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.
September 9, 2008
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:
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:
MOMMY, BUT SUSIE DOES IT TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
July 27, 2008
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.
 Also, comments #4 and #13 in the comment section explain this in a different way, so it might be easier to understand.
July 27, 2008
The gender binary is the idea that biological sex exists primarily in two forms: male and female, and that each sex is assigned a gender which is allowed or capable of expressing only certain specific characteristics. A conflict arises when we compare an obvious contradiction: radical feminists believe that transgenderism increases sexism by enforcing gender norms; and trans supporters believe that transgenderism reduces sexism by relaxing gender norms.
Those two beliefs are diametrically opposed, they cannot both be true at the same time. One must logically be false, and because the remaining one will be true then we won’t be able to prove it false no matter how hard we try. That is how logic works my friends, even if we wish it otherwise — and finding that truth becomes crucial when we consider that sexism affects every single human on the planet.
The following series of posts chronicles the very beginning of my hunt for that logical impossiblility and every effort towards fairness was made. Except the more I searched official trans organizations for a particular answer to a very precise question, the greater number of mispresentations I uncovered, all without ever finding something which should be there and is not. We will most likely track down this elusive thing in a later post, but for now let us concern ourselves with what we did discover.
The definition itself hints at the magitude of untangling required, because according to three official trans organizations themselves, transfolks are:
Students who are gender non-conforming are those whose gender expression (or outward appearance) does not follow traditional gender roles: “feminine boys,” “masculine girls,” and students who are androgynous, for example. It can also include students who look the way boys and girls are expected to look but participate in activities that are gender nonconforming, like a boy who does ballet. The term “transgender youth” can be used as an umbrella term for all students whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assignedat birth and/or whose gender expression is non-stereotypical.
So a girl who plays football is transgendered according to these folks. The authors also chose subjective terms which fluctuate from culture to culture and over time. As such, a reasonable person would have to question the purpose of it’s excessive vagueness — it appears either incompetent or dishonest; especially since the lawyers who either created this definition themselves or simply offered their endorsement, are known to use precise terminology and supposedly have been deliberating this issue for years.
Of all the organizations claiming official status that I looked at, every single one used the same tactic: attributing any non-traditional gender characteristic or attribute to the catagory of transgender. But the term non-traditional or it’s many variations is never itself defined, so a logical person is quite rightly confused as to what they are getting at. Apparently your mom is trangendered, if she’s not barefoot and pregnant and baking your dad a pie right this very minute. Your aunt who got divorced back in 1908 was apparently transgendered too!
Another trans organization, this time at Wesleyan Univerisity, has this to say:
Genderqueer: A person who identifies as something other than a man or a woman. May or may not prefer a gender-neutral pronoun.
FTM/ female to male: Assigned female at birth who identifies as something not female and often male.
MTF/ male to female: Assigned male at birth who identifies as something not male and often female.
Transgender: Describes people whose gender identity or gender expression fails to conform with societal expectations of what it means to be male or female bodied. Often shortened to trans.
Transexual:A person who identifies within the gender binary, but as the gender opposite of birth sex. They may be pre-op(erative), post-op, or non-op..
This definition for transgenderism is a little better, but notice the subjective phrase “societal expectations” which is still far too vague for our purposes. We want a definition that will stand the test of time and culture and can withstand a logical examination. Their rendition will not survive our inquiry and we want to give them a fair shot.
My definition is much more narrow: anyone who thinks they are a different biological sex than their genitalia indicates at birth. Which apparently matches what they call “transexualism”. Let’s discuss.
Here we have some number of men who do not feel comfortable with traditional gender expectations. No problem there, many women also do not feel comfortable with traditonal gender expectations — except we do not call these women transgendered, we call them feminists or possibly humanists. And for some obscure reason, these men who are not transexual would rather huddle under the umbrella term which seems to mean “guy in a dress” rather then some other term which means “people who refuse to conform to patriarchy”.
These men who are not transexual seem to equate dismantling patriarchy with wearing a dress or a vagina, which is why I used the phrase “guy in a dress”. But a man doesn’t need to do either of those things; a man can tell patriarchy to sod off just by dumping that whole domination thing they seem to like so much. Therefore, dismantling patriarchy is not a valid reason for wearing either a dress or a vagina, though it may or may not be a byproduct.
(At the risk of sounding like I’m lecturing, there is a big difference between some thing being a cause, and some thing being an effect. As soon as this distinction is mentioned, everyone says, “oh I knew that already”. But as we shall see later, many people have a tendancy say they understand a concept in theory but when asked to put that theory into practice, the results are inconsistent. That is common, so no reason to feel bad about it. But this distinction between cause and effect does make a difference to the way some people think about transgenderism, and so it’s worth noting now for future reference.)
Personally, what I think happened is that many of these transfolk experimented with various men’s groups who were themselves supposedly exploring non-exploitative manhood, and none of these men’s groups provided a plausible excuse for a guy to fetishize either body parts or traditional female accessories. So our transfolk ran back under the transgenderism umbrella. That’s my hypothesis and we still have to test it.
But we can’t test it just yet because so much transgenderism baggage remains blocking our path that even locating a proper starting place becomes a challenge. And that, you see, is the problem — which is why the subject of this series involves delineating their current disinformation practices. While I’ve been searching for a precise answer to a particular question, all that is available is elusive platitudes or illogical flatulence, which never quite explains anything other than how sad they are.
Most fetishists usually are sad, though, when people question their validity, so I’m not sure why I need to care just yet. Let’s kvetch a bit before we get serious:
One of the things I discovered about transgenderism is that I can’t call it a fetish, even though they can’t explain why it’s not a fetish. Apparently, that makes them upset and of course, if they are upset then they must be right and so I must refrain from calling it a fetish even though they refuse to explain why it’s not a fetish. I’m still trying to wrap my head around all the Orwellian bullshit as you can see.
It seems to go in circles, like a Monty Python sketch. If I question one thing, then their response is to play “distract the baby by shaking something shiny”. Except I’m not a baby and so that doesn’t work on me. So they talk about something else, usually how sad they are. I already said I didn’t care.
Sadness is not proof of validity, but I guess they are too stunned by their own stupidity to realize proper order matters. First comes proof of entitled right, then comes proof of violation of that right, then comes the tissue for their tears. Shake your silver baby rattle again darling, and we’re still not skipping ahead just to alleviate your fears.
At the risk of ruining my reputation as an evil feminazi lacking in discernment, here’s a few things I noticed on my quest for my ultimate objective. Each of them is a separate post, and already written if that matters.
1) NO oppressed group has ever demanded anything other than full human rights. page AVAILABLE.
2) No oppressed group has ever, as a requirement of their own liberation, demanded that a ‘controversial harm to others’ be codified into law, even before that harm is proven to be non-existent. page not posted.
3) NO oppressed group ever demanded automatic public acceptance just because some other group already possessed proof of entitlement to a right. page not posted.
4) NO oppressed group ever assumed they could dictate the rules for the majority. page not posted.
5) NO oppressed group ever assumed they had the luxury of refusing to factually address the criticisms, especially when that criticism involves harm to others. page not posted.
6) No oppressed group ever insisted their emotional distress was the sole basis for the establishment of a right. Proof of entitlement to a right is required. page not posted.
Our purpose for this series is to eliminate the excess baggage surrounding transgenderism before we begin the hunt for that elusive thing I briefly mentioned earlier. If you notice, I’m trying to be as organized, clear, and respectful about this topic as I possibly can, but of course my suckage still blows eternal. Humble apologies.