"When You Say 'I Would Never Date A Trans Person' It's Transphobic"

link
By a (and I quote) "educator, social justice healer, and queer trans woman."
   Here's the deal: if everyone pretends that "trans women are women," then obvious puzzles arise: why object to them using the women's room? Why object if they want to be on the women's track team? Why shouldn't they be eligible for women's scholarships? And why would you rule out having sex with one?
   Of course "trans woman" means man who falsely represents himself as a woman. Which, again: I think is his right. (Within reason. One thing that isn't permissible is: tricking straight dudes into having sex. Personally, I don't see how one could make such a mistake...but perhaps alcohol is involved. Whatever.) I've got no interest in enforcing arbitrary clothing conventions. Dude wants to wear a dress and makeup, he should knock himself out. Fight the power and shit.
   But even if you don't care about the fact that "trans women are women" is false, perhaps you'll care about the fact that the falsehood generates the prima facie puzzles. You might respond to those puzzles by pointing out that we let "trans women are women" slide because they asked us to, because they want us to say it, because it makes them happy, because it's "only words."
   But it's not only words. The "only words" ploy is, well, a ploy. Also: words are words...but they aren't only words.

   It was predictable as hell that it would come to this--that it wouldn't take long before the PC line became: refusing to sleep with trans "women" is bigotry. I mean...nobody didn't see this coming, right? How could anyone not?
   Aside from this particular issue: I assert again, as a general point: the logic of the far left is to always push farther to the left; which inevitably means: to something absurd...or something more absurd.
   If we were capable of perfect sex transmogrification, I agree that there'd be a puzzle here--though perhaps not an unanswerable one. But we're not, and we're not capable of anything like it. So the line is: if you're a straight dude, and you aren't willing to have sex with a dude pretending to be a woman, then you're a bigot. Said dude may have a (as they say) "feminine penis," or an imitation vagina made from a penis...either way, you're a bigot if you won't do it.
   In short, stripped of all the futzing around: heterosexuality is impermissible. This is a kind of general theme in all this. The semantic pretense that "trans women are women" also conceals the actual core idea: that all separation / segregation of the sexes is impermissible. Restrooms, locker rooms, sports, scholarships...all have to be integrated. Again, I'll discuss all that. I object most to the semantic pretense.
   Anyway, I suppose this will finally be the bridge too far for trans ideology...but who knows? They succeeded in making it, in effect, politically incorrect to deny that night is day, and progressives have obediently gone along with it. So maybe this bridge won't be too far after all. (If the left itself draws the line, it probably won't be over the demand that dudes sleep with dudes, but over the demand that lesbians sleep with dudes...)

A major idea of this blog has always been:
You can be liberal without being an idiot about it.
But I'm starting to wonder whether it's true, after all.