unpacking the trangenderism baggage #2:
August 8, 2008
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. Number two of this series starts further down at the red, and directly below I’d like to partially address recent kerfluffles.
Whenever oppressed groups seek validation, opposing factions will typically cry foul and say public acceptance will cause some type of social upheaval with negative repercussions. The opposing faction will be eventually unmasked as bigots with their prejudices clearly enunciated for all to see. That has been the pattern for every single oppressed group seeking justice for all of recorded history.
We are primed to expect that pattern, conditioned to condemn the opposition, accustomed to anticipate final vindication of the oppressed group. As feminists, our scripted response is pre-written and pre-memorized, nothing remains but to slip into our pre-assigned roles as redeemers of inequity. We are so habituated to certain cues which normally represent social injustice that we don’t even recognize when the oppressed group is starting out from a disingenuous position.
Unfortunately, as was shown in part one, of all the groups ever seeking full equality only transgenderism has demanded “special” rights — as opposed to equal rights — and because of this unparalleled departure the transgenderism ideology has already placed itself outside normal perimeters from the conventional boundaries usually granted to those claiming minority status.
Radical feminists have been aware of this major discrepancy for quite some time, though perhaps never so plainly stated, and yet regular feminists have been behaving as if the status quo remains unchanged. Perhaps this unacknowledged transgression is at least partly the reason why regular feminists are having so much trouble comprehending the scope of the problem as presented by radical feminists.
And here just for clarity I’d like to mention that the phrase vanilla girl is not applied with equal jurisdiction to all feminists, for many if not most regular feminists lack the certain idiocy necessary to earn that designation. A vanilla girl is sickly sweet, melts under heat, and gives me brain freeze. Vanilla girls shout “hater!!!!” and “my fweelings are hwert!!!!” in response to any criticism and demands obeisance as a sacrament to magical thinking. Apologies for not defining that sooner.
Anyway. We have a situation where we are tempted to respond in the same old way that we always do when presented with somewhat similar stimuli. Yet, no one is entitled to special status and so from the very beginning not only has transgenderism been operating under false pretences, but our responses have been reacting as if those false pretences didn’t exist. A reasonable person cannot expect typical procedure to apply to atypical circumstances, nor can anything other than increased scrutiny be expected to befall such an ideology. Yet vanilla girls, in a hissy fit of gross stupidity, have decided that any objection is “transphobic”.
For all their claims that if only radical feminists would “listen” then mutual understanding could occur; it never dawns on them that “listening” is a two way street. No “mutual” understanding is possible when all negative observations are shouted down as “hate”. This is my final plea for mutual respect and consideration, no reasonable person would expect such continued immaturity to pass unchallenged.
Vanilla girl, it is time you rethink your position. This time, from the ground up. The regular feminists, who have been left quite befuddled between a rock and a hard place, most likely have their own thoughts and perspectives but can’t express anything less than 100% agreement with you without being covered in vanilla girl sputtering splooge. Vanilla child, when are you going to grow up and let other people draw their own conclusions?
Forget the gender identity business; personally, I just think it’s really freaking odd that someone attributes mystical qualities to body parts. The genitalia must be sacred or something, why else does my left foot represent nothing and yet a cunt or a cock embodies their entire being? Anyway…
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. This of course refers to the argument that transgenderism increases sexism by consolidating traditional “feminine” attributes exclusively with females. Since most people tend to proscribe legalized activities from within a framework of positive moral or ethical values and to internalize the theory behind that law as certified and sanctified approval, the likely outcome is easily predictable –if the radical feminists argument is correct.
In other words: once a special-interest lobby convinces enough lawmakers that gender identity should be a protected class, then the general public — which is already pre-conditioned to accept sexist double standards — will be even more amendable to the idea that of course people need a vagina in order to express “feminine” traits and of course people need a penis to express “masculine” traits. Feminists are supposedly fighting sexism now, and the battle for equality which can only be accurately described as epic has raged over practically every society on the planet for the last 10,000 years. It would be foolish to attempt to claim as some do that such an entrenched bigotry can be anything but encouraged with the addition of “but naturally my internal character requires a vagina”.
A cautious approach is warranted given the amount of harm possible to half the population. While it is always important to balance the needs of various groups in a society striving for equality, the insistence on forcing acceptance of the transsexual agenda on the general public without careful analysis or opportunity for nuanced discussion should be a red flag. Given that their “refutations” to the various criticisms always seem to revolve around pleas for sympathy and nothing else, another red flag should appear.
Distraction technique — briefly noted.
Have you noticed how carefully the feminist activists will explain to men that a law they would like to be passed is not unfair to men or harmful to men in any way? Feminists gladly provide whatever evidence is needed to reinforce their claim, regardless how much time or effort is required. Feminists do that as a matter of course, because apparently for some peculiar reason they like men and are concerned about their well-being. Most of all, feminists strive to be fair to men and prefer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially when the subject is men.
If the transgendered truly cared about even the rudiments of fairness as they claim, then they would make similar effort to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no, transgenderism does not increase sexism. They would enumerate and explicate the real point of contention, not strawman arguments of their own invention. They haven’t bothered, not the activists in the field nor the official trans organizations themselves. Brushing off criticisms and questions from the very people likely to be harmed by the trans agenda with the accusation that our questions are a “phobia” bordering on “hate crime” qualifies as genuine CONTEMPT; and yes, those massive minimization and silencing techniques over such an important topic has been…
— duly noted.
There is a huge difference between a law which simply establishes and protects a right for a newly recognized group of incredibly tiny purportions, and a law which creates additional harm to another group which is already a target of proven systematic injustice and half the population. This is not a minor point and to pretend otherwise is speciously condescending — not exactly the mark of one who claims the high ground.
Selfish unconcern for anyone but themselves — duly noted.
If a proposed law was contended to increase or maintain racism, we would not even consider passing it until all the criticisms were addressed and shown to be false.
Imagine just that scenario. Imagine a group of African-Americans who are promised protection and help from a civil rights worker from any laws which increase racism, and then when some African-Americans indicate that such a law is pending, that civil rights worker tells them to stop hating white people. The legislators who would be so foolish as to suggest that the minorities are only hating white people would be vilified in the press.
Imagine the outrage while People of Color plead that we wait for more information until cooler heads prevail, and yet anti-racist activists still insisting that the minorities they claim to protect are just “white phobic”. Imagine that, if you will. Reflect upon the reaction from minorities expecting protection and instead receiving hate propaganda from the very people who claim to oppose racism.
Dear god this post was way too fucking long. snip snip snip
[EDIT: ] The ENDA bill has been passed around like a football between House and Senate for the last 30 years. It has never included transgenderism in all that time. Only five months before this latest attempt was the trans issue added. The american public has never had the opportunity to hear any negatives about transgenderism at all and thanks to Loz for reminding me about that.