oh I have a blog

March 10, 2009

I was searching for springtime poetry but found this instead.  I love it, in some small visceral white girl way. Picture of foggy bridge cheerfully stolen from here

The Bridge Poem 

foggy bridge

I’ve had enough 
I’m sick of seeing and touching 
Both sides of things 
Sick of being the damn bridge for everybody 

Can talk to anybody 
Without me 

I explain my mother to my father 
my father to my little sister 
My little sister to my brother 
my brother to the white feminists 
The white feminists to the Black church folks 
the Black church folks to the ex-hippies 
the ex-hippies to the Black separatists 
the Black separatists to the artists 
the artists to my friends’ parents… 

I’ve got to explain myself 
To everybody 

I do more translating 
Than the Gawdamn U.N. 

Forget it 
I’m sick of it. 

I’m sick of filling in your gaps 

Sick of being your insurance against 
the isolation of your self-imposed limitations 

Sick of being the crazy at your holiday dinners 

Sick of being the odd one at your Sunday Brunches 

Sick of being the sole Black friend to 34 individual white people 

Find another connection to the rest of the world 
Find something else to make you legitimate 
Find some other way to be political and hip 

I will not be the bridge to your womanhood 
Your manhood 
Your humanness 

I’m sick of reminding you not to 
Close off too tight for too long 

I’m sick of mediating with your worst self 
On behalf of your better selves 

I am sick 
Of having to remind you 
To breathe 
Before you suffocate 
Your own fool self 

Forget it 
Stretch or drown 
Evolve or die 

The bridge I must be 
Is the bridge to my own power 
I must translate 
My own fears 
My own weaknesses 

I must be the bridge to nowhere 
But my true self 
And then 
I will be useful

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.

Found this at Polly’s and it is disgusting.


Unless public pressure is brought to bear, no murder investigation will take place.  Go here and sign the petition, and please contact other news sources and ask them to run the story as well.  This is so revolting many people will turn away in sheer horror rather than face a painful situation.


My internet connection is taking literally 10 minutes to load a page if it even loads at all, so pardon the crap nature of this post.  Thank you very much Polly for recapping this story so well. 

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. 

The main page to this post is here, and holds six more extraneous bits of baggage which must be cleared away before we can proceed.  Number two of this series starts further down at the red, and directly below I’d like to partially address recent kerfluffles. 

Whenever oppressed groups seek validation, opposing factions will typically cry foul and say public acceptance will cause some type of social upheaval with negative repercussions.  The opposing faction will be eventually unmasked as bigots with their prejudices clearly enunciated for all to see.  That has been the pattern for every single oppressed group seeking justice for all of recorded history.

We are primed to expect that pattern, conditioned to condemn the opposition, accustomed to anticipate final vindication of the oppressed group. As feminists, our scripted response is pre-written and pre-memorized, nothing remains but to slip into our pre-assigned roles as redeemers of inequity.  We are so habituated to certain cues which normally represent social injustice that we don’t even recognize when the oppressed group is starting out from a disingenuous position.

Unfortunately, as was shown in part one, of all the groups ever seeking full equality only transgenderism has demanded “special” rights — as opposed to equal rights — and because of this unparalleled departure the transgenderism ideology has already placed itself outside normal perimeters from the conventional boundaries usually granted to those claiming minority status.

Radical feminists have been aware of this major discrepancy for quite some time, though perhaps never so plainly stated, and yet regular feminists have been behaving as if the status quo remains unchanged.  Perhaps this unacknowledged transgression is at least partly the reason why regular feminists are having so much trouble comprehending the scope of the problem as presented by radical feminists. 

And here just for clarity I’d like to mention that the phrase vanilla girl is not applied with equal jurisdiction to all feminists, for many if not most regular feminists lack the certain idiocy necessary to earn that designation.  A vanilla girl is sickly sweet, melts under heat, and gives me brain freeze.  Vanilla girls shout “hater!!!!” and “my fweelings are hwert!!!!”  in response to any criticism and demands obeisance as a sacrament to magical thinking.  Apologies for not defining that sooner. 

Anyway.  We have a situation where we are tempted to respond in the same old way that we always do when presented with somewhat similar stimuli.  Yet, no one is entitled to special status and so from the very beginning not only has transgenderism been operating under false pretences, but our responses have been reacting as if those false pretences didn’t exist.  A reasonable person cannot expect typical procedure to apply to atypical circumstances, nor can anything other than increased scrutiny be expected to befall such an ideology.  Yet vanilla girls, in a hissy fit of gross stupidity, have decided that any objection is “transphobic”.

For all their claims that if only radical feminists would “listen” then mutual understanding could occur; it never dawns on them that “listening” is a two way street.  No “mutual” understanding is possible when all negative observations are shouted down as “hate”.  This is my final plea for mutual respect and consideration, no reasonable person would expect such continued immaturity to pass unchallenged. 

Vanilla girl, it is time you rethink your position.  This time, from the ground up.  The regular feminists, who have been left quite befuddled between a rock and a hard place, most likely have their own thoughts and perspectives but can’t express anything less than 100% agreement with you without being covered in vanilla girl sputtering splooge.  Vanilla child, when are you going to grow up and let other people draw their own conclusions?

Forget the gender identity business; personally, I just think it’s really freaking odd that someone attributes mystical qualities to body parts.  The genitalia must be sacred or something, why else does my left foot represent nothing and yet a cunt or a cock embodies their entire being?  Anyway…

2) No oppressed group has ever, as a requirement of their own liberation, demanded that a ‘controversial harm to others’ be codified into law, even before that harm is proven to be non-existent. This of course refers to the argument that transgenderism increases sexism by consolidating traditional “feminine” attributes exclusively with females. Since most people tend to proscribe legalized activities from within a framework of positive moral or ethical values and to internalize the theory behind that law as certified and sanctified approval, the likely outcome is easily predictable –if the radical feminists argument is correct.

In other words:  once a special-interest lobby convinces enough lawmakers that gender identity should be a protected class, then the general public — which is already pre-conditioned to accept sexist double standards — will be even more amendable to the idea that of course people need a vagina in order to express “feminine” traits and of course people need a penis to express “masculine” traits. Feminists are supposedly fighting sexism now, and the battle for equality which can only be accurately described as epic has raged over practically every society on the planet for the last 10,000 years. It would be foolish to attempt to claim as some do that such an entrenched bigotry can be anything but encouraged with the addition of “but naturally my internal character requires a vagina”.

A cautious approach is warranted given the amount of harm possible to half the population.  While it is always important to balance the needs of various groups in a society striving for equality, the insistence on forcing acceptance of the transsexual agenda on the general public without careful analysis or opportunity for nuanced discussion should be a red flag.  Given that their “refutations” to the various criticisms always seem to revolve around pleas for sympathy and nothing else, another red flag should appear.

Distraction technique — briefly noted.

Have you noticed how carefully the feminist activists will explain to men that a law they would like to be passed is not unfair to men or harmful to men in any way?  Feminists gladly provide whatever evidence is needed to reinforce their claim, regardless how much time or effort is required. Feminists do that as a matter of course, because apparently for some peculiar reason they like men and are concerned about their well-being.  Most of all, feminists strive to be fair to men and prefer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially when the subject is men.

If the transgendered truly cared about even the rudiments of fairness as they claim, then they would make similar effort to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no, transgenderism does not increase sexism. They would enumerate and explicate the real point of contention, not strawman arguments of their own invention. They haven’t bothered, not the activists in the field nor the official trans organizations themselves.  Brushing off criticisms and questions from the very people likely to be harmed by the trans agenda with the accusation that our questions are a “phobia” bordering on “hate crime” qualifies as genuine CONTEMPT; and yes, those massive minimization and silencing techniques over such an important topic has been…

 — duly noted.

There is a huge difference between a law which simply establishes and protects a right for a newly recognized group of incredibly tiny purportions, and a law which creates additional harm to another group which is already a target of proven systematic injustice and half the population.  This is not a minor point and to pretend otherwise is speciously condescending — not exactly the mark of one who claims the high ground. 

Selfish unconcern for anyone but themselves — duly noted.

If a proposed law was contended to increase or maintain racism, we would not even consider passing it until all the criticisms were addressed and shown to be false.  

Imagine just that scenario.  Imagine a group of African-Americans who are promised protection and help from a civil rights worker from any laws which increase racism, and then when some African-Americans indicate that such a law is pending, that civil rights worker tells them to stop hating white people.  The legislators who would be so foolish as to suggest that the minorities are only hating white people would be vilified in the press.

Imagine the outrage while People of Color plead that we wait for more information until cooler heads prevail, and yet anti-racist activists still insisting that the minorities they claim to protect are just “white phobic”.  Imagine that, if you will.  Reflect upon the reaction from minorities expecting protection and instead receiving hate propaganda from the very people who claim to oppose racism.

Dear god this post was way too fucking long.  snip snip snip

[EDIT: ]  The ENDA bill has been passed around like a football between House and Senate for the last 30 years. It has never included transgenderism in all that time. Only five months before this latest attempt was the trans issue added. The american public has never had the opportunity to hear any negatives about transgenderism at all and thanks to Loz for reminding me about that.