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.

I don’t remember how I found this page, and I don’t know how they did the fancy “embed four videos into one”, but if you watch this video from their site, all four short vids blend almost seamlessly into one.

It’s about a dood who makes $51,000 every hour of every day, and pays less in taxes , percentage-wise, than one of his maids. It’s about asking what the hell are we doing and what are we trying to achieve, but most of all it’s about asking what is RIGHT with the war on greed. This country and this world are comprised of peoples of many colors, many of whom are in desperate need – and yet we’re supposed to believe that business as usual and more of the same is the star we strive to attain?

Pardon my suckage once again, I could not draw a pair of angel wings to save my life.  You would laugh if you knew how much time was wasted on this stupid thing.  It looks like a moose with icicles.  The entire post is suckalicious, so at least it’s consistent. 

 angel to devil

As part of an ongoing existential crisis I sought outside sources, and as any good radical feminist knows, those sources included both pro and con.  We get to be smug because religious fanatics and the like, so it goes, only consult those whose prior agreement reinforces the desired outcome.  This guy questions how many steps over the line are allowed before one’s character changes from the box marked ‘evil’ into the the box marked ‘good’.  Feminazis are naturally curious about such things, you know.  Our evilness may be in jeopardy.   He explains my gravitating towards stupid stuff:

“This splitting of things into all-good and all-bad, with the attendant projection and scapegoating, appears to start in us as infants. Since it continues into childhood, it explains why fairy tales use such stark concepts of good and evil. It’s the only thing children can understand. Unfortunately, it also continues with us into adulthood, with catastrophic results. It is an infantile defense, a concept fit only for cartoons and fairy tales, but one with which we as adults consistently judge the complex world with all its shades of gray.”

I of course do not like this, but it gets better:

“One interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden supports the view that projection starts in us when we are very young. I personally think this myth makes more sense if we consider Adam and Eve to be about four-years-old, because they are as unaware and ignorant as apples.

In the story, the first thing Adam does, when caught breaking the rules, is to point at Eve and say, “She made me do it.” Eve, no different than Adam, then shifts blame onto the serpent. “It’s his fault, not mine,” she says. An old story, but a very perceptive one that clearly tells us that scapegoating is one of the first things we do. One interpretation of the story claims Adam and Eve’s scapegoating, and refusal to accept responsibility for their actions, is what got them kicked out of the Garden of Eden, thereby bringing evil into the world.

Although I certainly don’t believe Adam and Eve were real people, and the story is just a myth (although a very wise one), it suggests that if they had not scapegoated each other, or had accepted responsibility for what they had done, they might have been allowed to stay. The moral, obviously, is that one of the first steps back to the Garden of Eden (to the extent it can exist in this world) is acceptance of responsibility and the cessation of scapegoating. It can’t be done through violence.”

Oh, so according to another thing he wrote, I’m not really evil.  HA!  Of course he’s lying.  Except I’m feeling a budding kinship with clueless twits, so perhaps a downgrade to merely wicked is in order.  What does it say when even a vile feminazi feels sympathy for men?  This is terrible news.  Worst case scenario, I could end up dating my neighbor – holy crap.  

Next post: either transgenderism or a really awesome surprise!