Transgender non-logic #4739
June 22, 2010
You, my dear gentle readers who love real women, deserve a well-written and lively post gleefully ripping the transgendered ideology to shreds because as we all know, non-logic is perennially annoying. Instead, you’re going to get a post, which briefly and succinctly highlights a major inconsistency with transgenderism. The weirdness, summarized below, starts here, but really, you can usually see examples in any trans discussion. What am I talking about? This:
Transpeople continually chant that any objection to transgenderism is the same as a demand for them to validate their very existence.
You could stop there and skip to the end, because hopefully the reframing is clear, but in case it’s not:
Any objection = Denial of their existence
Well, I for one am pretty sure they exist, if only because they tend to inhale and exhale at fairly frequent intervals. It isn’t their existence which is in doubt, but strategy-wise, it’s beneficial for them to continually refocus attention away from their various inconsistencies and towards some sleight of hand poppycock while overly dramatizing their feelings. They embody, pardon moi’s crudeness, the worst stereotypes ever of hysterical effeminate dandies. They are literally acting out a caricature of something which exists only in their imaginations, because not even effeminate dandies (if any actually existed) are that fucking hysterical.
It bears mentioning that if real women were to behave in such an exaggerated fashion, doctors would immediately diagnose us with insanity, following the pattern of centuries. When men do it, however:
No one is allowed to question their authoritarian privilege.
They claim that any objections to transgenderism or any nagging requests that they clarify their own inconsistencies, are merely impertinent impositions on their valuable time and energy, and of course, an insult to their existence.
I’m not sure where they found that special snowflake exemption clause in all their “How To Pass As a Woman” manuals, because real women must validate our existence merely as a cheap party-trick prerequisite to the main course: validating our humanity. Validating our humanity, and especially validating our neutrality — by that I mean constantly reaffirming that our status is non-whore and non-madonna — are two tasks which occupies the vast majority of a feminist’s time and energy. Validating our entitlement to civil rights, usually comes dead last. As far as I can tell, the evolutionary psychology field’s entire purpose is to invalidate our neutrality, rendering us either evil incarnate or self-sacrificing berry pickers on a pedestal; while the primary purpose of religion appears to concern itself with nullifying our humanity by regulating us to the babyfactory-helpmeet class. Academic feminists spend their entire professional careers painstakingly refuting one misogynist claim after another which insist we are nothing but objects to be consumed. Yet for all that, even we don’t run around screaming that every misogynist query is an assault on our existence.
One can only surmise that transidiots feel extremely threatened to the point of paranoia by anyone who notices or questions even minor inconsistencies.
Which is quite a peculiar stance for a supposedly mentally stable individual, but there’s more; and if you as a transperson take away nothing else after reading this missive, remember this for it is my main point: Whenever any one person or group posits some assertion and expects other people to act upon their assertion, then the onus is indeed upon them to provide sufficient evidence. Only a freaking loony tunes manipulative nutcase would change the subject. Only a chauvinistic asshole would assume he is somehow magically exempt.
Next post: I ‘plain logic to teh stoopid. Again.