No, really I’m evil — transgenderism preliminaries
January 15, 2008
In an apparently never-ending quest to avoid dealing with an existential crisis, I am taking yet another leaf out of the patriarchal tree – I’m going to go attack something completely different. Yes, yes I am. Please do not sneer at my ability to avoid uncomfortable topics, it’s a very handy tool, one that feminists are quite familiar with but us rad-fems are not. That’s why I pointed it out, so you too can play along at home.
Today’s spewage is brought to you by the f-word and the topic is that most ubiquitous of subjects, transgenderism. Please note the clever use of ism, which referrs not to transgendered folk themselves, but to the broader philosophical concept which approves of switching one’s genitalia around as it’s nothing more than a Mr. Potato Head, if you remember those. Shockingly enough, it is actually possible to discuss a concept which impacts society as a whole, as opposed to chatting up one individual who is but one small part of that whole. Yes, I know this is news to most feminists, although once again the rad-fems are quite used to it. Try to keep up.
Just to be clear, I’ll draw a diagram. The pieces of the puzzle are not the whole picture; each of them is merely one part of the whole. Say it with me: part is not whole – you can do this feminists! To assume that one is able to see the whole from examining only one part is not reasonable; sorry to crush your sour grapes into wine, but that’s the way it is. If the goal is to see the whole, then you must look at the whole, not one tiny part of it and call it done.
So here we are with someone representing some part of the picture, but we’re not sure which part. Perhaps both, which muddies things, and you know I like to be clear. Is this person discussing her own problems, and therefore limiting herself to only those public ouchies which hurt her personally; or is this yet again another feminist poster child whining about broad societal problems and using herself as the pity shield which is supposed to stop our deconstruction of the larger whole, and supposedly makes us look mean because we have a brain and can do these things? Let’s see what she does.
Hmmm, first four paragraphs are about her, so this must be a personal kvetch. Anytime it’s a personal story, we’re supposed to respect the sacrosanctity of the person’s feelings and criticism is off-limits. But that becomes a manipulaton technique when the person then uses their personal history – the same one they used to make a point – to exempt the much larger societal framework from any and all analysis. We’re not supposed to notice the hypocrisy, which is repeated ad nauseam every time this subject arises. She is the one who made it about her, yet she is off limits. This makes no sense. Either it’s about you and you’re fair game, or it’s about the wider societal implications, in which case you wouldn’t come into it at all MAKE UP YOUR FREAKING MIND.
This one actually gets a nod for mentioning the points of contention, although I suspect we’re not supposed to notice that these never get addressed. Am I supposed to be impressed?
Here’s the problem: We would never expect a freshly raped person to come onto the internet and argue why rape is bad; in the exact same way it is not appropiate for a freshly transitioned person to argue her position herself. Of course both of them would be upset; that’s why they need an advocate. If she is strong enough to argue these points herself, then it is one more bit of hypocrisy that no one else is allowed to refute the charge without being called petty names. Silencing through intimidation is something the patriarchy knows quite well, how does it come to pass that feminists are so throughly familiar with underhanded tactics?
Turn-around is fair play: you cannot criticise anything I’ve said, or you’ll make me cry and then you’re a big meanie. Still sound reasonable?
Because this basic hypocrisy flies right over their heads no matter how many times it’s pointed out, reasoning with these folks using logic becomes unproductive; there is no other option left but to make fun of them. Ridicule is, quite factually, the only thing they do understand. That reminds me, I need to write a post on how endless patience in response to endless harm is yet another attribute of doormats and denial.
END OF PART ONE, to be continued – perhaps next time, if I don’t post the thing which makes you all hate me for sure.
*Now, before you all line up to complain about the person in the picture, let me just point out that he likes to cut his girlfriend during sex with a knife, because it makes him hard. Don’t worry, she likes it too!! I’ll give the link out privately if you want, we can’t have the whole internet beating down his door.