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.
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.