Medium: "When You Say 'I Would Never Date A Transperson' It's Transphobic. Here's Why."
[facepalm]
No it isn't.
Here's why:...
No, wait.
Thing is, no explanation is needed. It's obvious. There's simply no need to explain it.
But here's something I think is worth thinking a tiny bit about: IMO this is one of the many reasons why we shouldn't play along with this absurd attempt to pretend that something we all know to be true is false. 'Woman', to take an important case, means adult female human. That's really all there is to this nonsense. So-called "transwomen" are not women. They're...and you might want to sit down for this...men. Straight men have no need to explain why they don't want to have sex with men. Nothing changes if the men in question are dressed as women, and/or wearing makeup, and/or have had plastic surgery and/or hormone treatments in order to appear more woman-like. Nothing changes if they falsely call themselves women.
By going along with silly attempts to redefine 'woman' and 'man,' and/or with ridiculous theories of womanhood and manhood, and/or misuses of sex-specific pronouns, we (inter alia) support more substantial efforts to advance a certain kind of political agenda. The argument on the other end of the link doesn't even get off the ground without the relevant linguistic shenanigans. By pretending that some men are women, we help generate a kind of pseudo-puzzle: why won't you straight guys have sex with a certain category of woman??? I mean...you're straight...they're women...why are you ruling it out without even having met...etc.... Now, the answer to that isn't complicated. But there needn't be an answer. The problem is in the question, not the answer to it.
Though...if you do think that they're women, then you do owe an answer. Why are you ruling out having sex with an entire class of women, almost none of whom you've ever met? It does sound rather prejudiced. Those of us who refuse to bullshit about the more theoretical issue have an easy and straightforward answer: they're men. Those of you who chicken out and refuse to admit the truth because you're afraid to face the disapprobation of the shrieking lefty mob...you need to come up with some kind of ridiculous answer to that ridiculous question.
The same kind of problem is generated in the public restroom debate. The mainstream press was writing--though this does seem to have tapered off--lots of stories of this form for awhile: Why won't this evil school let this girl use the girl's room??? The tone of the stories were basically: here's this arbitrarily-selected girl...and the school has arbitrarily decreed that she has to use the boy's room! WTF? What's going on??? At some point in the story it would be mentioned that the "girl" in question had been "born a boy"...as if, y'know...could this possibly be the explanation?...
As I say over and over: I'm willing to think about all sorts of seemingly nutty things. Like: Is all sex-segregation (restrooms, locker rooms, etc.) wrong? And: Is exclusive heterosexuality / homosexuality a kind of prejudice? I think that the answer in both cases is no. However, I'm fine with people raising the questions. What I'm not fine with is the attempt to presuppose answers to those questions via semantic shenanigans. The claim that some men are women is, among other things, an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Since this man is a woman what's your justification for refusing to allow "her" to use the women's room? You can either keep putting out brush fires that have their origin in nothing more substantial than terminological trickery...or you can just go ahead and state a simply and obvious truth: "transwomen" are not women, and "transmen" are not men. People who've caught the PC plague will shriek at you...but, for the love of God, does the truth matter so little to you? Are you really that cowardly? People stood up to the Brownshirts. You can stand up to these lunatics.
And, as for the "some women have penises" nonsense: no, of course not. No women have penises. But if we're going to agree that people like Caitlyn Jenner are women, then we ought also to say that of course all women have vaginas...but some vaginas are of the more familiar variety, while some are protruding, tubular, and occasionally rigid... Or, rather, all vaginas are internal...I mean, that's what a vagina is... But there're just two different kinds of internality...sometimes to be internal is to be inside the body, sometimes it's to be outside the body... And so on. This ridiculousness survives by trying to make the nonsense move just once, and then stop. But once such a move is allowed, there's no justification for making it just once.
No it isn't.
Here's why:...
No, wait.
Thing is, no explanation is needed. It's obvious. There's simply no need to explain it.
But here's something I think is worth thinking a tiny bit about: IMO this is one of the many reasons why we shouldn't play along with this absurd attempt to pretend that something we all know to be true is false. 'Woman', to take an important case, means adult female human. That's really all there is to this nonsense. So-called "transwomen" are not women. They're...and you might want to sit down for this...men. Straight men have no need to explain why they don't want to have sex with men. Nothing changes if the men in question are dressed as women, and/or wearing makeup, and/or have had plastic surgery and/or hormone treatments in order to appear more woman-like. Nothing changes if they falsely call themselves women.
By going along with silly attempts to redefine 'woman' and 'man,' and/or with ridiculous theories of womanhood and manhood, and/or misuses of sex-specific pronouns, we (inter alia) support more substantial efforts to advance a certain kind of political agenda. The argument on the other end of the link doesn't even get off the ground without the relevant linguistic shenanigans. By pretending that some men are women, we help generate a kind of pseudo-puzzle: why won't you straight guys have sex with a certain category of woman??? I mean...you're straight...they're women...why are you ruling it out without even having met...etc.... Now, the answer to that isn't complicated. But there needn't be an answer. The problem is in the question, not the answer to it.
Though...if you do think that they're women, then you do owe an answer. Why are you ruling out having sex with an entire class of women, almost none of whom you've ever met? It does sound rather prejudiced. Those of us who refuse to bullshit about the more theoretical issue have an easy and straightforward answer: they're men. Those of you who chicken out and refuse to admit the truth because you're afraid to face the disapprobation of the shrieking lefty mob...you need to come up with some kind of ridiculous answer to that ridiculous question.
The same kind of problem is generated in the public restroom debate. The mainstream press was writing--though this does seem to have tapered off--lots of stories of this form for awhile: Why won't this evil school let this girl use the girl's room??? The tone of the stories were basically: here's this arbitrarily-selected girl...and the school has arbitrarily decreed that she has to use the boy's room! WTF? What's going on??? At some point in the story it would be mentioned that the "girl" in question had been "born a boy"...as if, y'know...could this possibly be the explanation?...
As I say over and over: I'm willing to think about all sorts of seemingly nutty things. Like: Is all sex-segregation (restrooms, locker rooms, etc.) wrong? And: Is exclusive heterosexuality / homosexuality a kind of prejudice? I think that the answer in both cases is no. However, I'm fine with people raising the questions. What I'm not fine with is the attempt to presuppose answers to those questions via semantic shenanigans. The claim that some men are women is, among other things, an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Since this man is a woman what's your justification for refusing to allow "her" to use the women's room? You can either keep putting out brush fires that have their origin in nothing more substantial than terminological trickery...or you can just go ahead and state a simply and obvious truth: "transwomen" are not women, and "transmen" are not men. People who've caught the PC plague will shriek at you...but, for the love of God, does the truth matter so little to you? Are you really that cowardly? People stood up to the Brownshirts. You can stand up to these lunatics.
And, as for the "some women have penises" nonsense: no, of course not. No women have penises. But if we're going to agree that people like Caitlyn Jenner are women, then we ought also to say that of course all women have vaginas...but some vaginas are of the more familiar variety, while some are protruding, tubular, and occasionally rigid... Or, rather, all vaginas are internal...I mean, that's what a vagina is... But there're just two different kinds of internality...sometimes to be internal is to be inside the body, sometimes it's to be outside the body... And so on. This ridiculousness survives by trying to make the nonsense move just once, and then stop. But once such a move is allowed, there's no justification for making it just once.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:36 AM
2 Comments:
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are whole and valid identities outside of our western colonialist sex and gender binary. Repeat this to yourself over and over. This is the root of all trans liberation.
I do admire the honesty. The key to the whole thing is to brainwash yourself into believing these things. Don't bother with an argument. Just keep repeating it until you come to believe it's true. Then go from there.
LOL yeah. Refreshingly honest.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home