Thursday, December 5, 2013

The Fundamental Theorem of Transgender

It's funny, but a lot of times I will have an idea brewing, and then an article will come along that fits that idea so perfectly, it is frightening.  That happened recently with an article on GenderTrender about a review of Julia Serano’s “Excluded” by lesbian Kit Van Cleave was published by Houston’s OutSmart.  Hmmmm...Houston....I wonder if noted transgender kook, and Houston resident, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is involved?

In any case, the review, which was very even handed, was pounced upon by the transgender extremists and OutSmart caved, and pulled it.  The problem is, from the rhetoric, you would think this review was some "Janice Raymond" type attack piece...instead, as I said, it is very even handed.  What it does not do is specifically pander to the TG mindset.

Here is this highly offensive article.  Decide for yourself:
”All that aside, some books I just can’t get through, even with sustained effort, like a pair sent to the OutSmart offices. I’ve had to struggle to grasp the authors intentions, and examine why I found these books impenetrable. Sometimes it’s just style- long sentences covering half a page without ceasing, terms created without definition or juxtaposed to other terms so that the two don’t make sense: lack of logic; inability to support an argument; unclear overall goals; ambiguity.
In Julia Serano’s “Excluded”, for example, the first twenty pages is given over to redefining terms, making up new terms, and wrestling terms about the various available “lifestyles” in the gay community. As Serano puts it, “I call myself a woman and transsexual…because I feel those words best describe some parts of my person.” Okay, fair enough, until this comment follows immediately after: “ I do not believe that there is some magical underlying quality all musicians, or all bird people, or all women, or all transsexuals have in common.” Huh?
Another puzzlement is the prefix cis. “It is difficult to discuss trans people without also having langage to describe the majority of people who are not trans.” Serano writes, continuing, so “transactivists often use the word cisgender as a synonym for non-transgender and cissexual as a synonym for non-transsexual.” And that’s all the definiton of cis we’re going to get from Serano. According to other sources, the word actually stands for people happy with the gender and sexuality they feel they were born with. I know gay people reject being called abnormal, but that’s no reason to come up with a new word for “normal”.
Wikipedia attributes “Cisgender” to Carl Buijs, a transsexual from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs wrote in a Usenet posting, “I just made [the word] up.”
As Serano’s book is also a bit of a memoir, I found in Part One, Chapter 2, that this writer, who calls herself a woman, has made the decision to still retain his penis. As a matter of fact, Serano went to a summer camp specifically to protest people with penises not being allowed to attend the Michigan Women’s Music Festival (the sponsors were apparently avoiding “male energy” with this fest.)
I believe I’m lost. If we’re going with the idea that semantics is dead (i.e. “transsexual” doesn’t mean what it means), or no longer useful, then throw out the dictionaries. Until then, I expect writers to try to stay within the agreed meaning of the words we all use. Otherwise, I can call myself a puppy, but no one will know what I’m talking about when I describe my life.”
Now, I am left to wonder what they find so objectionable?  The fact that the author speaks the truth?  Serano may claim to identify as a transsexual, but clearly is not.  Transsexuals seek to have surgery.  When one declares that one is not planning to have surgery, one is declaring that one is not a transsexual.  The person doing so may come to find that they are mistaken, but that is not that common.

The idea that I was thinking about addressing is how transgender extremist react to anything that does not specifically endorse their questionable logic by instantly screaming, at the top of their lungs, that it is an obvious example of transphobic hate speech, and must be censored, banned, and the author soundly humiliated in public.  And I realized that the very simple reason they take this approach is obvious.  They really can't defend their views in a reasonable manner.

If people make reasonable points, and it happens quite often, the transgender extremists go into panic mode, scream "transphobia" and hate, and use those terms, which I have previously labeled "club words" to beat down the truth.

And then there is the latest from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, where he starts whining about some issues he doesn't want to face as well.

So, therefore, it is obvious that the "fundamental theorem of transgenderism" is to hide from the facts, present a false front, and scream like crazy to avoid having to actually justify their unreasonable demands.


Anonymous said...

I just discovered your blog, and I want to thank you! You have said in this post the exact things I have been saying in private (unless, that is, until I started my own blog) for years. I am so tired of activists (no matter what they are advocating) deciding that they, and they alone, have the right to define language for us. If you use the wrong term, the activists scream and yell "Offensive!" until you back down. But, in the same breath, they don't care if their language is offensive.

Personally speaking, I am a gay man. I find the term "cisgendered" offensive, because it forces me to have to identify who and what I am in relation to a group of which I am not a part.

I am offended by the complete disregard the trans activist extremists have for the very clear differences between "sex" and "gender."

I am offended by people who say that they are neither male nor female or some other option than the two. (It is their desire to override the simple biological nature of humans as a sexually dimorphic species that offends me).

I am offended by people who want to force me to stop using "him" or "her," instead attempting to ram made-up words like "zey" and "ze" down my throat.

But, in all of that, the same people crying "Offensive!" just expect everyone who disagrees with them to shut up, accept what they have to say, and tow the line they are putting out there.

Please, keep up this blog. You have an amazing site here, and I am thrilled to see someone else speaking the truth without apology.

All the best to you and yours,

-Liberty Bear

Juli Richmond said...

Someones genital status has no bearing on how they self identify,
And to put conditions on someone's surgical status to deem them transsexual or not is another form of prejudice.
Genitals do not define gender.

Just Jennifer said...

I agree, to a point. But, whether or not one wishes to keep one's birth genitals does have a major bearing on whether or not one is truly a transsexual, or just some "transgender" person who claiming to be something one is not.

It is typical of the transgender mentality to try to redefine "transsexual" in this manner in order to avoid the truth. If you don't want to have SRS and correct your body, you are JUST a crossdresser, and are not remotely a transsexual.

Genitals don't define gender, but they do define SEX. You can't change your gender, even though some try to claim otherwise, but if you don't want to change your sex, you are not a transsexual.