March 28, 2017
Mainstream media promotion of America’s circa 2017 political movement to roll back changes from feminist and gay rights movements by containing dastardly nonconformity to sex-stereotypes via ‘transgender’: the idea that women are feminine (submissive) and men are masculine (dominating) and outliers have a medical condition, and/or are intersex special snowflakes.
The most important thing to remember is that men who want to wear make-up and skirts can’t possibly be male, and women regardless of presentation are still the people that get raped by men. Also that nelly gays and butch lesbians can be medically corrected into normalcy.
Primetime CBS special aired last night.
A woman in Oregon is suing an employer for financial compensation to repair her emotional distress after co-workers used female pronouns when referring to her instead of the unique pronoun she requested.
Plaintiff Valencia Jones is a female genderist. Genderists are social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, or transgender individuals who believe that reproductive sex should be defined not by biology but “Gender Identity” based on one’s belief in antiquated social sex roles. Pink princess for girls, monster trucks for boys.
Most women who reject sex-roles for women would be considered feminists, or gender abolitionists. Instead Jones, as a transgenderist, believes that cultural stereotypes linking certain behaviors, emotions, and abilities to reproductive function (Math for boys, English for girls) should form the basis for sex designation, not objective biology. By the genderist view, if a woman rejects a subordinate social role she is no longer reproductively female. She can either adopt a persona which pantomimes male dominance over other females and try to have her sex designated as male, or she can reject her subordinate role without adopting an oppressive male persona and try to have her sex designated as “anything but female”. That is what Valencia has tried (and failed) to do.
The problem with Valencia’s genderism is that one cannot “will away” sex-based oppression of females because our oppression is based on our biological reproductive function which is static and cannot be “identified away”. Valencia could try to disguise her biology and “pass” as male to avoid reproduction-based oppression. She could even have her reproductive system surgically removed, but this will not eradicate the social sex-based class status “female”. She will retain the pre-intellectual social conditioning she has been indoctrinated with since birth and she will also be placed back into the subordinate female caste whenever her actual sex is known.
Transgenderism is a political movement based on relaxing the social norms required by men to maintain social dominance over women. It is an adjustment of social norms designed to allow men greater freedom: the freedom to perform male-designed “femininity” (subordinate status inflicted on females by male violence) for each other, for sport, for shits and giggles, for sexual excitement, for unrestricted access to female spaces, while maintaining strict superiority over women.
Women and girls cannot identify our way out of sexual oppression by males. We can try to hide our reproductive capacity by disguising ourselves as male but once that disguise fails we are back to being members of the sex oppressed class. In the same way, men disguised as women can access their dominant male birthright at any time of their choosing merely by revealing their actual sex.
Fealty to gender (“Gender Identity”) will never benefit women, only men. Subordinate female social roles will never benefit women, only men. Women seeking to “other” themselves from the female sex caste by embrasure of male social roles of dominance over females will never benefit. There is no escape. There is no “identifying out of” or rejection of sex for women, only for men, at their leisure.
February 4, 2012
July 7, 2011
Just a quick plug for an interesting article that ran last week in Seattle’s The Stranger by noted Bioethicist (and non-feminist) Alice Dreger. Even though Dreger remains somewhat uncritical about the causes of objectively observed statistical differences in male and female behaviors, the article is quite interesting and well worth a read for anyone with an interest in the medical/surgical “reparative treatment” of gender non-conforming (mainly gay) children and the promotion of such by the Transgender Lobby.
Unlike many writers Dreger is well aware of the research and statistics around gender non-conforming children and presents the data objectively.
“Sex-changing interventions are nontrivial. They involve substantial physical risk, including major risk to sexual sensation, and a lifelong commitment to trying to manage hormone replacement. Most people seem to get how serious sex-changing interventions are when we’re not talking about transgender. A couple of weeks ago, a man writing into Savage Love mentioned that he had voluntarily been castrated—a fetish, don’t you know—and the commentators went, well, nuts. And most people get that it was wrong for doctors in the past to take baby boys born with small penises and sex-change them with genital surgeries and hormonal interventions.
But somehow if we wrap these major interventions around gender identity, we’re supposed to believe they are not that big a deal in terms of planning for a child’s future? And the clinician who tries to get a gender dysphoric kid to learn to like her or his innate body really is a Nazi? Not buying it.”
Read the whole article (and see why I posted a pic of Tommy the Train 😉 ) at: