Transgenderism

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

117 posts / 0 new

Comments

Ms Zezoe is more cimmite to being "right' than to allow the subjective reality of others.

This is what is a cause of what is becomes 'complex PTSD".

How much contempt and depersonalization must one have to sit atop a soap nox and deny another his/her/whatever's reality?

This is very Soviet, in my mind, dismissive of the nuances /complexities of the human existance.........to deny, with dogmatic ideologival blugeoning, the very dismissal of oa other's very human, if not pragmatic, existance.

This is very, yes, Soviet. This is to purposely cause enough psychic suffering as to induce suidide. This, yes my critique, is bare bones. But at the heart, for all of the eloquent, academic nonsensicals, this is just more smoke and mirrors.hate, rationalized, is still hate, covered by quotes and refrences, acaqfemic et al, but still jsyt hate.

This causes what nis called PTSD damage,m such words, but such as those who oppose the nuances of humanity, in every shade and variety, this is to encourage to them to kill themselves.

Very Soviet strategy, very subterfuge, very to those who have been victims, very transperent.

A hater is disguises as a hero for society cohesion is a fraud. In my experience, paid to be so, it is State politics.

thankyou. Mrsvonderhoffholz

mrs.vonderhoffholz's picture
mrs.vonderhoffholz
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2015 6:12 pm

And by the way, mdhess, there's no such thing as "a girl with a penis." That's an oxymoron, unless you're delusional, regardless of the reason for that delusion. Unless, of course, you're pushing the ideological obverse of Orwellian logic. Your posts on this issue do resonate with that.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Say WHAT? Damn, Sam, that must've been some good stuff!...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sigh. And I thought we'd made progress. You sound just like the people who say that allowing same sex couples to marry will make marriage lose its meaning or sanctity or whatever the shit. Just as homosexuality is not new so too transgenderism is not new and so why would you think that advancements in medical treatment to treat a condition which we know has existed for at least as long as recorded history would make any difference to the meaning of "male" and "female." The paradigm has existed all along and has evolved with time and so your remark is completely irrational.

And when in recorded history, in what culture, have the sexes ever looked, dressed and behaved the same? Even in the most liberalized European cultures men and women remain clearly, distinctly, identifiably different. Nature itself does not support your "gender spectrum" -- if only we could tame misogyny and only womyn born womyn are really women feminist bullcrap -- theory. Blaming innocent victims for corrupting something that never was corrupted is crap of the first order.

You just still don't get it. Being transgender is not about wanting to look like a member of the opposite sex. Transgenderism is about looking like your own sex according to what your psyche tells even if you were assigned the opposite sex at birth. It's not "a style" or "a look" or to copy an ideal that trans people desire as you seem to think. You are only projecting as so many are wont to do. Rather it is for a trans person the possibility of not being miserable for being always perceived to be a female if you, yourself think of yourself as being male or vice versa.

I'm sorry that you don't seem capable of having the empathy in this matter that I have and I'm weary of arguing the subject so, again, thanks but we'll just have to agree to disagree about transsexualism.

Finally, trans people don't have some trans specific term that's dfferent from the language we all use for masculine women and feminine men so far as I'm aware. Why would they? We all call masculine girls or women "tomboys" or "butch" and, unfortunately for feminine men, there are many terms that get used with most being less than falttering -- dandy, light in the loafers, nancy, pansy, etc. Why you ask or what the relevance it has is beyond me but I suppose it's another symptom of your failure to comprehend the nature of what we've been discussing. You probably thought you were making some point.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm
Quote Ulysses:And by the way, mdhess, there's no such thing as "a girl with a penis." That's an oxymoron, unless you're delusional, regardless of the reason for that delusion. Unless, of course, you're pushing the ideological obverse of Orwellian logic. Your posts on this issue do resonate with that.

I'm not delusional but I'm convinced you are a troglodyte.

Julia Serano - Cocky

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm
Quote Ulysses:

Say WHAT? Damn, Sam, that must've been some good stuff!...

I understood the essence of what mrs.vonderhoffholz said perfectly well -- you all are just looking for an excuse to be hateful and judgmental and it's wicked -- but I have yet to make sense of your irrational, uninformed and inane commentary. Perhaps if you inform yourself about the subject you'll actually be able to follow the discussion and contribute without unnecessarily interrupting only because you hold so many ugly and unfounded stereotypes about what it means to be transgender.

You know, I wonder why guys like you -- guys so insecure they're frightened merely by someone who's not cookie cutter material -- always express concern over some possible situation like "what if" some creepy man in a dress claims to be trans just to share a locker room with my wife or daughter when it never even occurs to you to be concerned that a woman in pants may come into the same locker room as you or your son.

Whether its African Americans or trans people the objection always seems to center around wee-wees and hoo-hoos. White racist men are always sure that black men want their women and now it seems as if some frightened little progressives are afraid that chicks with dicks are after their women. So juvenile. So pathetic.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

Mdhess, with all due respect, because I still like and respect you, I do think you might try adjusting your preconceptions, that is, try stepping out of your Western mode of perception, the box that apparently has you viewing all things according to Western conceptions of sex and gender. Sorry, but it’s not helping us to move forward much, when you not only can’t think outside your Western codes of LGBT correctness, but also become verbally abusive in the process. (for example, “your remark is completely irrational,” among other comments) I am sorry if you experience my opinion as a threat or attack against your community, or whatever, but it is not— I have not been verbally abusive to you, have no "hatred" for transgendered folks, have not insulted you personally, and I don’t appreciate being attacked personally simply because I have a different view from you.

Quote mdhess:
Even in the most liberalized European cultures men and women remain clearly, distinctly, identifiably different. Nature itself does not support your "gender spectrum"

Clearly, you’re deeply attached to Western ideas about gender, that is, the binary view of gender as strictly male only and female only, just like sex is, physically and anatomically, male and female only (sex organs at birth); normally speaking. A spectrum of gender, apparently, where a variety of blends of the feminine and masculine appear in individuals among the population, just doesn’t fit within your ideological view.

Such a view about gender is manifestly incorrect— all you have to do is look around at real people. Take me, for example: I consider myself androgynous, that is, my sex is female, yet my gender is a blend of feminine and masculine, both yin and yang; I am recognized as female by everybody, and yet I am not feminine in the extreme, physically or mentally— I enjoy both “girly” stuff and stuff normally done by guys, like building things. In any case, I am a heterosexual woman through and through, and any suggestion to the contrary, well, them's fightin' words. However, I do not bother expressing my gender, either a feminine one or a masculine one— I don't go around identifying as either female or male. I'm just me, a person, and I feel no compunction to identify myself according to gender.

Everyday, I see human beings who don’t fit the gender binary imperative taught by our culture. You do too, but you refuse to acknowledge the reality of gender spectrum in your comments re “butch” and “tomboy,” terms which you understand impose a pejorative on such individuals. You see it, but you don't comprehend those examples as evidence of a spectrum of gender.

You might get some insight from the following about Native American “Two Spirit” people, the notion of there being four genders, not two, in their particular cultural conception. And this video clip from an Independent Lens documentary might be a good first step too.

Rethinking Gender and Sexuality: Case Study of Native American “Two Spirit” People

… In many ways, gender is more fluid in Native American cultures in comparison to the rigid binary concepts of male-female that we know in Western societies...

... Native American cultures don’t construct gender as the singular possession of one gender or another. They don’t have the Western binaries of “men are this way; women are that way.” Instead, Native Americans of different cultures generally believe that all humans and animals possess both feminine and masculine qualities. This is part of their spirituality. At particular points of time, Native American tribes have a sanctioned practice that allows a person to swap genders. There are strict cultural codes that govern this transition. Not everyone is allowed to simply swap genders on a whim…

...Two Spirit people often take on wives and husbands of the opposite gender, but not always; they may have diverse sexual experiences with both men and women. Nevertheless, the Two Spirits are not regarded as homosexual, bisexual or even transgender. Anthropologist Walter Williams notes that, throughout history, Two Spirit people were expected to conform to gender roles of their reassigned gender, with “feminine” Two Spirit people being matched with a “masculine” husband.

Simplifying this complex practice, Two Spirit people are seen as having a biological sex that does not match their spirit gender. They are usually regarded as having special sensory qualities; they see, hear, taste, smell and feel things others can’t. This is because the Two Spirit people are seen to be linked to their ancestral spirits. They interpret visions. They are peacemakers. They exist to honour all living things, past and present, as sacred. As you can start to see, their identity is not specifically about sexuality, nor really even about gender per se. Their role serves a social and community function; to fulfil cultural and religious duties...

...In sociology and anthropology, The Two Spirit people are studied as examples of transgender culture, which some Native Americans have been refuting. A small but growing number of scholars are beginning to re-examine how Native Americans culturally conceive of the Two Spirit people from an Indigenous historical perspective. In 1998 anthropologist Carolyn Epple argued that Western scholarship feels a need to categorise Navajo culture in terms of existing frameworks (“gay” and “alternate gender”). Even when attempting to pay homage to Navajo terms, they re-appropriate these outside of their Western colonial meanings (“berdache” and “Two Spirit”). This speaks to the narrow frames of reference of the Western social sciences and social activist movements. We need to rethink our intentions and their consequences on minority cultures...

...Western scholarship transplants Western concepts of gender, transgender and sexuality onto Other cultures. Rather than viewing the Two Spirit phenomenon in its own cultural meaning, we make it “familiar” by reconstructing it as a political identity aligned with transgender and gay rights. This may be the case for some Two Spirit people, but not all. Even when Two Spirit people adopt transgender and gay labels, this position is the outcome of complex socio-cultural and historical struggles that affect Native Americans distinctly…

So, only the pressures found within Western culture, those that impinge on Native American culture, produce transgender and gay labels. Otherwise, “two spirit” has an entirely separate meaning for Native Americans, one where there’s no need for sex changes and the rest. Their view incorporates, celebrates, and welcomes shades of gender so entirely within the community that such “two spirit” individuals do not feel dysphoric at all. There’s no dys to it at all— it’s all good.

Btw, I find your approval of mrs.vonderhoffholz’s illiterate, ignorant and wildly incoherent rant rather disturbing. To take the side of such blithering idiocy does not serve your credibility well, my dear Sir.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mdhess:
Quote Ulysses:

Say WHAT? Damn, Sam, that must've been some good stuff!...

I understood the essence of what mrs.vonderhoffholz said perfectly well -- you all are just looking for an excuse to be hateful and judgmental and it's wicked -- but I have yet to make sense of your irrational, uninformed and inane commentary. Perhaps if you inform yourself about the subject you'll actually be able to follow the discussion and contribute without unnecessarily interrupting only because you hold so many ugly and unfounded stereotypes about what it means to be transgender.

You know, I wonder why guys like you -- guys so insecure they're frightened merely by someone who's not cookie cutter material -- always express concern over some possible situation like "what if" some creepy man in a dress claims to be trans just to share a locker room with my wife or daughter when it never even occurs to you to be concerned that a woman in pants may come into the same locker room as you or your son.

Whether its African Americans or trans people the objection always seems to center around wee-wees and hoo-hoos. White racist men are always sure that black men want their women and now it seems as if some frightened little progressives are afraid that chicks with dicks are after their women. So juvenile. So pathetic.

Do you think it is discrimination if a young woman does not want to share a shower in a locker room with a man who identifies as a woman?

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 10:02 am

I think anyone has a right to be modest in front of whomever may make them uncomfortable -- too bad that, as a gay teen, I wasn't afforded any such consideration with respect to showering in the boy's locker room during high school. Every moment was torment for me but I endured that torment so that others around me who were not under any such stress could remain comfortable -- you heteros are welcome. Personally I don't base my sense of modesty in front others on gender but I understand that not everyone is so sensible.

If you are terrified of being naked in front of a trans person don't undress in public places. We have police for matters of public indecency so campaigning against a community of people who have never in the past proven to be the risk that they are being presented as out of ignorance (or malice) is disgraceful no matter how you dress it up. What possible healthy outcome can come from creating a backlash against an innocent population? The hysteria being intentionally promulgated is pure manipulation and you, apparently, are among the easily manipulated.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

I can no longer even take you seriously. You begin by imploring me to step outside my Western standards after having only just lectured me about abusive misogynistic history in the East (which I was well aware of). Then you serve up yet another "expert" voice who is not transgender or transsexual to lecture me on the view of a bunch of academics regarding the nature of transgenderism. And again you blatantly disregard testimonials from the community of people affected itself in favor of theoretical conclusions from academics which make them (and you) comfortable regardless of whether or not they comport with testimonials from those who actually live what academics can only attempt to understand. Lastly, you can't seperate yourself enough from your own preconceived notions to even be able to decipher an easily decipherable and impassioned response from a member only because she lacks the fluency of language that you and I take for granted; I'm guessing because English is not her first language. If you don't suppose the woman has a point about hate for hate's sake being easily propagated by the absence of empathy (see, her's is an easy message to decipher if one has an open mind) then let's see how the situation on the ground is: North Carolina’s Newest Pastime: Burning Rainbow Flags Outside Of LGBTQ-Friendly Churches

I'm really disappointed in how close minded I'm finding some otherwise progressive thinkers on this subject -- but not surprised.

Youtube trans celebrity skylarkeleven: TRANSGENDER BATHROOM LAWS - HB2

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

[reply to mdhess' last comment to me]

As usual, in the world according to mdhess, any criticism of trans hegemony will be placed in the right-wing bigotry box, or the bigotry box, period. Thus, you have a false equivalence in operation, where no information or argumentation receives fair consideration, but is dismissed, or ignored, because otherwise the premise of his worldview would prove flaccid and without logical merit. Any discussion outside the frames deemed permissible by the LGBT community is automatically unthinkable, with, ultimately, a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to “authority” put forth as the final, thought-terminating conclusion— only transgendered people whose reports toe the trans line are to be believed. Nothing matters but reports by “dysphorics” who stick to their dysphoria come hell or high water. “Any trans person coming to any other conclusion should be ignored.”

I answered your assertion that masculine and feminine ways of being —gender— is supposedly a universal, binary thing across all cultures in all times (as if it’s genetic), by providing an example (among many available), of a culture that does not see gender in that way. I showed you the thought of Native Americans in particular, which has human beings possessing in each individual both masculine and feminine aspects, each human being as a blend of those expressions and principles. But you completely ignored that evidence, choosing instead to fall back on your appeal to authority— this information doesn’t fit with reports by your favorite transgendered people, therefore it isn’t relevant to the discussion.


...it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.

Believe me, I can see there’s no point in taking you seriously on this subject anymore either.

I remain convinced that gender is a social construct. Furthermore, our culture’s construct concerning transgenderism is constrained to frame transgender issues either according to right-wing moral imperatives or according to opposition to those right-wing morality memes via inflexible support of transgender ideology. Therefore, no space exists in the discussion for loving doubts; no space exists to think outside the box, to question the wisdom of a social construct that creates “dysphoria,” or unhappiness. And it does.

I once believed something about myself with all my heart and soul, something that was not true. People are not always the best experts on themselves.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You are insufferable. First of all I don't even know what you mean by "transgender ideology." And I have absolutely no idea what the official LGBT line is or where to find it. I think you've made those things up but if you can point me to an officially sanctioned LGBT spokesperson then I'll forgive you for inventing criticisms to dump on me with. Secondly, I have already, long ago, acknowledged that there is no hegemony across the trans community just as there is no hegemony across any community.

Your arguments aren't peruasive because you aren't connecting your arguments into any semblance of rationality. You insist that you do respect the right of people to express gender without being bound by the constraints of social convention that, according to you, spring from our misogynistic culture (I blame religion as the driving force behind the force of misogyny but that's just me). But then when people actually practice an enlightened attitude toward transgendered people you condemn what results and blame transsexuals for not being able to resolve that pesky social problem of patriarchy and its adverse consequences despite the fact that the very same problem affects every one of us in our own unique way. None of the rest of us has resolved the problem to your satisfaction so why are you condemning certain select people for something that's beyond their control every bit as much as it's beyond your own? For fun? For shame!

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

Quote mdhess:

You are insufferable.


I came to this page in a good mood, and so I chuckled to read that.

In some ways, I feel as though I’m having a spat with a brother I care about, one who shares my political sensibilities about all sorts of other subjects, but one this particular opinion of mine just happens to drive ‘round the bend. In other ways, I think you’re simply being stubborn in your refusal to open your mind to what I’m saying.

Then comes the following: “Your arguments aren't peruasive because you aren't connecting your arguments into any semblance of rationality.” Now there’s a comment I find neither amusing nor forgivable for being human, but rather, something quite familiar for its resemblance to sexist stereotypes about women— not only a resemblance, the exact thing, that is, that we are “irrational.” Now that’s an ad hominem designed to belittle, denigrate, intimidate and humiliate, one suggesting you think you’re entitled, as a man, to insult me that way, and THAT IS OFFENSIVE!

I am obviously as rational, coherent and sober as anybody else on this forum, including you, mdhess. And you know it.

For now, I will cease trying to address your misrepresentations of my position —that I “blame transsexuals” for patriarchy, or condemn “certain select people,” which I do not!— and your feigned confusion regarding the ideology of transgenderism. Instead, I would like to make the following two requests, then post two links worthy of a careful read.

Request: Please list all the male gender characteristics you can think of that women do not, and cannot, EVER express, do, or share.

Request: Please list all the female gender characteristics you can think of that men do not, and cannot, EVER express, do, or share.

Letter: Derrick Jensen Responds to Oregon State University

(Derrick Jensen (born December 19, 1960) is an American author and radical environmentalist (and prominent critic of mainstream environmentalism) living in Crescent City, California.[1] According to Democracy Now!, Jensen "has been called the poet-philosopher of the ecological movement."[2]

Jensen has published several books, including The Culture of Make Believe and Endgame, that question and critique civilization as an entire social system, exploring its inherent values, hidden premises, and modern links to supremacism, oppression, and genocide, as well as corporate, domestic, and worldwide ecological abuse.[3] He has also taught creative writing at Pelican Bay State Prison and Eastern Washington University.)

The Onion: College Encourages Lively Exchange of Idea:

Quote The Onion:
BOSTON—Saying that such a dialogue was essential to the college’s academic mission, Trescott University president Kevin Abrams confirmed Monday that the school encourages a lively exchange of one idea. “As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it’s inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion,” said Abrams, adding that no matter the subject, anyone on campus is always welcome to add their support to the accepted consensus. “Whether it’s a discussion of a national political issue or a concern here on campus, an open forum in which one argument is uniformly reinforced is crucial for maintaining the exceptional learning environment we have cultivated here.” Abrams told reporters that counseling resources were available for any student made uncomfortable by the viewpoint.

As Derrick Jensen correctly insists in his letter, disagreement is not disrespect.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"

The University of Toronto has decreased the number of gender-neutral bathrooms in one of its colleges after two women became victims of voyeurism when they were filmed while showering.

Toronto Police Const. Victor Kwong said Monday that two women in separate instances at the Whitney Hall residence reported that they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them. Police have yet to find any information about the culprit, but the investigation is ongoing.

At least one gender-neutral washroom remains on each floor.

"

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

One of the arguments supporting the push for trans accessibility to private spaces normally provided for women is that trans “women,” men with penises who identify as female, are victims of violence themselves and are non-violent, gentle people who wouldn’t hurt a fly. As much as I would like to believe that argument, unfortunately it’s the trans community itself that invalidates the argument. The question becomes, who's doing the hating here?:

Quote Derrick Jensen:

As a result of this stated belief that women have the right to bathe, sleep, organize, or gather free from males, trans activists and their allies have threatened to rape these very same women. They have threatened to kill these women. They have threatened to kill me. They have threatened to behead all of us. They have threatened to kill the children of these women. I’m not exaggerating. Please read all of that again. They have put photoshopped pictures of me on the internet simulating bestiality (because of my work to defend salmon, they call me a “salmon fucker” and create pictures purporting to show me violating salmon). They have put photoshopped pictures of these women on the internet simulating pornography. They have told vicious and completely nonsensical lies about us (such as that we inspect people’s genitals, or that we burn effigies of trans people, or that we deny those who identify as trans surgery (which is especially odd since none of us are medical professionals), and so on) which are repeated ad nauseum as part of a long-term smear campaign. I don’t understand how rape and death threats by males against women who advocate for women’s only spaces do not count as convincing evidence for the need for women’s only spaces.

Do you know what the acronym DIAF stands for? I didn’t, until I was introduced to it by trans activists and their allies. It is a common acronym they hurl at women who advocate for women’s only spaces. It stands for “Die in a fire.”

Of course, that’s to forget the argument that it’s intolerance in the culture, generally, of gender expression that does not conform to traditional rules of gender —intolerance by men in men’s rooms toward other males dressed in women’s clothing — that is the problem, a problem which also includes the discomfort felt by trans women with penises in having to use men’s rooms full of men who hate them. That’s a societal problem— intolerance of difference. That’s what needs to change, before you ask women to sacrifice their right to have boundaries and safe, women-only spaces, so that men’s feelings will not be hurt— again, putting men’s needs above those of women.

Quote Derrick Jensen:
A while back someone wrote to me about a little boy whom she said “loves to play like a girl, dress in girls’ clothes, sing like a girl, and so on,” suggesting that his behavior is evidence that the boy is transgender, that he is a girl in a male body. But our analysis would be that we should embrace and accept this child’s behavior as simply who he is. The notion that the little boy was “acting like a girl” is what we believe we need to move past, since that’s based on stereotypes created by patriarchy: men are hard and cold and soldiers, and those who do to; and women are soft and inviting and submissive, and those to whom it is done. So our analysis would be that we should say this kid is free to act how he wants in this way, and he’s acting like himself. He can sing however he wants. He can play with dolls. He can dress however he wants. We should embrace and love him precisely how he is. I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little boy who likes frilly clothes and who wants to play with dolls. I just don’t believe that makes him a girl. I believe it makes him a little boy who likes frilly clothes and who wants to play with dolls, and who should be loved and unconditionally accepted precisely as he is. Once again, is that so wrong to simply love and unconditionally accept him as he is?

Mdhess has stated, “If you are terrified of being naked in front of a trans person don't undress in public places.” How about this: If you —a person with a penis who identifies as female— are terrified of using a restroom with other people with penises, then don’t pee in public spaces.

Quote Derrick Jensen:

Okay, let’s be clear: I don’t believe that males who identify as trans should be allowed into women’s locker rooms without women’s permission. If the males who identify as trans are afraid to shower with other males for fear they will be sexually assaulted by other males, by all means they can have their own showers, but I find it stunning and appalling that the same people who see the necessity for protecting these particular males from sexual assault by males have no problem exposing women to these same fears by forcing them to share vulnerable spaces with males. So a simple solution: make third showers. Just don’t throw women under the bus. But for refusing to ignore when women say no, I am, according to you, disrespecting those who identify as trans.

Let’s not forget the disrespect shown to women by insisting they shower with males, even if they have previously been sexually assaulted by males. Let’s not forget the fact that women in the US and UK struggled hard for decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for the rightto segregated restrooms in order to be able to experience a more robust and less terrorized public life (because it greatly reduced the risk of sexual assault in public restrooms). And let’s not forget the fact that at this moment girls and women in many parts of India are struggling for these very same rights that in the U.S. are being eroded: they want segregated public restrooms because that will enable them to attend school. Read that sentence again: girls are afraid to go to school for fear they will be raped when they go to the bathroom.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

1) I wasn't addressing you. If I'd wanted any shit from you, I'd have squeezed your head.

2) I'll bet you could find gainful employment as an incoherence interpreter.

3) Wow! You know so much about me and my character! Given that you've never been in my life in any way, I'll bet you got all that from the Oracle at Karnak! What burning insight!

4) It's obvious from your lack of concern for children, in this case female ones, that you are not and have never been a parent, grandparent, or other adult caregiver for minor children. You may think it's impossible for an allegedly trans man to in any way bother a female child in a mixed locker room or shower. That's your delusion and you're entitled to your own madness. But you are VERY fucked up!

5) If such an issue ever did develop, most fathers and grandfathers would give you idiots a very non-Dukakis answer: If he/she ever did anything at all to any of my minor female charges, he/she wouldn't have to wait for the operation; I'd do it gratis. Right away. Or if the cops beat me to him/her, the lads on Cellblock A would act in my stead, given their general views on such behavior, them having females in their non-incarcerated families and all...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Once folks get in the habit of concluding that only those who agree with them are rational, then even those who write like decapitated chickens —clearly irrational, objectively speaking— but agree on some vague level are rational too.

I had some hope that mdhess and his ilk might share the perception that patriarchy and its pal neoliberalism were bad things, and that traditional notions of masculinity and femininity as having evolved within those ideologies were at the heart of the problems associated with gender. Alas, however, as we have seen so far in this discussion, no such rejection of the status quo exists in that mind. Instead, we see support and absolute agreement with those errors of ideology and philosophy. Instead, “masculinity and femininity” as defined by patriarchy are the supposed, perfect givens of nature, never to be questioned nor opposed, and to do so is to be “hateful, cruel and irrational.”

What I’m waiting for is this question during a Congressional hearing: “Are you now, or have you ever been, in favor of personal boundaries and safe spaces for women and girls?” If so, off with your head!

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

some advise to the zz (which neither zen nor life, btw, the bad joke) opponants:

search for the other option which it never speaks, that is the reason, fear, distorted as it is:

MATRIARCHY is the goal, not as to put it, say to abolish patriarchy and find equality.

no,no, what is the another and desired alternative is matriarchy but it will never admit as to do it would defeat all it's arguements based on it's "logic" .......

do not think this is an arguement for justice based on believing that equality for all is goal. These arguements make only sense if replace patriarchy with matriarchy, NOT, though it claims is is so,,

NOT based on equality. And by TW every penis is a rapist just waiting for the chance, only some penises behvae because they have'nt the chance to rape everything.

this is very twisted distorted and the "insertion" of a politcs jargon, "neoliberalism" into what is the rhealm of gentle, raw, human existance, psychology, is also distorted. Such political jargon word like "neoliberal" has to do with LGBTQQ hearts/minds/souls how?? very seriously, this is political nonsense and very oppressive politics and all about fear, and most esp fear penises evrywhere.

my goodness, such Americans so insecure and indoctrinated in primative belief.

thank you,

mrs.vonderhoffholz

and ps I have been not banned so far, but to critic the zz , as the resident shill DNC here, will most certainly do the job, Erdogan-esque, E Europe way, I know.

mrs.vonderhoffholz's picture
mrs.vonderhoffholz
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2015 6:12 pm

Quote mrs.vonderhoffholz:...And by TW every penis is a rapist just waiting for the chance, only some penises behvae because they have'nt the chance to rape everything… most esp fear penises evrywhere...

Mrs. Vonderhoffverrückte, how lovely of you to mention penises, as well as your imaginings as to my feelings about them. Lovely of you, because you’ve given me an opportunity to set the record straight for you. Well, I’m sorry to prick your delusional balloon, but, in fact, I like penises very much, especially real ones on real men, and in my long lifetime I’ve never once encountered an unfriendly one. So, you can rest easy now, knowing that, in your quaint, pathetically illiterate “communications,” you’ve got me wrong: I’ve probably had more and better sex with real men with real penises than you ever dreamed of having.

Not that I really care what you think about me. I don’t. But I do care about the truth. And the truth is, rape is real, as you should understand, if you care not only about women’s lives but about transgender lives as well. And facing that reality is not about hating penises. It’s about care for victims.

Take a few English grammar and composition classes. You need help.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Ahhh, ms zz, you say quote " you love penises "ESPECIALLY REAL ONES ON REAL men"...........and you have so many many penises? Just how many penises have you enjoyed? Though the alternate question is did those real penises on real men so also to enjoy your vagina?

My oh my, such a gender-narcissistic bias, no wonder the FEAR of a trans person, perhaps your vagina is not so very as enticing as such many pesises...or is this Freudian? and it is penis envy, afterall.

perhaps you should re-construct your poliics construct, from "neo-liberal" to neo-labial and go find a penis to enjoy and stop ball-busting the rest of the world.

thankyou,

mrs.vonderhoffholz

and ps it is funny to make fun of English second language persons, so you are a xenophobe, bigot, as well as a matriarchist narcissist

mrs.vonderhoffholz's picture
mrs.vonderhoffholz
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2015 6:12 pm

What is it about you that you cannot have a discussion with a person who holds a different view from yours, without resorting to ad hominems and wildly inaccurate and nasty accusations?

I would never make fun of an honest, respectful and careful person's language difficulties. But that's not you. You invite ridicule, because of the extremes of your ill-tempered, hate-filled, mean-spirited contributions here, at least by what I can make of your illiterate ramblings.

You don't know me, so don't waltz in here bent on hating all the things about me you think you know but don't. It's a bore, and I don't plan on responding again to you. However, if you keep up your unwarranted, ignorant attacks, I will make a complaint to Sue N about you.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well by all means make a complaint to SueN about me because as I sitted in my post # 69 ( hahahuh-for all primary schoolers) that you are a shill is well known and that you have some way of making bannings happen is well known, here. By all means, and no one ad-homed you, YOU trumpeted to the stars of your lovings of many many penisses you've had. I asked only if the lovings were mutual, if that is ad-hom, I believe, question answered............BUT

to say that you made fun of my English proficiency is ad-hom against you, well, I don't understand English so well to be sure, you, so please , go, as a baby, tattle to SueN, about who ad -homed which person? You make fun of my Englsh...that I need 'help"??? that was 'devious" implied idea. Yet you are victim here?

But to all who read here, capture the Zenzoe phrases of posts above, how much it LOVES and has LOVED MANY MANY PENISES.

Such a penis lover so sensitive, nust all have been uncut, as EU, esp E EU, are. We are not American fussy.

thankyou,

mrs.vonderhoffholz

mrs.vonderhoffholz's picture
mrs.vonderhoffholz
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2015 6:12 pm

Progress toward enlightened social change cannot be done without a language to communicate ideas, or without free and open dialogue, for an effective exchange of ideas.

This discussion’s language should include the word, “socialization,” to avoid a misreading of this particular social phenomenon.

“Socialization: a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position.”

Or, Socialization: “the process whereby an individual learns to adjust to a group (or society) and behave in a manner approved by the group (or society). According to most social scientists, socialization essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a central influence on the behaviour, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children.”

With that in mind, I offer the following article by Robert Jensen: Feminism Unheeded:

Quote Robert Jensen:

For the past year, the media have been full of discussions of the endemic sexual violence in the contemporary United States, while at the same time pop culture has been celebrating the new visibility of the transgender movement. Both of these cases — which many take to be feminist successes — actually highlight patriarchy’s ability to adapt to challenges and undermine a radical critique of the domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of institutionalized male dominance.

In 25 years of being part of a radical feminist movement, I am less optimistic than ever about the capacity of our society to face the truth about the pathology of patriarchy. This culture of denial is not limited to sex/gender, but has become the norm in regard to the unjust and unsustainable hierarchies at the core of all of this society’s social, political and economic systems — with profound human and ecological implications.

Before defending this assertion, there’s a reasonable question to consider: Who cares what I think? I am, after all, a middle-aged white man, a tenured full professor at a large state university, with a U.S. passport, married to a woman. In privilege roulette, I am a winner on all the big identity markers: race, sex/gender, economic class, nationality, sexuality (the last one is complicated; more on that later). According to the rules of progressive politics, I’m supposed to preface every assertion I make with self-abnegation. Who am I to make claims about the proper analysis of these systems of illegitimate authority, given that I live on the domination side of all these dynamics?

Humility is a virtue, and people with my unearned advantages should double-down on humility. But false humility can become a rationalization for silence. Accepting the leadership of people from oppressed groups is an important principle, and privileged voices are not always needed in some debates. But on matters of public policy we all should be part of a collective conversation, and there also are times when people with privilege can say out loud what others say quietly in private. This essay offers my own analysis, but in solidarity with many others who share these views but feel constrained in speaking, out of concern for institutional standing and/or personal relationships.

Patriarchy

This past year I have written about rape culture and trans ideology, in both cases anchoring an analysis in the problem of patriarchy. I’m often told that the term “patriarchy” is either too radical and alienating, or outdated and irrelevant. Yet it’s difficult to imagine addressing problems if we can’t name and critique the system out of which the problems emerge.

The late feminist historian Gerda Lerner defined patriarchy as “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in the society in general.” Patriarchy implies, she continued, “that men hold power in all the important institutions of society and that women are deprived of access to such power. It does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence and resources.”

Like any resistance movement, feminism does not speak with one voice from a single unified analysis, but it’s hard to imagine a feminism that doesn’t start with the problem of patriarchy, one of the central systems of oppression that tries to naturalize a domination/subordination dynamic. In the case of feminism, this means challenging the way that patriarchy uses the biological differences between male and female (material sex differences) to justify rigid, repressive and reactionary claims about men and women (oppressive gender norms).

How should we understand the connection between sex and gender? Given that reproduction is not a trivial matter, the biological differences between male and female humans are not trivial, and it is plausible that these non-trivial physical differences could conceivably give rise to significant intellectual, emotional and moral differences between males and females. Yet for all the recent advances in biology and neuroscience, we still know relatively little about how the biological differences influence those capacities, though in contemporary culture many people routinely assume that the effects are greater than have been established. Male and female humans are much more similar than different, and in patriarchal societies based on gendered power, this focus on the differences is used to rationalize disparities in power.

In short: In patriarchy, “gender” is a category that functions to establish and reinforce inequality. While sex categories are part of any human society — and hence some sex-role differentiation is inevitable, given reproductive realities — the pernicious effects of patriarchal gender politics can, and should, be challenged.

Rape

In patriarchy, rape happens if a man forces a woman to have sex when the woman clearly has not consented or cannot consent. Only men who force women into sex in those situations are deemed to be rapists, only a small percentage of those rapes are reported to police, and an even smaller percentage of the rapists are arrested and convicted. The strategy of narrowing the definition of rape and limiting the number of men identified as rapists deflects attention from other questions about patriarchy’s eroticizing of domination and the resulting rape culture; from larger questions of how men are socialized to understand sexual activity, power and violence; and from the complex ways women are socialized to accommodate men’s demands.

Here’s one clear expression of this limiting strategy: “Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.” Surprisingly, that statement is from a letter issued by one of the country’s leading anti-violence groups, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, or RAINN. Even those working to end rape sometimes feel the need to ignore or avoid feminist insights, a phenomenon I explored in an essay last year.

Rape is a crime committed by individuals, of course, but it is committed within patriarchy, and if we were serious about reducing the number of rapes, we would be talking about the roots of that violence in patriarchy. But such an analysis doesn’t stop at what is legally defined as rape, and leads us to a painful inquiry into the patriarchal nature of what the culture accepts as “normal” sex based on men’s dominance. Those same patriarchal values define the sexual-exploitation industries (pornography, stripping, prostitution) and the routine sexual objectification of women in pop culture more generally.

So, the comfortable notion that we can condemn the bad rapists, and then all other sexual activity is beyond critique, evaporates in a feminist analysis. That doesn’t let rapists off the hook, but instead asks all of us to be honest about our own socialization. Taking rape seriously requires a feminist analysis of patriarchy, and that analysis takes us beyond rape to questions about how patriarchy’s domination/subordination dynamic structures our intimate lives, an inquiry that can be uncomfortable not only for those who endorse the dynamic but also for those who have accepted an accommodation with it.

This past year, with the media full of stories about the way in which women are particularly at risk in and around predominantly male institutions (fraternities, big-time athletics, the military), there is surprisingly little talk about patriarchy, about the socialization of men into toxic notions about masculinity-as-domination, especially in these hyper-masculine settings. The focus is diverted into questions about rules and regulations, about whether a particular university official, police officer, or commanding officer failed to hold a rapist accountable. All are relevant questions, but none is adequate to face the challenge.

What are we afraid of? The possibility that we can’t transcend patriarchy, that significant numbers of men won’t engage in the individual and collective critical self-reflection necessary? Are we worried that, without such self-reflection, we will not significantly reduce the myriad ways men not only rape but exploit women sexually?

I am not preaching from on high about this; I am a product of the same patriarchal culture and my work in feminism hasn’t magically freed me from the effects of that socialization. If anything, it’s made me more acutely aware of how easy it is to slip back into domination/subordination patterns, even when I’m trying to identify those behaviors and resist. I am worried, too, but that makes me more determined to hang onto the feminist framework.

Trans

The debate within feminism over trans, transgenderism and transsexualism (terms vary depending on speaker and context) goes back to the 1970s (the publication of Jan Raymond’s “The Transsexual Empire” in 1979 is a flash point) and continues today (the publication of Sheila Jeffreys’ “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism” in 2014 is a new flash point). For a fair-minded account of the contemporary debate, see Michelle Goldberg’s recent New Yorker piece, “What is a woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.”

In two previous essays, I articulated concerns about the transgender/transsexual ideology, rooted first in a feminist critique of the patriarchal gender norms at the heart of the trans movement, and second in the troubling ecological implications of embracing surgery and chemicals as a response to social and psychological struggles.

If one understands gender categories (man and woman) as being primarily socially constructed, then trans ideology actually strengthens patriarchy’s gender norms by suggesting that to express fully the traits traditionally assigned to the other gender, a person must switch to inhabit that gender category. For years, radical feminists have argued that to resist patriarchy’s rigid, repressive and reactionary gender norms, we should fight not for the right to change gender categories within patriarchy but to dismantle the system of gendered inequality.

If one understands socially defined gender categories as being primarily rooted in biological sex differences (male and female), then trans claims are not clear. If someone says, “I was born male but am actually female,” I do not understand what that means in the context of modern understandings of biology. (Note that people born “intersex,” with reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not clearly fit the definitions of female or male, typically distinguish their condition from transgenderism.) Although not all transsexual people describe their experience as “being shipwrecked in the wrong body,” as one trans writer put it, I struggle to understand, no matter what the metaphor.

If there is an essence of maleness and femaleness that is non-material, in the spiritual realm, then it’s not clear how surgical or chemical changes in the body transform a person. If that essence of maleness and femaleness is material, in the biological realm, then it’s not clear how those changes in selected parts of the body transform a person.

I have been asking these questions not to attack the trans community, but because I cannot make sense of the trans movement’s claims and would like to understand. I am not suggesting that individuals who identify as trans/transgender/transsexual are somehow illegitimate or don’t have the right to their own understanding of themselves. But if that community asks for support on policy questions, such as public funding or mandatory insurance coverage for sex-reassignment surgery, the basis for that policy has to be intelligible to others.

So, I am not discounting the experience of people “whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth,” the American Psychological Association’s definition of transgender. Instead, I am exploring alternatives to the trans accounts of that experience. For me, this is not an abstract question. As a child, I struggled with gender norms and sexuality. I was small and effeminate, one of those boys who clearly was not going to be able to “be a man,” as defined in patriarchy. My sexual orientation was unclear, as I struggled to understand my attraction to male and female, something that could not be openly discussed in the 1970s where I was growing up. And my early life included traumatic experiences that further complicated my self-understanding.

The story of my struggle has its ups and downs, with many moments of self-doubt and despair. Eventually, I came to terms with gender and sexuality through feminism — specifically the radical feminism that emerged from the anti-rape movement and critiques of the sexual-exploitation industries — and that politics gave me a sensible framework for understanding my history in social and political context. I often wonder what would have happened if, when I was an adolescent in the midst of those struggles, the culture had normalized trans ideology. I can’t see how a trans path, which does not demand that one wrestle with the pathology of patriarchy, would have left me better equipped to deal with gender and sexuality.

My experience doesn’t fit in the category of “gender dysphoria,” as I understand it, and I’m not projecting my experience on everyone who struggles with the brutality of patriarchy’s sex/gender system. I’m simply suggesting that the liberal ideology of the trans movement (liberal, in the sense that it focuses on an individual psychological response to structures of power and authority) is inadequate, and that demonizing those who raise relevant questions benefits no one.

Honest conversations

Supporters of patriarchy have had to yield to some of the demands of feminism, such as giving women access to previously closed-off opportunities in education, business and government. Most men committed to patriarchy have been willing to condemn the most abusive behaviors that come from institutionalized male dominance, so long as the core ideology is protected. These relatively small concessions, which do constitute a kind of progress, are often accepted as adequate, perhaps because a more direct confrontation with patriarchy is dangerous.

I think that’s why the current mainstream conversation about sexual violence so rarely confronts the patriarchal gender norms at the heart of the violence. Rather than going to the root of the problem, most commentary focuses on how changes in policy can minimize the risks to women and increase the effectiveness of criminal prosecutions of men who rape, as it is narrowly defined in the law. And given the very real suffering that results from men’s violence, anything that reduces that violence is important.

That’s also why the current mainstream conversation about trans so rarely directly challenges the rigid, repressive and reactionary gender norms of patriarchy. Rather than going to the root of the problem, most commentary focuses on how changes in individuals can alleviate their distress because of gender norms. And given the very real suffering that results from oppressive gender norms, anything that provides individual relief is important.

No one has a magic strategy to end men’s violence or eliminate oppressive gender roles. It’s possible that, given how entrenched patriarchy is worldwide, there is no way to overcome male dominance, at least not in the time available to us as the ecosphere’s capacity to support large-scale human societies erodes. But it’s difficult to imagine any progress without a deeper critique of patriarchy’s definitions of masculinity (dominance, competition, aggression) and femininity (demure, passive, objectified).

I’m not telling anyone how they must understand these issues or themselves, but I can’t see the value in suppressing critical questions out of a fear of being seen as too radical or insufficiently inclusive. Political movements are based on a shared analysis of the world, and that analysis can’t be fully developed unless relevant questions are open for discussion and debate.

My concern is that when a feminist analysis of rape in patriarchy is offered, mainstream voices dismiss it as “too radical.” Some of my friends in the movement against sexual violence have told me they feel pressure not to talk about patriarchy and feminism in their institutional work. That’s ironic, since rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters typically were started by second-wave feminists with a radical critique. Many of those who staff those organizations today bring a radical analysis and spirit to that difficult work, but the fundraising and public-relations efforts for those centers tend to avoid the subject.

My concern is that when a feminist analysis of trans ideology is offered, mainstream voices dismiss it as not adequately inclusive. Friends have told me that they suppress their questions out of fear of being labeled transphobic and marginalized in work and personal networks. There are trans activists who incorporate a critique of patriarchy into their work, and more open conversation about these strategic questions would be beneficial to all, especially given the heightened vulnerability of people who identify as trans to sexual violence.

My concern is that we are losing the ability to face the pathology of patriarchy honestly, and we can’t fight what we can’t name. There is no guarantee of success in the struggle against patriarchy, but as James Baldwin put it more than 50 years ago, “Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Vonderwhatever. Huh. Probably not ganja after all; mescaline at the least, or, perhaps, blotter acid. The next one might come in the form of arhythmic pounding on a hollow log. What the hell, who needs command of language? We don't need no stinkin' lingua franca! And nuance? Well, nuance is an unheard of luxury among current members of the Illiterati. The Moron Apocalypse is upon us!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If I weren't so determined now to ignore the woman, I might jump right in with a simpatico guffaw. But I'm trying to move on, you see, so I'll leave it at that. ;-)

If someone wants to debunk the information on this website, feel free. However, it does appear to validate the impression I have, due to the extremes of violent verbal abuse dished out to anybody critical of trans ideology, or even the suggestion that there is one, that elements of social pressure and cultish socialization behaviors exist within the predominant trans community.

If this is just the tip of the iceberg, I do believe we’re talking about a serious menace to child welfare.

Also this: http://rejecting-the-gender-cult.tumblr.com/the_cult_essay

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

One major flaw of political correctness is that it's anti-intellectual. A corollary of that is the current disturbing trend of political correctness sacrificing truth to emotion. What I mean by that is that in some quarters, people are becoming unwilling to point out truth if they believe beforehand that it will "make somebody feel bad." This is very dangerous, because ultimately, truth is all that really matters. No problems can be solved nor constructive change achieved without previously acknowledging truths that precurse problem solving or changes. Most truths will always "bother" somebody, but they must NEVER be sacrificed to worry over anybody's emotional responses to them. Tangential to this is the political correctness rationale that all truth is ultimately relative, that there is nothing objectively absolute. This always leads, in the end, to situational ethics and alibis such as "I was just following orders," as well as a conveniently eternal means of universal escape from existential responsibility. Truth may hurt, but the pain of acknowledging it is NOTHING compared to the horrendous potentialities inherent in denial.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

So-called 'political correctness" as exusise from all sides.

There is NO DENIAL that trans people are physically and violently violated, regularly.

yet it is labeled "political correctness" by even those who interject political jargon such as 'neo-liberalism_ into the realm of human psychology, humnan experience, it is all about the "political" and must be .....ahh, to argue gurher I must accept those premiss, ehich I deny.

And more of the making fun of English second language users as on any variety of drugs?

My frenemy, you debase yourself to sink to that level.

The human condition, EXPERIENCE is of nuance, and not so much political jargon explainations, but go ahead and try to make it so. This is so very fascist, want politics to organize humans? How about fascist, fuedal. This is what you advocate,

to make fun of one's language limits, would you do the same with a person of having had a lesser education as well, such as a black person of a inner city school?????

seems to me, this USA, this is the bigotry. This is NOT "neo-liberalism" of others as YOU people are the neo-liberalists who try to convince the rest that this is so.

"I know you are so what am I?" the game that all CHILDREN learn everywhere in the world...to play, as when a bully is cornered

This is so very good basic propoganda. This is, my new word, the "devious". You are wolves making to look like the sheep. Wolves, fascist, bigots, patriphobic penic envy political crank nonsense.

thankyou,

mrs.vonderhoffholz

mrs.vonderhoffholz's picture
mrs.vonderhoffholz
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2015 6:12 pm
Quote Ulysses:

One major flaw of political correctness is that it's anti-intellectual. A corollary of that is the current disturbing trend of political correctness sacrificing truth to emotion. What I mean by that is that in some quarters, people are becoming unwilling to point out truth if they believe beforehand that it will "make somebody feel bad." This is very dangerous, because ultimately, truth is all that really matters. No problems can be solved nor constructive change achieved without previously acknowledging truths that precurse problem solving or changes. Most truths will always "bother" somebody, but they must NEVER be sacrificed to worry over anybody's emotional responses to them. Tangential to this is the political correctness rationale that all truth is ultimately relative, that there is nothing objectively absolute. This always leads, in the end, to situational ethics and alibis such as "I was just following orders," as well as a conveniently eternal means of universal escape from existential responsibility. Truth may hurt, but the pain of acknowledging it is NOTHING compared to the horrendous potentialities inherent in denial.

Well said and refreshingly well written, Ulysses. You and I have had our disagreements, but I think we share a respect for the language and recognize the signs of irrationality wherever incoherence shows up in writing style. If a person can't write a coherent paragraph, who should take them seriously?

Yes, such a thing as truth does exist, contrary to postmodernism's flabby hold on it. "Philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

Moving on: A few progressive-leaning perspectives kept out of the mainstream conversation about transgenderism:

http://scaredradfem.tumblr.com/about

http://4thwavenow.tumblr.com

Quote Witchy Wit:
My female body is a reality, yes? I really have breasts, I really bleed once a month, I really have ovaries and a uterus and a cervix and a vagina and a clitoris. Those are undeniably real. I’ve even been karyotyped - my XX chromosomes are most certainly real. I’ve seen my own cells under a microscope - the Barr body (which, to simplify, holds the extra X chromosome) is definitely there. These physical realities have a word used to describe them: female.

Now, let’s review what words are and what they are for. A group agrees that a certain combination of sounds and/or letters will refer to a Thing. The whole group must agree somewhat on the meaning, or the word is functionally useless. Can you imagine trying to order food in a restaurant if the word “cheeseburger” meant something unique to each person? You would order a cheeseburger, and they’d bring you out a bowl of lettuce tossed with dressing and say “well this is what cheeseburger means to me, and you have no right to impose your definitions on me.” And then you’d have no cheeseburger. So, words are important. They represent a thing - a reality or an idea - and everyone in the group (usually, the speakers of that language) agrees on a meaning. [Zenzoe emphasis]

Got it? Good. Moving on.

So, I am female. Being female in a patriarchy comes attached to a certain kind of experience or set of experiences, among them, the experience of misogyny. These vary between time periods and cultures (we’ll come back to this) but all human females who are share similar experiences due only to their female bodies, and the more similar the context, the more similar the experience. There is a word for this: womanhood. That is the word that the vast, vast majority of the English-speaking world has used for hundreds (thousands? I’m not a linguist) of years to describe the experience of being a human female. Words have meanings. They do not get to mean something entirely different to each unique person because that defeats the purpose of language.

Now, let’s touch on how “womanhood” is different across time periods and cultures. 18th century British womanhood is very different from 6th century Chinese womanhood. Now, both these women are adult human females, and they will likely have some experiences in common. However, what it means to be a woman - how a woman looks, thinks, behaves - is drastically different in each context. That is due to a difference in the culturally imposed set of roles and behaviors deemed appropriate for a member of a certain sex. There is a word that sums up that nice long sentence: gender.

Gender is socially constructed. It is a tool of the patriarchy, designed to mark a certain class of people (males) as superior and the other class of people (females) as inferior. Across many different cultures and time periods, womanhood is associated with submissiveness. That is because women (females) are “”“supposed”“” to be the submissive class. Submissive to males. Femininity, the gender assigned to women, is almost synonymous with submission in the western world, and masculinity with dominance.

So you’re starting to see a system of domination and submission, of privilege and oppression, take place. To maintain this system, people are taught to occupy their gender role literally from birth. Because children are largely passive sponges for information, we internalize these roles, and, as children at least, understand the world in the context of them. By preschool, children already have a solid understanding of gender roles (girls do this, boys do that) and are usually very resistant to things that challenge this schema. So what I’m saying is, by preschool, boys (males) understand that their role is to dominate, to rule, and girls (females) understand that their role is to submit, to sacrifice.

No amount of playing around with language is going to change this system. All it is going to do is obscure it. So that brings me to my final point.

By this point in the argument, we can accept that females are an oppressed class. You seem like a person who is passionate about justice, so I’m sure you want all oppressed peoples to gain their liberation. But how does an oppressed group gain liberation? It’s a multi-step, multifaceted process, but there is something so crucial, so fundamental to the process that it’s often forgotten - the oppressed group needs the language to talk about their oppression. They need to be able to identify who is a member of the oppressed group, and who is an oppressor, a dominator. They need words for these things.

When you attempt to redefine words like “woman” to the point where they are meaningless, when you conflate gender with sex, you take these words away from an oppressed class. You erase their oppression. You place yet another obstacle in the way of their liberation.

So I guess I only have one question for you: Why would you do that?

http://witwitch.tumblr.com

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

yes to aknowledge the Ulysses person, there is nothing intellectual about political correctness, if it is, as described, oppose to the political term "neo-liberal_ in the realm of the psychology of actual, real, real life people who suffer....trans people suffer rape as well as straight (womwn) do, though because a trans person may still have some anatomy???>.............truly, this IS POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS...........making faces that it is a justice, a vigilante, a superMAN.........even if woman,...............you people are to be asghamed, who do not understand the difference between a legitimate person of wrong body/mind and of a CRIMINAL"S mind, it is also to say also that all gay men are "pedophiles" which is substantially untrue.......

Admit that Ulysses, ZenZoe, are of political beasts, and have nothiing to do with humanity, with all of it's nuances, rawness, nakedness, vulnerability....'

they seek only some warped kind of NARCISSITIC GENDER/womyn/female/male power through the exploitation and or dismissal of

"OTHERS"......which most contemporary psychology accepts as a "spectrum"

there is no such thing as normalcy in sexuality, thus no such thing in normalcy in "violation, thus therr is limite 'predictability", and most i mportant

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR has NOTHING to do with GENDER IDENTIFICATION

thankyou,

mrs.vonderhoffhoz

mrs.vonderhoffholz's picture
mrs.vonderhoffholz
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2015 6:12 pm

Culture: How patriarchy and binary gender rules of society correlate with sex reassignment surgery:

Example: Iran is a strictly patriarchal culture, with strict gender rules, including a prohibition against homosexuality: The Iranian state media have shown their hatred toward homosexuality on many occasions, and no press or other media outlet in Iran is allowed to support LGBT-rights. For example, the Iranian state media has stated that believes homosexuals are deviant individuals who have, for some reason (psychological, social or physiological) deviated from the balanced and natural human condition and need help and support to stop sinking any further into the 'swamp of immorality'.[78] Iran's PressTV has a plagiarised comment policy that expressly forbids homosexuality.

Not surprisingly, therefore, “as of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

Not so different from the U.S.

Item: Eight players in Iran’s women’s soccer team are men.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
...violent verbal abuse...
That's not quite respect for language. "Violent" presupposes physical- by definition

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:
...violent verbal abuse...
That's not quite respect for language. "Violent" presupposes physical- by definition

If you're referring to my use of the word, consider this, stwo: Definition of violent #2: notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation>

And if you don't see that in the evidence, perhaps you haven't been following the thread, especially the text by Derrick Jensen.

I do want to correct the record, in case anyone is taking Mrs. Vonderhoffholz’ comments seriously.

In response to my having told her I would complain to Sue N., a threat I made after Mrs.V’s violent comments directed at me, she wrote this: "by all means make a complaint to SueN about me because as I sitted in my post # 69... that you are a shill is well known and that you have some way of making bannings happen is well known, here."

First of all, the idea that I am a shill is preposterous. ‘Nuf said about that.

As for the accusation that I “make bannings happen,” there’s absolutely no evidence for that. I have emailed Sue N several times, but only one of those emails complained about a fellow participant here. And that complaint, as far as I could tell, did not result in a banning, as that person continued to post afterward for a number of months.

Fact is, I welcome disagreement. I just don’t appreciate the kind of hostile, personal attacks Mrs. V continues to post here.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I like this summation: Gender & Gender Identity, which also covers gender stereotypes.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Gheezuss.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 8:14 am

Let's set some people's hair on fire with this issue.

First, transgender concerns a tiny amount of the overall population. All this publicity is way out of proportion to the number of people involved.

There has always been people who cross dress and blur the gender lines. But now technology has allowed us to enter the land of Frankenstein with gender reassignment surgery. Now people have decided that God or Nature made a mistake and they should have the plumbing of a different sex. This goes way beyond lifestyle.

Lesbian and gay issues have been rammed down the throat of EVERYONE regardless of comfort level. Unfortunately, it may have been necessary to combat discrimination and violence against gays.

Transgenderism goes to a subset of a subset. People have to realize there is a natural reaction to someone who goes out of their way to be different to the degree of transgenderism-especially when it comes to something as basic as sex. I remember one time I was standing in line behind a couple. The woman was wearing a backless sun dress. The line was slow and I began to get a strange feeling about the woman. Her back had a width and muscularity that seemed odd. When she turned, I realized she had an adam's apple and was a transgender person. I had no desire to berate or attack this person, but there was a basic gut instinct that something was different and offputting.

And all this focus on bathrooms is ridiculous. Men's bathrooms have urinals. If you don't have the plumbing to use a urinal, you are in the wrong bathroom regardless of how you dress or feel. Unless we go the unisex bathrooms, this seems to be basic common sense. And my impression is that women aren't comfortable with unisex bathrooms. So why should men have to feel comfortable when a person whom is physically a women invades a private place like a restroom.

Of course, someone who is having gender issues should not be attacked or mocked. But it must be recognized, that there is a natural reaction to something that is so different than the usual experience. If you heard a cat bark or a dog meow, it would be offputting.

You have to give the country credit for quickly changing views on homosexuality. I think it is unrealistic to expect the same results as quickly with transgenderism. You can't expect people to jump from tolerance to warm embrace very quickly on this. Maybe someday the species will evolve towards androgyny, but we have sexes for now. Maybe there is a reason for 2 sexes.

Let the epithets begin.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Merriam-Webster offers a simple definition of androgynous : having both male and female characteristics or qualities : suitable for both men and women.

When I use the term androgynous, that’s my meaning. And in that sense of the word, I think we can safely say that most of us are androgynous. That is to say, when we’re speaking of gender in a non-stereotypical way, as opposed to sex characteristics such as physical strength, most human beings share more characteristics than not. For example, contrary to the gender stereotypes the culture presents as “normal,” most men exhibit, or can if they choose to, all the same supposedly “feminine” gender characteristics that the culture applies to women: affection, playfulness, compassion, gentleness, gullibility, loyalty, sensitivity, shyness, soft-spokenness, empathy, tenderness, understanding, warmth; also characteristics that lend themselves to gender-bending career choices, such as becoming nurses, and etc.

By the same token, women may exhibit gender characteristics the culture associates with men, or can if they choose: aggression, ambition, analytical capacities, assertiveness, competitiveness, dominance, forcefulness, independence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency; also characteristics that lend themselves to gender-bending career choices, such as becoming soldiers, and etc.

The confusion arises, I do believe, when people conflate sex with gender. Sex characteristics, those such as a masculine or feminine stance or style of walking, broad shoulders, narrow hips or broad ones; hairy legs, arms & backs or smooth ones; clearly defined or prominent musculature— those are characteristics driven by biological and physiological factors, such as sex hormones, which can also vary from individual to individual, but which are NOT GENDER characteristics.

However, whether we’re talking gender or sex, I do believe we’re going to break through the discomfort that the binary-imperatives of our culture impose on us, and probably sooner than later. What has to happen is this: the major source of education on the issue —media— needs to change; it needs to present androgyny more and more it its programming, including in commercials. Also, it would help, if corporations such as Toys R Us and toy manufacturers would stop limiting girls’ horizons the way they do with their perpetual girlie, princess and doll baby offerings to girls; the same with their offerings to boys, as if little boys MUST play in aggressive ways, never to enjoy “feminine” toys.

Of course, here’s the problem: if that were to happen, girls would no longer be socialized to submit to being second-status persons, and boys would not be socialized to command, lead and dominate, to maintain male superiority in business and social life. That’s the big No-No, the taboo we're up against.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/firing-curt-schilling/

ESPN announced Wednesday night it has fired outspoken baseball analyst and former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling after his reposting of a meme widely interpreted as anti-transgender on his Facebook page on Tuesday.

“Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated,” the network said in a statement.

The meme showed a picture of a male character wearing a wig and women’s clothing, with the caption, “Let him in! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow minded, judgmental, unloving, racist bigot who needs to die!!!”

Schilling is said to have added the comments, “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves” and “Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

OK, that’s a provocative image, and Schilling was unwise to post it in this LGBT-McCarthyite environment. But is so bad it merits firing? Besides, I’m pretty sure that a rather huge number of people, especially ESPN viewers, share disgust with how if you aren’t on the Trans Bandwagon, you are basically a neo-Nazi.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Coalage, I share your sentiments with regard to the attempt by the media and the trans community to stigmatize dissent, persecute non-conformity to trans ideology, and basically oppose First Amendment rights of speech— the right to hold unpopular, even ugly, beliefs, the right to protest and to have an independent opinion.

What they do is effectively shut down any discussion of the issue. By allowing only one “acceptable” opinion, they define themselves as intolerant in the extreme.

I think what we need to keep in mind, however, is that ESPN is not a government agency, but a private business, thus it would seem they have a right not to adhere to First Amendment protections. The Bill of Rights only limits governmental actions toward citizens. But private businesses get to hire and fire, according to whatever meets their particular standards of behavior. In this case, the man pretty much went gonzo with his opinion, which might have been okay in his own living room, but not okay in public.

You have to admit that the photo he posted went over the top, and he might have thought twice about posting it, if he wanted to keep his job.

What gets lost in such behavior is any discussion about the rights of women and girls to safe public spaces, and to privacy. What the trans community forgets is that your rights only extend up to the point where they meet others’ rights. Once your “rights” violate the rights of others, you need to back off.

Btw, in reading over your post, it’s difficult to distinguish your comments from the article. Plus, I had to copy and paste the link to the article, rather than just clicking on it, because you didn’t use the link feature in setting it up. It would help your readers too, if you would put your quotes from an article in a proper format. For that, find the html codes that you see when you click on "quote" (rather than clicking on "reply"), as in a bracket, the word quote, then the close bracket, and then after your text, closing off with this: [/quote]

Just a suggestion.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Geez, you still write like a pulp writer who gets a penny a word.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Quote DynoDon:

Geez, you still write like a pulp writer who gets a penny a word.

Oh, so sorry, Dyno, if I have offended your linguistic sensibilities. Next time maybe I’ll try emulating your monotonous writing style. Maybe. Probably not.

But don’t get me wrong: I appreciate what brought on your annoyance— my seeming self-satisfaction with my own writing skills. Rest assured, I realize I'm not perfect, even though I do believe I have command of the skill as well as anybody else on this forum. May I assume I don’t have to dumb down for your sake?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

naaaa... you just need a good editor.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

naaaa... you just need a good editor.


Actually, everyone can use a good editor. As practical reality would have it, I have to depend on my own editing skills, and, believe me, I edit myself all the time. In fact, I spend a great deal of time eliminating words and rearranging things so as to be intelligible to the likes of you.

Really, I need lessons from one who is probably the most sexist person on this forum? I don’t think so. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/05/cracking-bro-code#comment-216225

But go ahead and take one of my paragraphs and show me what you would change. It should be entertaining, if not edifying.

Somehow I can’t help wondering if you have a bug up your ass about me, simply because I’ve confronted your sexism on subjects such as rape culture and bro codes, etc. Why you don’t see that we’re not so very far apart on this subject isn’t exactly clear to me, but it is clear you’d just like to start a fight. Time now to ignore you...

Returning to the subject, I’d like to take a look at Amy Schumer’s interview with transgender woman Bailey Jay (she has a penis, so she’s not actually transsexual), which I found revealing, and also charming in its way.

Amy Schumer: What about when you were younger— what was up?

Bailey Jay: It was like the world thought I was a girl, before I was figuring it out...I hated it; it was so embarrassing. And then, um, I was really effeminate, so I would have to get on testosterone therapy, if I wanted to look like a normal person. So it was like, let’s try estrogen and grow boobs and see how that works out— and it DID.

Anybody else see what’s going on there? Before resorting to estrogen supplementation, as a boy he received bullying for his femininity. That is to say, he didn’t fit the “norm,” and so, rather than resisting the social pressure to conform to sexist mores about masculinity, and accepting himself —spitting in the eye of sexism— he decided to acquiesce to the binary, stereotypical norms and make himself look like a stereotypical girl/woman.

The question becomes, what do we want the future to look like? Do we want a binary world of male and female, where boys and girls feel pressured to change their sex in order to fit in? Or do we want a world, where effeminate boys can feel accepted as males, and masculine girls can feel accepted as girls? I think we want the latter, because that’s the loving answer.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sorry, not taking an estrogen injection daily does not make a sexist. Not drinking the extreme feminist Kool-Aid does not make one sexist. Liberals are no different than righties-quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with you. Fortunately, outside this forum, Zenzoe's views are far from mainstream. Not all women are going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Quote DynoDon:

Sorry, not taking an estrogen injection daily does not make a sexist. Not drinking the extreme feminist Kool-Aid does not make one sexist.


I have no idea what inspires that comment, other than bigoted beliefs about feminists. I based my conclusion about you on the sexist positions on issues you have taken over the years here— insensitivity toward women’s issues and lives— for example, your denial of rape culture as a Thing, and your approval of the likes of misogynist Tom Leykis.

Quote DynoDon:
Liberals are no different than righties-quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with you. Fortunately, outside this forum, Zenzoe's views are far from mainstream. Not all women are going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

That just shows how little you know me. I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I would never vote for a candidate, just because she’s a woman.

Random notes:

First, from today’s Democracy Now re Prince:

Quote STEVEN THRASHER on Prince:
I couldn’t look away, because he had this quality that was profoundly sexual, but created a broader sense of sexuality than I was used to considering. He had a way that I thought was very paradoxic of trying to make—trying to expand the notion of what it meant to be a man, and yet, at the same time, he was really deconstructing gender. And he wasn’t owning being a man or owning a woman. So, in retrospect—of course, I wasn’t thinking of this when I was in junior high school, but when I think back on the work and the writing I’ve done around race and gender and identity to this time, I realize seeing Prince was one of the first times I saw someone who refused to live in a binary.

And he wasn’t owning being a man or owning a woman.” That’s so very much in line with my thinking on this subject. Prince, a man ahead of his time.

Also this: I’m interested in finding information on sex change industry profits in the United States. However, no matter what I ask Google on the subject, nothing comes up. Not the same with porn industry profits: you can find that right away. Interesting. If anybody can find that info, I’d be grateful.

Anyway, here’s one way to look at it:

MTF sex reassignment surgeries estimates per year in the U.S.: 1990's to 2002: 14,000 - 20,000

Then...

the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery posts cost estimates for different procedures. Its price list mentions estimates of $140,450 to transition from male to female, and $124,400 to transition from female to male.

For MTF transitions, taking the lowest estimate of transsexuals @ 14,000, the potential profit from MTF transitions for the industry would be in the billions, or, if my calculation is correct, $1,966,300,000. At 20,000 cases, that’s, $2,809,000,000. And that’s just the United States. That doesn’t give us an idea of sex change industry profits per year in the U.S., but it does give an idea of the scope of the industry. And that’s not to mention worldwide figures. It would probably not be too far out of line to assume it's a trillion-dollar industry.

So you think technocracy lacks the power to drive and support social trends?

Quote Sheila Jeffreys, “Gender Hurts”:

Alan Finch, who “questioned his identity during adolescence, wondering whether he was homosexual or had been born in the wrong body, and in his twenties went through full sex-reassignment treatment including surgery. By 2004 Finch had decided that he was a man living without a penis and that he would not attempt to have further genital surgery… Finch concluded, ‘I can’t see much point in mutilating my body anymore’... Finch has campaigned against what he calls the ‘sex change industry.” https://books.google.com/books?id=xhRxAwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_book_other_ver...

Quote Alan Finch:: “...transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists...Their language is illusory. You fundamentally can’t change sex...the surgery doesn’t alter you genetically. It’s genital mutilation. My ‘vagina’ was just the bag of my scrotum. It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused. It’s like phantom limb syndrome. It’s all been a terrible misadventure. I’ve never been a woman, just Alan…”

He sued the sex identity clinic that performed his sex change, for misdiagnosis.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Ah, yes, 'twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe! All mimsy were the borogroves...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Zenzoe, it's probably not worth any effort at all to pay attention to "literary criticism" from the reactionary quarter (not that you have paid attention to it anyway). There's a high positive correlation between con ideology, its semi-literate expression, and philistinism. They have trouble with any prose reflecting thought, intelligence, and command of the English language at any level higher than junior high. (Were we still in the "pulp" era, the pulps would define their own literacy levels.) I don't always agree with everything you state, but you do state it well.

Any board like this one will have a wide disparity of literacy levels. The prose critics and down-levelers would have the bar lowered to their own levels of ignorance and lack of education, when, in fact, the bars on both literacy and educational level should remain high and remarks should be addressed to those levels, because those levels define the people who can and do make a difference in current events. (If people think the educated have screwed up the world, they're right; I suppose we should let the illiterati run things and enjoy a triumphant return to medievalism.) The illiterati should live by the maxim, "If you can't run with the big dogs, don't get off the porch."

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, Ulysses, I must say I welcome this moment of agreement. We certainly have had our little kerfuffles here and there, though I’m having trouble remembering what they were about, especially since the impression that remains overall is positive— when I see your moniker, I can be sure I’m going to be reading something literate and well stated, if not exactly in agreement with my opinion. Even when I cringe a little bit over your takedowns of the jabberwocks, the Jubjub birds, and the bandersnaches that come burbling and galumphing over these pages, I can’t help but laugh. And so, thanks for that, and for the compliment as well.

Truth be told, in all these many years of posting here, I have not encountered one person with whom I agree on every single thing. I doubt anyone has. But I have found an infinite variety of characters, each with a unique style of writing, everything from highly literate, even poetic, to simple, direct and sparse, to eloquent, to dull, incoherent or sloppy. And that’s not to mention Her Jabberwockiness, a character occupying an especially foreign territory of the mind.

But then, don’t we all occupy metaphorical foreign territories of the mind? Ren and Douglaslee have discussed maps and territories in reference to the mind. I like the metaphor, especially in explaining our difficulties in communication. Each time I read something another participant has posted here, or post a response, it’s as if I am nose-to-nose with a foreigner, like meeting a turtle even. What’s behind that persistent or cloudy eye, anyway? It’s unknown. Who you are, as you know yourself, will be mostly invisible to me, and I can only make guesses, leaving the whole truth undiscovered.

I suppose that’s all the more reason not to take criticism too much to heart, I say to myself and others. It should always be understood that it’s just text on a computer screen, with a whole, actual person on the other side, one who may not be entirely as he or she presents him or herself. There might be a language or education issue going on there.

Or, maybe it’s a true Moron Apocalypse. And in that case, off with their heads! :D

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In the interest of fairness, I offer the following snippets of lectures by one of my favorites, Dr. Robert Sapolsky, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University, on the subject of gender and transsexuality.

First, this is important, regarding the debunking of the “math gene” in males— “it is nonsense on so many different levels”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqS735xTZ1c So that we come to understand how wrong stereotypes attached to males and females can be.

Next, in support of trans experience of “being born in the wrong body”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIULZOLS4BM

The question becomes, for me, even if we know that a tiny neuron in the brains of such folks is larger in transsexuals and seems to account for their dysphoric experience, why should that one neuron render irrelevant every other genetic, physiological, anatomical and hormonal bodily fact, biological realities one might reasonably assume predominate, given their size and presence? And furthermore, why, if a person feels dysphoric —a term I object to— why not just dress and behave according to one’s inner preference, rather than going whole hog and obliterating the functioning physiology one was born with? I think that’s where we can see how culture has screwed with these folks’ heads.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

From a post on Facebook: "Best public bathroom I've ever seen was in the ABBA Museum in Stockholm. One common room with washbasins, several full doors leading off that to completely private stalls, and another door leading to a room full of urinals. Simple."

I'm not sure how that supports the safety of women and girls.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

From Rod Dreher:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ncaa-polices-political-mor...

Did you ever think you would see the day when a law that prevents a man dressed like a woman from taking a whiz in the ladies’ room would be grounds to deny a city the right to host a football game? If it was about protecting the right of gay athletes to compete, that’s certainly morally justified. But policing the toilet laws of states and localities? Really? The NCAA’s moralistic political preening is nauseating. This kind of thing has absolutely nothing to do with athletics, and everything to do with imposing liberal morality. Just shut up and play ball already.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am

Trump - Dumb Luck or A Master Manipulator?

Thom plus logo Either it's an act of a master manipulator, or he has the best luck there is. Donald Trump wanted the Fed to lower interest rates, knowing that that would provide a solid and multi-year boost to the economy. But when Trump came into office, rates were already low and the Fed was not inclined to help.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system