Monday, March 10, 2014

Well, At Least He Tried

Well, I have challenged Ms. "Mark" Cummings, the leader of the Shame On You Transgender Edition cult of loser bloggers to post something beside his usual insults, and well, so far she hasn't post much except the same repetitive crap, usually along with a statement that she is tired of dealing with me, and is going to stop…  Oh well,..

But, I will give "investigative reporter Mr. "Zierota" Slingen credit…at least he has tried to post a coherent argument.  Sort of…kind of….

He asks, "How Objective is Transgender?"  He is clearly attempting to answer my assertion that "transgender" is a meaningless, subjective term that is an artificial social/political construct dreamed up by some crossdressers in the 1990s.  Sadly, for him at least, he falls quite a bit short.  

The primary basis for his argument is, "if the definition is accurate then there is ground for meaning."  Now, besides being vague, and pretty much circular reasoning, (sort of like saying, "The sky is blue because it is, well, blue in color….") it has no real bearing on the discussion, if only because there is no accurate definition of "transgender."  He then goes on, curiously enough, to use the terms "good and evil" which are certainly "subjective" as an example…of what, I am not sure…but okay.

He then offers this gem…
Transgender is a very objective word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same. Every direction of its meaning holds the same two words. Trans and gender. So what's the best way to explain the objectivity of this? Let's try an image!
Well, aside from effectively admitting that term is subjective (a "word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same") he offers as an illustration, this:

Here we have a mish-mash of terms, and a definition that is, by its very nature, totally subjective.  

Even worse, different people, and different groups, and even members of some of the groups listed in the illustration, would argue that they are not transgender.  For example, a lot of people who identify strongly as transgender would exclude crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, and drag kings because, well, they are sort of embarrassing and they don't want people "getting the wrong idea."  On the other hand, a lot of interest people would violent object to being labeled transgender, and would argue that including them under the imaginary umbrella is simply an effort to co-opt their condition for cynical purposes.

And quite frankly, I and a lot of other transsexuals would argue that we do not fit that silly definition (not the lamest, but close…) in that we do not cross over from our true gender, and we do not challenge traditional gender roles or expressions.  Simply put, unlike Mr. Slingen, I am a woman, and that is the gender I express.

What is even sillier is what he posted about that diagram above….
Goodness gracious! That's a lot of labels!
Uh, yes, and that is part of what makes the whole thing HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

He then goes on to assert…
So, how objective is Transgender when you know the entire meaning? Simple. It's objective enough to know what gender means as opposed to sex. We also know that in a traditional society, the majority of people are cis gendered and they only recognize two extreme ends of the gender spectrum which is male and female as absolutes in a binary system.
He is just digging a deeper and deeper hole, since it has become common practice among transgender extremists to conflate "gender" and "sex."  They insist on using terms like "Gender Reassignment Surgery" while also asserting that "gender is what is between your ears, and sex is what is between your legs."  So, are they talking brain surgery?  Seriously…they do this a lot, referring to changing the "gender" on a birth certificate.  Or the "gender marker" on a driver's license.  So, talking about transgender being "objective" because we know what "gender" is, well that's another nail in the coffin for Mr. Slingen's argument.

Oh, and another example he attempts to use is that of the term "atheist."  Now, atheist is a clearly defined term.  He tries to compare my assertion that I am not transgender to someone who asserts that they do not believe in "god or gods"  saying they do not "identify" as an atheist.  Well, that is sort of like Mr. Slingen saying he is not a man…it doesn't quite work that way.  As I said, the term is clearly defined…unlike "transgender."  It is not about "identity," is is about fact.  Mr. Slingen could say, "I do not identify as a human being," but that would not make him a dog."  But, transgender is, quite frankly, meaningless as anything other than as an identity.  Trying to make it an objective label fails miserably.

But, of course, the transgender extremists need to make it appear to be an objective label for political reasons.  Which is, again, part of what makes it so subjective, and, quite frankly, meaningless.  In many ways, it comes down to numbers.  More "transgender people" means more political clout.  Now, given that I rather strongly oppose their political agenda, that is another reason I flatly refuse to accept the label.

So, Mr. Slingen can pout, through a fit, sputter, and spew, but he can't force me to be transgender, no matter how badly he wants to.

No comments: