing your ideas for months, Polly, and you are just now noticing? lol Feel honored, for I only steal from the best. But really, the truth is usually verified by different people at different times, and in different ways. It’s a good thing.

    It really was your repetitious explaination of the difference between gender and biological sex which clarified things for me, and that repetition was very much needed. If fact, I really hope you don’t stop, as there is one more gem which needs to be pried out from that point…

  40. Megan Says:

    All reform primarily lies in “sob stories” and relies heavily on compassion to promote change. For feminism, why list rape statistics? To completely debunk the importance of sadness and strife is in opposition of simple humanity. “I’m sad” may in fact be the most valid argument ever put forth.

  41. m Andrea Says:

    EVERYONE has feelings about an issue, even the people who disagree with you. Why would you say that only one group on one side of an issue is entitled to have their emotions enacted into law, and the other side is not?

    Some people fweel that the option to choose abortion is wrong, some people fweel that the option to choose abortion is right. What laws do we pass, and why?

    Sob stories tell us that someone is in pain, logic tells us if their pain is caused by a violation of a human right to which they are entitled.

    We live in a world where everyone claims to understand that females are just as human as males, and therefore entitled to the same rights. But when we start analyzing the subject of rape or abortion, or any other “women’s issues”, we find that those same people are implicitly assuming that it is the females primary job to serve others before she takes care of her own needs. We also find that those folks make no such assumption about males.

    http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com/ does a beautiful job of deconstructing the inconsistancies surrounding the issue of rape, if you are interested.


  42. [...] as though it’s explaining transsexualism.  Which lets her make her snarky little comment, which isn’t even that original (WARNING: link to trans hate site).  Of course, last I checked, football (that’s soccer to [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers

%d bloggers like this: