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.

In between bouts of pure unmitigated evil, creating a comic book is good practice for my wickedness skills.  It’s also an excuse to include lots of pretty images, which is the main component of a graphic novel.  I still haven’t quite got the hang of it, though, as some horribly old-fashioned compulsion drives me to include actual words which when strung together form coherent sentences — clearly against the rules of both modern graphic novels AND transgenderism advocacy.  Plus the cover doesn’t match the contents.  No matter, it’s transgressive and that’s the important bit.  

This is my first attempt, so be nice or you’ll hurt my fweelings and as the vanilla girls have taught us, if you hurt someone’s fweelings then your criticism must be wrong!! 

The comic book is about Ivan, a gender-bender who dreams of a space where either gender matters a whole lot or gender doesn’t matter at all…  which does seem to indicate that transgenderism is all about body parts upon which gender is dependent.  Or something, I haven’t actually finished the whole book so it’s hard to tell at this point.  Later chapters tackle all sorts, includings a section on contradictory premises.  That means that all of the “supporting reasons” taken as a whole for each individual argument contradict each other — but this does not become obvious until one actually compares each argument and their supporting premises.  For that, we need to find the truth.

Anyway, the introduction:

Personally, I was thrilled to pieces to finally figure out what all the liberal excitement was regarding gender-bending genitalia swapping:  the transgender advocates point to the bit where Ivan unnaturalizes/unhooks/separates his masculine body from his feminine mind.  Apparently, when Ivan is in the wrong body which doesn’t match his brain, this decouples internal character from body parts and is supposed to prove a conclusion of some kind.

Except that isn’t a conclusion at all; it’s only the first half of an argument.  We know this to be true because at the same time that Ivan is shrinking one set of sex organs, he is also enhancing another set (or preparing to).  To insist that this act of exchange be broken into two component parts and then have us only focus on one is misleading.  It’s called transitioning for a reason — there is an exchange of body parts. 

No logical conclusions can be drawn from only half of an argument.  In order to have a full argument, we need the full conclusion which doesn’t happen until we look at the second half.  And for that, we need to look at what happens when Ivan finally lands in his right body, which either involves body parts or gender roles, — impossible to discern at this point because I still can’t get a straight answer from the transfolks.

Some transpeople insist that certain genitalia make them happy, yet almost all of their emphasis appears to involve near-constant homage to artifical gender and gender roles; and almost zero awareness of masculinity and transsexuality as it intersects group-think constructs.  In other words, my criticism is that the transgendered claim to be expanding gender roles for society at large but have failed miserably to conduct even the most rudimentary inquiry of cultural dynamics.  They have elevated social constructs to a position representing a real physical entity instead of being regulated to the land of make-believe and coping mechanisms.  By their insistence that social constructs are fixed entities which can only be bargained with under extremely limited conditions, the justification for body modification is created. 

While discussing social constructs, the concept of “real” is frequently misued which causes confusion.  Beliefs are “real” but are true or false, actions are “real” but are ethical or unethical, — only physical entities are uniquely “real” in that they take up physical space and exist objectively without an innate value judgement being present.   A social construct is a belief, and therefore is either true or false.  Which is why we get to say that gender as currently constructed is “false” and also “not real”.

Again, it is not the transfolk who are analyizing transsexuality as it intersects masculine and feminine gender, but radical feminists.  Insisting on acceptance as a gender is the demand of a whining child, not gender deconstruction; and transgenderism cannot be assumed to decrease sexism when they offer no critical analysis of biological maleness as it intersects masculinity within cultural dynamics.

Transfolks are switching genitalia and symbols of gender, not arms or legs or kidneys, and if precision is truly the goal, then one must be clear.  “I’m in the wrong body” isn’t truly accurate, but “My genitalia feels wrong” or “My gender role feels wrong” is accurate to a degree which apparently is beyond their capability and renders them speechless:

An interesting detour is that if tears are proof of anything besides sadness, it’s that many of the transgendered folks have some disjointed cognitive process splintering their brains.  Tears do a fine job of proving sadness but amazingly enough do not prove the existence of a right.   They continually point to other tearful groups who are the recipients of sympathy and then wonder why some withhold tissues from the transgendered.  They apparently forget the implicit awareness that those other tearful groups were entitled to a right which was violated.

What do I mean specifically by that?  Many seem to be conflating the right to live free from violence with the special pleading to be accepted as a gender.  Their response to any negative criticism delineating the bloody fucking obvious is always a childish temper tantrum with their tears as “proof”.  The right to live free from violence is a human right and yes any victim of violence has my sympathy; however pity for one right being violated does not transfer into automatic validation of a second demand.

A second point is that transfolk confuse subjective life experience (which is merely a perception or opinion) with validation of the ideology guiding that perception.   Since they can’t or won’t accept that the definition of ideology does indeed apply to transgenderism, they perceive any negative criticism of that ideology as a personal attack.  But in reality, a “subjective life experience”  only proves that the person feels a certain way; emotions are not objective truth. 

This is a logic problem, folks.  If the transgendered are going to claim that “subjective life experience” proves that the underlying ideology guiding that life experience is valid, then the following are true as well:  The life experience of pedophiles proves that sex with children is beneficial to pedophiles and as a consequence society should be looking for ways to mitigate the harm to children who are raped by pedophiles so that the benefit to pedophiles can continue.  The life experience of females who have been raped by every male relative they know proves that all men are rapists and as a consequence all men should be leashed.  The life experience of rapists prove that rape is good.   The life experience of transitioning proves that transitioning is good.  The life experience of alcoholics proves that they feel relief and more relaxed when other people stop trying to take away their bottle.

Once again some people are erroneously looking at the conclusion and from their opinion of the conclusion then decide whether or not the premise is valid.  But “subjective life experience” does not provide evidence of anything besides the fact that someone either likes or dislikes their life experience.


Well gosh, this is nice.  The act of body modification proves that modern medicine is amazing.  It proves that a male doesn’t need a vagina to feel like his version of a female, because he has been insisting that he feels “like his version of a female” while still in possession of a penis.  So we do know that a vagina is not required for a biological male to experience his version of “girly” character.  So they have indeed separated possession of genitalia from perception of genitalia.  I feel like I’m making progress here, don’t you? 

But the act of body modification doesn’t prove a few things.  It doesn’t prove that he knows what being female really feels like, for only a biological female can feel like a biological female.  He can “feel similar to” a biological female yet can never “be” a biological female.  Thus he can only experience his own perception of that which he believes is a genderized “woman”. 

And now a few words about gender, and how that differs from biological sex.  As far as I can tell, gender is an made-up artificial construct which has little or no bearing on reality.  Biological sex is reality, is a physical entity, is a medically nuanced designation which has made it’s way into simplified common vernacular and is frequently confused with gender.   One of the ways which helps me to keep them straight is to first attempt to use the term “biological female” when referring to “women” (and of course everybody else is welcome to do whatever they like).   If the term “biological female” won’t work in the sentence, then the signifier must be referring to GENDER.

Oopsies, another problem.  If gender is a made-up artifical construct while biological sex is a physical reality — and this statement does appear to be true — then our lovely transwoman Ivan can only claim to be a made-up artifical construct of an authentic biological female.   Medical science cannot turn a biologicial male into a biological female, nor is that likely to be possible within the next 100 years, if ever, due to some very serious ethical limitations.   Medical science can only alter the appearance of body parts.  Thus, reality is that a transwoman will always be biologically male, that is reality, that is pure fucking truth without making any subjective value judgements whatsoever. 

The act of body modification in and of itself fails to prove that sexism will either increase or decline as a result of body modification.  In order to determine that, one must return to the subject of perception.  In other words, how does Pat C. Public perceive body modification?  To find out, we must finish the second half of the argument which began this post.

Whoops.  In the final half of the argument and the only half which matters, Ivan concludes that his girly pink cock sucking doormat brain needs a vagina.  He insists he has a mostly girl brain, and he insists he has a mostly girl character.  He insists that all these mostly girly traits need a mostly girly body.

Patriarchy, that cultural relativism bullshit misogyny thingie that feminists claim to abhor; and Sexism, that eternal paternalistic rape machine, also insists that girl bodies have a mostly girl brain and a mostly girl character.

Perfect. Fucking. Match.  Therefore, transgenderism cannot under any circumstance be said to decrease sexism.  For anything to have the potential to decrease sexism, it must be oppositional to patriarchal standands — not perfectly in line with them.   We can further say this:  anything which reflects sexist dogma is likely to further encourage sexism. 

Women have every reason and entitlement to be concerned about transgenderism.   And to say otherwise is just another patriarchal silencing technique.

In an ongoing effort to exemplify an analysis of transgenderism where people actually present a reasonable demeanor and perhaps eventually even resolve some long-standing miscommunications, as opposed to oh I don’t know writing breathless screeds which when taken apart are nothing more than an emotional rant from an hysterical woman afraid for her life that women are coming to get your man or something — let’s discuss a justification of trans supporters which is also used by Men’s Rights Activists, those bastions of ethical character and astute mental acuities.

But first it should be noted that this particular justification has been used for years, pops up in almost every serious thread, and almost every single transperson is guilty.  This is listed on well-known blogs as a VeryImportantPoint for supporting transgenderism; it’s written by well-respected and otherwise very intelligent bloggers and I won’t embarrass anyone by identifying specific people because it’s with a certain amount of utter peevish disgust that I find myself having to mention it at all.  And so we need a pretty picture to meditate upon, like so:

Margaret Warfield reviving the spirit

Margaret Warfield reviving the spirit

Ah, much better.  Here is the problem, bluntly quoted:

4) In a sense, transsexuals who move from one sex to the other “entrench the system” of gender as a binary, because they are willing to dress and be identified in society as one gender and not the other. But that’s true of the vast majority of us, transsexual or not.

All of us make compromises with the patriarchal society around us, whether it’s getting married to someone of the opposite sex, or shaving (for women), or shopping only in the “men’s” section of the clothing store (for men), or wearing a low ponytail (for me). There are a thousand ways to compromise with patriarchy – no, ten thousand – and I doubt anyone fights against them all. And all of these decisions and actions could be said to help entrench the gender-binary system.

Here is another version, middlin clear:

Miss Andrea argues that “guys in frocks” are merely buying into gender essentialism, but I don’t see how arguing that only those born with ovaries1 can ever be regarded as “real” women isn’t doing exactly that. It’s treating gender as inalienably aligned with biological sex, whereas those who have a trans* history are those are saying that their biological sex has not been sufficient on its own to make them feel comfortable in their assigned gender role. That strikes me as the very opposite of biological essentialism; even in cases where a transitioning individual adopts genderised dressing stereotypes, because the whole point of gender being a social construct is that those stereotypes are artificial rather than essential in the first place.

Of course transgender behaviours are an exercise in artificiality – but is it fundamentally any more artificial than cisgender behaviours? If reifying gender by dressing so very femininely is so fundamentally awful, then why so much criticism reserved mainly for the transwomen who do so, and so little criticism by comparison for all the ciswomen who embrace all the rituals and accessorised impedimenta of femininity?

Here is another version, finely hidden:

The hypocritical fantasy is that somehow certain dealings-with-gender are more filthy or impure or signal that really, a person must love and embrace gender and gendered oppression. It’s like pretending that buying Ben & Jerry’s ice cream or a MacBook is more ethically sound and makes you a better person than buying Haagen Daaz or a Dell — dude, it’s all capitalism and profiteering. So when you boil down, it’s largely just an exercise in auto-backpatting — folks who rant about this kind of thing need to get the log out of their own eye before they go around trying to pluck motes out of others’.

The last one is my personal favorite and we’ll be returning to roast the author in the firery pits of hell because last time I checked her entire spiel contained at least seven justifications.   SEVEN.  

Look for this piece of garbage masquerading as a reason in any serious discussion, and you will surely find it.  These were found on pages purporting to elucidate the binary, and is a corollary to the mysterious thing I am hunting down by a process of elimination.  Those supporting transgenderism are not using logic, they are using justifications, and after delineating their “arguments” then I get to call that behavior short-sighted and ultimately prove it misogynistic because only Patriarchy is the other one who does it. 

We recognize this format when it is given by the rape apologists, we notice this pattern when it used by the Men’s Rights Activists, we cringe when this construction is used by abusive personalities — but somehow we do not observe the plain truth right in front of us when that format is used by transfolk and their supporters.  What am I going on about?  What justification?  It’s the one which is screamed by a two year old child:



Say it with me, “that’s a justification not a reason”.  Excellent.   Justifications are not sound arguments for supporting any ideology; in fact justifications aren’t arguments at all.  They are excuses.  Kind of sad that their most important and oft repeated is little more than an MRA tirade.

Anyway, they see a female who puts on makeup, wears women’s clothing, shaves her legs or does any of those things commonly ascribed to females in our current society — and these folks have the woe begotten guile to insinuate that coping with or bargaining with sexist expectations is only a tiny bit different than running towards sexist expectations.  They forget that most real women would prefer to run from proscribed gender roles.

They further compound their error by blaming the female and using her as an excuse for their own benefit.  If some behavior is correct then there is no reason to look for scapegoats, but we are so used to people constantly blaming the victim for the perpetrator’s actions that the pattern becomes merely background noise.

Yet another problem is their failure to note the distinction between coping with on-going sexism and adding yet another reason for it’s continuance.  That’s a pretty serious charge and if they were really serious or cared about the state of humanity at all then they’d make some effort to refute it instead of hiding behind a pity shield. 

Transfolk insist that what they do is none of my business.  According to them, I am allowed to care about sexism only as long as I remain silent about the one issue which has the power to change how we think about gender at it’s most fundamental level.  What else is the insistence that specific genitalia is required in order to harmonize internal character?  If a normal healthy person needs a vagina in order to match his “girly” traits, then every normal healthy person needs a vagina in order to do the same.

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…

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!).

girl interrupted

girl interrupted



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 (labeledmanly man“) on the gender continuum with the specific purpose of reaching some other position (labeledgirl”), 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 crossdressers who make no claim tobe a real womanare actually exhibiting more authentic gender transgressive behavior than the transsexualsIt is the crossdressers who are the genuine article, and we should celebrate their work in breaking down gender barriersThough it should be noted I’m not referencing drag queens, who simply are the equivalent of white people in blackface with their overthetop satirical presentation

That particular idea in italics is repudiated frequently by radical feminists, but the transgendered supporters rarely if ever address the responseWhy is this, do you supposeCan 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 resultThere 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 halfbaked dough cant afford the energy required to complete the process or lacks the nerve to complete the processand this too is supposedlyproofthat 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 (iegender 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 dont matter. We are saying that the process is more important then the result, which is just incredibly ignorantWe 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 resultThe only time we care about the process itself is when we are eliminating unethical or harmful processes.

Transitioning doesnt qualify. 

It must be stressful to have someone as inquisitive as myself not automatically understand all the finer points of transgenderism, and to mention any inconsistancy outloud.  I’m sure some feel as if their entire humanity is at risk of being rejected, but that is not the case, unless their entire identity is wrapped up in their genitalia.  While I have the utmost sympathy for those feelings and respect the individuals themselves, I’m still not sure why seeking greater understanding is considered so outrageous.  If transgenderism made sense, I wouldn’t keep picking at it.

I know they say their entire identity is not contained within their sexual organs, but it does appear to be the case that the transgendered themselves are placing a great deal of emphasis on their own genitalia.  I’m just trying to understand why body parts are such a big deal to them.   But let’s be clear:  they are not upset when people seek understanding, they are only upset when people do not automatically accept everything they say as true. 

Anyway, one observation about transgenderism is below, and here’s the beginning of this particular series with the other six observations. 

1)  NO oppressed group has ever demanded anything other than full human rights.   But transfolk are not seeking full humanity, for they already have that entitlement as men; instead, they want the right to be treated as a special class of human.  They demand the right to be subdivided into a smaller catagory based on gender, as opposed to wanting inclusion into the largest catagory based on full humanity as all other oppressed groups have wanted. 

So those complaining, “how dare you exclude transfolk; that is just like excluding People of Color from places because whites were uncomfortable!” are sadly inaccurate, for they are not comparing apples to apples.   

It would only be accurate if we said “People of Color prefer to be subdivided from the largest catagory of humanity into a smaller catagory based on skin pigment, and since they themselves approve of subdivision from some particular group for their own private reasons based on skin pigment then they can’t really complain when some OTHER People of Color want to be subdivided from them for their own private reasons also based on skin pigment.

It makes no difference if either group claims to be more oppressed, because the one being excluded has already indicated subdivision from a group is acceptable and fair.  So whining about being locked out of the medium clubhouse when they already demanded exclusion from the biggest clubhouse renders these folks inconsistent.  Demanding both inclusion and exclusion privileges for themselves while insisting that all other groups only have one option renders them hypocrites.

It also makes no difference if the medium-excluding group believes the smallest-excluded group are real People of Color or not, for the same reason above.  The medium group is just helping the smallest group be consistent and play by the same rules that they inflict onto others.

Suppose lurkers require a translation:  Transfolk want to be subdivided from full humanity based on gender.  Okay, fine, go for it.  Just don’t complain when other genders do it to you, else you’re an ignorant, privileged hypocrite.

[edit] Also, comments #4 and #13 in the comment section explain this in a different way, so it might be easier to understand.

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.

7)  No oppressed group has ever hid behind revolving excuses in order to jusify their entitlement.  — Well, except for the Men’s Right Activists, rape apologists, abusive personalites, and transgendered.  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.

WARNING: I’m using logic again, thorry!

The term “real women” was used deliberately in Part One, and I for one have decided to not back down from it’s use, because it’s kinda important for all sorts of secret feminazi reasons loosely pertaining to the status of my chocolate stash. Or perhaps because transgenderism itself is a suicidal train wreck waiting to derail the unwary feminist in a few years, as trends progress.

So that was my half-assed intro, and I’m interrupting it already.

Perhaps my motive for debunking this disaster wasn’t clear, and so now would make a nice time to go through those reasons. First, I really don’t care what transgendered people do with their own bodies, it’s none of my business as long as they aren’t hurting anybody else. And that, you see, is really the crux of the matter. For what they are doing will eventually come back to bite real women in the ass in a few years. But it occurred to me that my explaining that prediction in a way which makes sense to vanilla feminists is asking for the moon — for one reason because we mustn’t hurt any body’s feelings by pointing out the stupid, and for another many feminists seem to be having a great deal of trouble understanding the simple logical inconsistency which exists in their support of transgenderism. You see the dilemma. So let’s deal with the logical inconsistency first, and then get to the prediction later.

But let’s do this the right way and bring a healthy dose of skepticism to the fore, because only the gullible automatically believe everything they hear without questioning it’s validity. If transgenderism can survive this examination intact, then I will cease my harping on the subject and wish them well. Let’s begin:

First, we have someone who claims to not feel comfortable in hiz own body. All well and good, many people are uncomfortable about some aspect of their physical appearance that they wish to change. This individual claims to be a different gender then hiz birth body indicates. Well we have a problem with that word gender. Because feminists keep saying that there is no gender. So if transgenderism is a valid medical condition, and transfolk really do need to change body parts, then the reason they need to change those body parts is because gender is real. Which automatically makes the favorite feminist theory invalid — yanno, the one where they screech that gender is a social construct. Yanno, the one theory which has formed the foundation for all other subsequent feminist theory for the last three centuries. Yanno, the one theory which if rendered invalid automatically reboots every other feminist theory in existence. That one, ya fucking pea-brain.

That has been said many times already, and yet the vanilla feminists still stand around like cows farting breakfast, and claim to not “understand” a very simple logic problem. Do they also not understand what happens to all those other feminist theories when the foundation crumbles? If gender is real, then it logically follows that other concepts are true as well, and we get to say all sorts of things which they probably won’t like but will have to accept anyway. Here’s the first one:

If gender is real, then there are real differences between men and women.

Well obviously there are physical differences, that’s nothing of interest. Yes, and those differences which are so important as to require surgery must be of the internal variety, such as emotional or intellectual, for example. The reason we know those differences must be internal is because the transgendered themselves say that it is impossible to change their internal structure, and so they are altering their external body — the only thing they say which is capable of change. In addition, if you’re going to say that there are real internal differences, then there is no logical reason to limit those internal differences to just one particular attribute or characteristic. From all that, we get this:

If gender is real, then there are other real internal differences between men and women, such as emotional/intellectual/moral/etc..

Okay, that’s not sooooo terrible, feminists have already proved that in most jobs at least, women can perform as well as men. And of course I don’t mind that it may indicate there are moral differences, because I already think men suck anyway. But it gets progressively worse as we proceed down the merry road of deductive reasoning:

If gender is worth changing body parts over, then those differences must be significant. You do not go to that much trouble over minor or insignificant differences.

But all along feminists have been insisting that the differences between men and women are minor; and also insisting that because those differences are minor, then segregating jobs and other skillsets is discrimination. But darlings, when those differences become worth switching body parts over, then those differences become major, and then gender discrimination becomes not only reasonable but acceptable. It ceases to be discrimination at all, and becomes instead a normalized condition of womanhood…

… And isn’t that how sexism started in the first place, darlings? Why yes it is, m Andrea. (You know I’m wack when I start having imaginary conversations in a freaking blog post fercrissake.) Sexism and it’s close friend misogyny are propagated by the idea that women are very different from men, and have very different skillsets which conveniently are not as shiny as the skillsets belonging to men.

We know men will take advantage of any opportunity to normalize gender discrimination because that is the over-whelming pattern. Until vanilla feminists are willing to seriously argue that sexism is permanently eradicated, then we can expect that pattern to continue in some form, and so it behooves a person not blinded by fairy lights to look for ways men will subvert women’s status. And darlings, transgenderism is as great an opportunity for subversion of women’s status as the sexual liberation was back in the 60’s. It slid so effortlessly into “liberation equals pornification”, and some are still wondering how that all happened!*

The very foundation of patriarchy is the separation of all humans into distinct classifications of gender, each with their own set of approved characteristics and skillsets. Eliminating patriarchy entails breaking the chain between each gender and it’s corresponding set of approved characteristics. Vanilla feminists understand that part, but their logic disintegrates at the next stage of critical reasoning.

The next section briefly veers off track. A post-within-a-post. It dissects their reasoning again, discusses one part of their motivation, and also refutes their motivation:

They believe that gender is a made-up social construct which does not exist, but somehow or another an individual still needs to move from one made-up socially-constructed gender to another. Let’s look at that. Even a person of average intelligence realizes that if a thing does not truly exist in reality, then there can be no existing sub-components of that thing. So there is no need to move from one non-existent component to another non-existent component. The only idea these feminists have “proved” by supporting transgenderism is that gender exists — the very thing they insist does not, and the very thing they claim to work to eliminate.

So why are they supporting transgenderism, when it obviously doesn’t make any sense? There are several fascinating reasons, but here’s what they tend to say, if I keep nit-picking them down to an actual reason during conversations:

They will claim they need to work within the framework of culture; that in order to get to a place where there is no gender, they must first continue to pretend that gender is real. But what they are really saying is that the quickest way from a sexist society to a post-sexism society, is through bargaining with lies. This is their only remotely plausible excuse for supporting transgenderism, if they bother to think it through. But why on earth do they need to bargain with made-up socially constructed lies at all? That is the mark of a child, who argues with shadows. Also, I would like to see some proof that the quickest way from a sexist society to a post-sexist society is through the never-never land of make believe.

These feminists must assume that people in general are really quite stupid and have difficulty with reality; and frankly, I agree with them on that point. But I stop at the part where we wrap people up in cotton wool and assume the only way to get people to face reality is through yet more make-believe. You don’t get to the place where reality reigns by practicing pretense. You get to the place where reality reigns by practicing reality. Pick any attribute you want, and the way to get better at it is to practice that very attribute. You do not become a better musician by practicing baseball. You do not become more honest by lying.

A society which convinces itself that lies are a valid pathway on the way to achieving some goal only convinces itself of the necessity of lying to itself; and then that belief system is used on other subjects as well. They’ve already decided that belief system works as a good tool, after all. But you never actually get closer to reality, you only get deeper into the use of lies. Lying even to oneself becomes a comfortable, familiar pattern; so much so that one is not always aware of it’s occurrence. Doublespeak become doublethink, and both reign supreme.

Our Orwellian Alert System has screeched itself into oblivion long ago, it’s voice hoarse from screaming. Now there is only the echo of a few pointing out the idiocy and they too wonder if the sheer number of thundering hordes signify authenticity. No, it simply means the voice of reason must dig in and use the only tool which can defeat the greater mass of thundering hordes — logic. But in order to be effective, one must first clearly delineate their offensive manipulation strategies (as opposed to defensive strategies) which are intended only to silence and confuse.

It is impossible to argue that transgenderism holds no negative repercussions for real women, yet most feminists are blatantly refusing to even consider the existence of these negatives. Instead, they label any disagreement as a “transphobia”, entirely forgetting that claiming something is phobic can only be valid if the criticism is actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. As such, the charge of “transphobia” becomes nothing more then a manipulation doublespeak technique intended to silence.

There are two major tactics the trans supporters use; one is the stupid crying girl as a pity shield and the other is the charge that we are “transphobic”. We are not supposed to notice that they never actually refute any of our accusations. Instead, we’re supposed to be overcome with sympathy for one and insulted into silence by the other. Surely we’re not cruel enough to ignore the crying girl, are we? Surely this lack of pity indicates some sort of phobia against an entire class of people, doesn’t it? Um, how ’bout they answer the criticisms which are never answered?

Deflecting our criticisms with aspersions upon our character is an ad hominem attack writ large. When your entire argument rests upon insults, you’ve lost the debate. When your entire argument is “look at the tear-stained face”, you never had an argument to begin with. When your entire argument presupposes an assumption which you never bothered to prove, — child, you are a fucking fool.

Come on, kids, it’s past time to put those Orwellian manipulation tools away. It’s past time for a change. You can do this, I know you can. There is a way out, and it is beyond beautiful. Anyway, let’s get back on the logic train where we left off:

Remember, the transgendered claim they can only express their feminine attributes if they have a feminine body. By making each set of approved gender characteristics utterly dependent on which body the transgendered person happens to claim, — guess what we get to say next? Well, for starters:

Which set of characteristics one is permitted to express is utterly dependent upon specific body parts.

The chains of patriarchy are still intact, and stronger then ever thanks to a brand new source of socially sanctioned paternalism. A new source of sexism will have a variety of new effects upon society, in addition to further entrenching those already in existence. The transgendered are coyly bargaining with patriarchy, promising in return for a peaceful co-existence that they will submissively uphold the traditional genderized norms. Dear readers, how exactly does that help real women? Because it seems to me that it only creates a long list of problems, all of which increases the amount of sexist dogmatism that must be overcome.

Personally, I believe some feminists are focusing on the extremely short-term benefit and completely ignoring the far more damaging long-term consequences. Yes, transgenderism proves a man can have feminine attributes, but in the process, it also proves that feminine attributes are ultimately only limited to females. It’s a trap, designed for people who only consider immediate gratification of short-term goals worthy of consideration. If the only short-term benefit is utterly nullified by the long-term consequence, — and in fact made worse — then only a total imbecile still thinks the damn thing is valuable.

So what do we have so far? We’ve briefly mentioned that patriarchy has a habit of subverting any feminist cause for it’s own misogynistic purposes, and that transgenderism merely cements patriarchal gender norms. In addition, I hope it was clearly determined that there is a fundamental inconsistency within transgenderism itself which, besides never being addressed, undermines the very foundations upon which feminism was founded. Along the way, we highlighted some peculiar blind spots of vanilla feminists which are quite fascinating in their own right — all in all, a nice little display of tunnel vision, just waiting for someone who isn’t a venomous feminazi to explain it all.***

And if that isn’t enough, I believe the answer to the question which is never asked, has been found. Kind of exciting, if you’re into inexplicable enigmas. Stay well, thanks for reading, and seeya next time.

*Actually nobody ever wonders why it happened. Reseachers document the rise and fall of trends and attribute it to misogyny; rarely do they ask what causes societal-wide misogyny in the first place.
**Serious thanks to TheBewilderness!
***Probably TheB again, she knows everything. Then I’ll act like I knew it all along.

George Orwell hates crybabies 


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.

To prove I’m still paying attention, let’s take a gander at the Orwellian doublespeak which commonly passes for working brain cells among the transgender crowd. It’s a sad testimony to our troubled times that this particular ontological manipulation has heretofore slipped betwist the cracks, but rest assured I can put down the Cheese Whiz and cartoons long enough to immitate Twisty one more time*. Before I proceed, however, it needs a disclaimer, most likely one comprised of twenty pages, but a paragraph will have to do.

I love Twisty, I really do. Nobody can rip apart the patriarchy like Twisty when she decides to give it a bigger rectal reaming then Goatse’s best efforts after a five-gallon enema. So I offer a humble apology for not letting her get away with upholding that which she claims to despise. Unless I am mistaken, she likes transgendered folk for the same reason that most feminists seem to like them — they prove gender is fluid. Unfortunately, feminists stop right at the edge of their brain, believing that there is no more to think through. Those kind of mental stop signs do not apply to me, though, because I’m evil. And so we arrive thusly at our next introductory paragraph.

When transgendered folks get through the final stage of transitioning and reach “the end”, all that gender fluidity goes right out the window and solidifies into the crusty crud on the bottom of my boots. They have merely succeeded in upholding the gender binary — the very same binary which has held women down for the last 10,000 years. The very same gender binary which says you need a penis to beat your competitors to the punch (else she’s a bitch), or that you need a vagina to express sensitivity (else he’s a wimp). There is simply no character trait in existence which requires one to possess specific genitalia in order to display said character trait to the world; feminists are clearly unanimous in this belief.

Since you do not need a penis to pick up a hammer, since you do not need a vagina to vaccuum, or validate virility, vanquish vasselage, or *oh my!* vounch for volition, there is also no corresponding need to switch out body parts in order to express what is basically described as internal character, unless the purpose is merely to commodify one’s personality as a dainty girl might wear pink or a goth craves black. The genitalia have been reduced to the status of wardrobe accessory.

And since these folks insist they’re not swapping out genitalia for mastabatory fetish purposes, there too is no need to accessorize oneself with the preferred genitalia of their romantic partner unless they’re also prepared to reverse the surgery again, when they meet someone new who wants yet different genitals to play with.

Here again, the crying girl bats her tear-stained bits, and we are supposed to expose our monster hearts because we have a fucking brain and she doesn’t. Suppose it’s also time to admit that I personally don’t care one way or the other what she chooses to do with her body, but the blowback will continue in earnest until she gets a clue that as a permanent member of the respectable third gender, she has no right to speak on behalf of real women — for when they refer to themselves as “real women”, that is exactly the practical result.

*I lied, nobody can imitate Twisty. Suppose I could imitate pure unmitigated evil, though — it comes naturally to feminazis.

 pity shield*

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.

part is not whole

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.