August 21, 2008
So the other night I get this pingback from Hoyden About Town, which was a very nice blog; one I used to read frequently before I started thinking for myself here at transphobia central and now find myself otherwise engaged with the rape threats in my spambox — descriptions of men’s “fantasies” raping me are Free Speech and it’s Art, so that makes it okay I think according to Tog. Considering the amount of malice dripping from her every syllable, she’d probably say I enjoyed the attention. For whatever wacky reason I didn’t receive this pingback until two days after their post went up, preventing me from partaking of the discussion while it’s still on their front page. Tog would probably rather you not see that conversation. Don’t worry, that’s in part two.
Apparently I have upset some small part of the blogophere with my incessant questioning of transgenderism, as Tog is merely one of dozens who have been ranting hysterically about my homophobia, some more hysterical than others. Hoyden was the only one who didn’t sound hysterical in the usual way, so I’m picking on her. I’m sure Tog is inconsistent enough to complain.
Sorry ’bout upsetting Big Brother, but if the need to switch body parts because the voices in their head told them to made any sense then I would have stopped gently rolling that idea around with other people who are wondering the same thing, here in this humble little bloggy which everybody else is free to ignore. They keep promising they are going to ignore me, but they never do. Apparently they are unable to resist the urg to equate those who would discuss gender and other mental disorders to those who would advocate murder. Apparently a man insulting a woman is too common for Tog to contemplate, but she forbids anyone to insult a trangender playing the fool on a message board under any circumstance.
You see the problem isn’t whether something is or isn’t phobic — that’s another post for another day, the problem is that no disagreement is allowed on the grounds that any disagreement whatsoever is automatically transphobic and therefore not allowed on the grounds that it’s transphobic. Well that sentence certainly ran in circles, didn’t it? Kind of like every argument supporting transgenderism I’ve dissected though I haven’t bothered writing about them yet. No point, not when it’s all considered “hate”.
George Orwell would be proud. And when more people become aware of the tangled bushel baskets full of wrangled misconceptions and strangled dispositions of the tactics used by the transgendered, their name will be lower than any Men’s Rights Activist dressed up in a Batman costume. Something only becomes phobic after it’s received general consensus validation and not before — this simple factoid they ignore.
I’d rather they discuss the possibility of gosh I don’t know learning the difference between hate and love and agreement and objection but I assume no improvement will be forthcoming on that score. When you only see the problems of the world in shades of black and white, any of the thousand shades of grey become only the confusionary tips of an iceberg which don’t exist in their world because it’s already melted under the scorching glare of environmental group delusion. George Orwell hated groupthink too, he thought it tended toward petty fascism.
Their behavior reminds me of a woman who dresses up a little, hoping to meet a friend with similar interests; and because she’s standing on a public streetcorner, these clods feel compelled to harrass from a safe distance from across the street, sure in the knowledge that the pretty little girl in the pretty little green dress would woop their non-logical ass if they said such gross stupidity to her face.
Except I wouldn’t do that, because I wasn’t raised in a barn and no offense against people who were. There is nothing wrong with being raised in a barn, my maw was raised in a massive log cabin hand-hewn by her pappy with a dirt floor hard-packed to stone and cedar shingles treated once or twice with the potion from a flower, and that damn thing is still solid as a rock today. The water came from a well over a spring in a grove of sycamore trees, and she walked eight miles to school each day or some ridiculous amount swinging a tin pail full of cornbread for her supper. But for all her limitations her maw had enough sense to brush the straw from her eyes, and made her read Aristotle in the orignal greek, bitterly complaining about that ’til she was fifty-four. I lucked out and got the big house with a dishwasher and paperbacks from the store and a private college later, but always there were summers returning to the old ways of doing pumping water from the well in the middle of the scyamore grove.
Which is my way of saying that while I respect and value highly all the high fahlutin plastic magic originating from the laboratory departments of colleges and universities, I value the basics more. Because without boring you any further with details of her life I saw with my own two eyes how a little bit of luck and freedom, lots of logic and common sense could be leveraged to take a little girl raised in a fucking barn and make her fly high over the heads of those who would regulate her to nothing more than their personal pornstar fucktoy, cleaning lady and baby factory all the days of her life. If only she hadn’t married the fucking german. Oh please, by all means blame me for that. Anyway, I’m rambling and here’s my response to Hoyden or whoever Hoyden is allowing to hurl murdereous slander without consequence on her own blog; Tog who is purporting to speak to a supposedly man-hating homophobic feminazi with green flowers in her hair who is humbly minding her own little business:
Your very first premise is inadequate for the purposes you are utilizing it for. Let’s go over it. Again.
to be continued…
August 11, 2008
The Transgenderism Deconstruction series is temporarily being interrupted to briefly discuss a few problems which are affecting how the ensuing discussions are stymied. Basically, it’s just another homophobic rant, in other words (sarcasm!).
“This does nothing but support feminism, because sexism becomes demonstrably wrong by simple observation of the existence of transgendered people as they describe themselves when you really listen to them.”
That is a very common sentiment expressed by the transgendered. And the typical rebuttal is that they are not sitting happily in the middle of the continuum; the transgendered are moving from one position (labeled “manly man“) on the gender continuum with the specific purpose of reaching some other position (labeled “girl”), thus maintaining the binary.
At the risk of detracting from the main point, sitting on the fulcrum would be a man wearing a dress, which is why the cross–dressers who make no claim to “be a real woman” are actually exhibiting more authentic gender transgressive behavior than the transsexuals. It is the cross–dressers who are the genuine article, and we should celebrate their work in breaking down gender barriers. Though it should be noted I’m not referencing drag queens, who simply are the equivalent of white people in blackface with their over–the–top satirical presentation.
That particular idea in italics is repudiated frequently by radical feminists, but the transgendered supporters rarely if ever address the response. Why is this, do you suppose? Can it be they have no answer?
People are looking at the process of transitioning and exclaim, “oh look this process proves gender is fluid after all!” Except where on earth did anybody get the idea that a process is more important than the result? There is no reason to ignore the result, unless the person doesn’t like the answer.
Process is not result.
Cause is not effect.
A cake baking in the oven proves what? It proves you want a final product. But sometimes the half–baked dough can’t afford the energy required to complete the process or lacks the nerve to complete the process — and this too is supposedly “proof” that gender is fluid.
I have no doubt that gender is fluid; feminists have spent decades proving this by showing how females are capable of male work, but the process of transitioning does not prove gender is fluid.
In logical arguments, it is possible to start out with a correct premise (ie “gender is fluid”) and still get an incorrect result. The conclusion must follow logically from the premise, not just tacked on because you like the answer.
Processes do not prove premises. Only results do that. If we are going to say that processes prove our assertions, then results don’t matter. We are saying that the process is more important then the result, which is just incredibly ignorant. We care about the process because of the results, not the other way around.
When does it become appropriate to focus on the process? That would only become appropriate AFTER it has been determined that the result follows logically from the premise, AND that there are multiple processes to choose from which will give the same result. The only time we care about the process itself is when we are eliminating unethical or harmful processes.
Transitioning doesn’t qualify.
May 4, 2008
there is a potential for harm associated with irrational thinking. People who uncritically accept one claim are just as likely to uncritically accept other claims. The potential for harm is not caused by any particular belief: it comes from the manner in which those beliefs are formed and the uncritical way in which they are accepted
That page, found here, begins today’s indictment of many feminists. I think we can all agree that irrational or magical thinking is the sign of an ignorant person, but just what defines that peculiar dissonance is up for grabs depending on who you ask. I prefer to call it what it is: non-logical thinking — which of course upsets all the people who resent being told that they are non-logical and therefore total fucktards.
People who do not think logically will find all kinds of justifications for why non-logical thinking is preferred or beneficial. Usually they will appeal to emotion, which as we will see, is the common denominator of children. Non-logical adults will disguise this trait with hyperbole, as graciously explained by George:
As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.
Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.
The feminazi translation: Know with absolute certainty that if someone lacks the capacity to be clear on some issue, they are either an idiot or a liar. When someone’s stupidity is pointed out, they always scream that their feelings are hurt; we are not supposed to notice that the actual criticism is never addressed. It was TheBewilderness who taught me how turds always flush the subject without wiping first; although in this specific instance of her brillance, she was reaming a troll who was attempting to change the focus from *men being assholes* to *women being man-phobic*. She is quoted below:
But many of the comments above seem to be based on some prurient hatred of sex instead, which is disturbing.
This is a cheap transparent trick to change the subject from the behavior of men, to the feelings of women. Every time you hear the term hate used in this fashion it is always a cheapass way to change the subject. Serious people do not like to be manipulated in the style of political operatives.
Men rape women.
Why do you hate men.
Porn hurts women.
Why do you hate sex.
Do you see the shift from the behavior of the perp to the feelings of the victim? You can see it any time you like on the cable news networks, where that crap passes for discussion. It does not pass here.
That was a such a brillant remark, I would tattoo it on my forehead if I had enough room. It has all kinds of other handy interpretations upon further reflection. For instance, that remark taught me about the crying girls who expect everybody to drop the original criticism because they are sad.
I don’t know how many WOC were raised this way, but we have a situation in the US where young white liberals are typically raised to believe that they are entitled to having their feelings protected forever, which is of course a very child-like expectation. According to them, if their feelings are hurt in any way, then the person who hurt their feelings must be rude. Since their feelings are paramount, the criticism must always be inaccurate.
This explains why so many idiot young white feminists automatically assume that the crying girl is right, rather then just crying. We don’t know if her claim if valid, we only know she is crying. Only idiots conflate the two.
Perhaps that was too plainly stated, and feminists need a more polite version in order to avoid becoming distracted by their own emotional reaction. Intellectualized gobbledeegook once again saves the princess from dealing with reality:
In order to establish a more nuanced dynamic inclusive of protected emotive environments without negatively impacting group cohension and individual authenticity, it becomes necessary to encourage a scaling growth pattern reflecting objective social normatives in conjunctive with new behavioral modes which precludes excessive emo-pander-itis.
Thus ends today’s lesson which can be summarized: feminists are idiots if they lack the capacity to differentiate between emotion-based manipulation and fact-based evaluation.
Don’t compound your irrational dissonance further, you fucktard feminists: Stop equating “feminazi sees logical inconsistencies in transgenderism” with “feminazi thinks harrassment of transfolk is okay”. And for the last goddamn time, stop blaming others because you lack the capacity to think through this shit for yourself.
Yes, I’m condeeeeescending — that’s what always happens when adults speak to retards. Patience ain’t my strong suit, and some idiot’s insistence on focusing on their own emotional reaction instead of addressing the actual criticism merely proves my entire point. Want some respect? Then grow the fuck up.
I hope that was clear enough for you.
January 24, 2008
I don’t remember how I found this page, and I don’t know how they did the fancy “embed four videos into one”, but if you watch this video from their site, all four short vids blend almost seamlessly into one.
It’s about a dood who makes $51,000 every hour of every day, and pays less in taxes , percentage-wise, than one of his maids. It’s about asking what the hell are we doing and what are we trying to achieve, but most of all it’s about asking what is RIGHT with the war on greed. This country and this world are comprised of peoples of many colors, many of whom are in desperate need – and yet we’re supposed to believe that business as usual and more of the same is the star we strive to attain?