What has shat me in the past, and continues to shit me now is the idea that being tolerant isn't enough. All this crap has to be embraced, espoused and enthusiastically supported.
I'll out myself as a grotesque homophobe, worthy of nothing but death...I don't like being around camp men. I have had and still have normal gay friends, but the whole lisping, mincing, flappy wrist thing irritates me intensely, just like any posing wanker of any kind irritates me.. But even so, I'll tolerate such people. Live and let live, you do you etc, but that's not enough...I have to march down the street shouting for more of it and waving Pride flags etc etc...and if I don't I'm a fascist monster.
Same same with trans folks. I don't like being around them and will avoid them if possible, but I wish them no harm. Let them cut their cocks off, or turn their forearms into fake cocks or whatever, as long as I'm not involved.
But no..."silence is violence"! If I'm not out in the streets boosting trans right every second of the day, I'm a transphobe and I'll cause thousand of traumatised teens to kill themselves. FFS.
I am glad society is turning against these people. They're horrible and stupid. They shout "be kind" while being terribly unkind. The sooner we're rid of them, the better.
I'm probably a bit more tolerant of camp behaviour than you, but I totally get where you're coming from. We 'like' what we like.
Back when I used to live in a lovely little coastal village there was a gay couple who ran the off licence at the nearest town. One was a hairy hulking brute of a guy whom you wouldn't know was gay unless he told you. The other had more camp than Butlins. Mr Camp, however, was a hoot - very funny and a lot of fun with a wicked sense of humour. I suppose I just viewed him as 'eccentric' rather than offensive - and we've had a long tradition of appreciating eccentric nutters in the UK.
As for 'celebrating' and 'promoting' all of this genderish nonsense - yeah, fuck that. I don't wish any harm at all on people who may be different to me in this regard, but neither am I going to fawn over them.
Despite "Accepted" being in the middle, the Golden position is "Tolerated/allowed", as this is the only one where whatever it is doesn't impinge on the liberties of others.
It's like the rules we had in our collective way back:
"Don't do stuff that disturbs or creates problems for anyone else"
Want to watch porn and beat the meat? Do it in your room. Smoking you do outdoors. No drugs. No getting wasted on booze. Wash and shower and do the dishes. Use headphones.
It's funny, but the only one person we had to kick out? A fat butch lesbian who set fire to her room when we demanded money up front for her share of the power bill.
My friend the Burger King (dude made a career by starting at the ground level in a burger joint), addicted to anime, Red Bull and not sleeping? No problem.
My wife's friend the schizophrenic tatoo-piercing-artist who listened to white noise to be able to sleep? No problem.
The girl younger than our son who had real bad scoliosis and issues as long as the day, and had grown up without a father present? No problem.
The guy who had done three tours in Bosnia and gone on to become a "private security contractor" and who slept with his (unloaded, firing pin removed) 9mm under his pillow, instead of a Teddy or a blanky? No problem.
But the politically correct, fat, butch lesbian who would go on about her father being a migrant? Cray-cray all the way.
With respect Professor I don’t understand your use of my last name in your caption. Wouldn’t Gaines’ logic (truth or common sense) beats Biles’ bile be a better caption? In any event, I completely agree that’s one’s sex is biologically fixed and no amount denial (or wordsmithing or costuming) can change that.
"...but why is it my business to be “uplifting” any of these so-called communities?"
Because these people have been raised on the fallacy (or as I like to all it: Grosse Lüge) that "all humans are equal". Since we objectively and subjectively aren't, these people always come off as losers. The men are weak in body, mind and spirit, cowardly custards of the "run to teacher"-variety. The women are acerbic and spiteful hags of all ages projecting self-hate same way as a farmer spreads manure.
In order to be equal then, you and the world must adjust, adapt and acquiesce and let them win. Everything but them winning and having their way means inequality, you see. The proper way to deal with such is the way Vyvvyan dealt with (P)Rick in 'The Young Ones".
Come to think of it, they do resemble Rik Mayall's character quite a bit, don't they?
Tangentially, 95% of all post-1980s psychiatric diagnoses can be easily cured. If the option on offer is institutionalisation for as long as you're mentally ill, most everyone with modern diagnsoes get better immediately: the lithmus test for if someone is a true XYZ is and remains: do they benefit from the classification, or is it detrimental?
I don't know how many students with "ADHD" I've seen that suddenly got better when I informed them that the diagnosis meant they'd be getting more home work than the others, since being impaired in a way affecting their learning ability means they have to study a lot more to achieve the same result. In more than 95%, the diagnosis ceased to be a problem.
RR: "What is more interesting to me is just how and why so many very well-educated and otherwise intelligent people came to support such obvious bollocks."
ICYMI, you might encouraged by this apology from Tom Harris -- "Telegraph columnist. Former Labour MP":
TH: "Mea culpa: my part in the rise of the trans cult; The Gender Recognition Bill looked harmless enough. If only I'd known ... "
RR: "The notion of gender here relies explicitly on the existence of the sex binary. This thing we call ‘gender’ is, it is claimed here, a social construct that arises from the biological binary of sex."
Try thinking that "gender" is two sets of sexually dimorphic traits -- some socially constructed, and some "bred in the bone". Those traits that are more typical of females are feminine ones, and those more typical of males are masculine ones. But "typical of" is not "unique to":
As for "arises from the biological binary of sex", of course gender is going to be a binary itself simply because the way it's defined: traits more typical of females, and those more typical of males. But those traits are NOT what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place -- entirely different kettles of fish, in fact species from different phyla.
ICYMI and apropos of which, you might have some interest in Colin Wright's latest kick at that kitty which elaborates on that concept of sexually dimorphic traits separate from those that define the sexes (gametes, baby):
But he kind of goes off the rails with this bit, though it provides something of an avenue into a more or less rational and scientific justification for "gender identity":
Wright: "A male with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, for instance, may have a female-typical appearance due to his body’s inability to respond to androgens like testosterone—but he is still male. Why? Because he has testes, which have the biological function to produce sperm, even if that function is disrupted. CAIS is a male-only condition."
You might take a close look at the "phenotypes" of those individuals. Clearly, as I've suggested elsewhere, almost any red-blooded Amurican boy -- or Canadian or English boy -- would probably jump their bones at the drop of a hat. Clearly, a bunch of faggots, the lot of them -- at least if we had to follow suit from Wright's "thesis" ...
Yet if we do follow Wright over that cliff then will we be obliged to call these "women" "men"? Put them into men's prisons, toilets, and change-rooms? Deny their right to play in women's sports because they're "designed to produce sperm" -- even if they may never do so, are probably incapable of ever doing so?
Not at all sure how to address that -- something of a horns of a dilemma situation. But it seems one way off those "horns" is to argue that breasts and female genitalia and "secondary sexual characteristics" are just "feminine genders" -- traits that are typical of females, but not unique to them. Those "gendered" traits in CAIS "women" are, of course, entirely natural -- the result of biological processes that have kind of gone off the rails. Whereas in transwomen, those traits -- breasts and "neovaginas" -- are entirely the creations of the medical and pharmacological professions: trans-mogrifications, so to speak, by Drs. Mengele and Frankenstein. Both are "expressing" a "feminine gender identity", but only the former is natural.
Seems to be an important principle to differentiate between the traits -- physiological and psychological -- that are typical of but not unique to each sex, and those that define the sexes.
RR: "All the airy-fairy talk of ‘inclusion’ and ‘be kind’ and ‘uplifting’ meets the immovable wall of reality. Men are not women. Never will be. Never have been."
Indeed. You might have some interest in this CBC story on the Biles-Gaines "contretemps" that highlights the incompatibility of "equity" and "inclusion"
Kind of a pair of mutually exclusive properties -- sort of a "Pauli Exclusion Principle" for sex and gender. 😉🙂 If one wants equity then one can't have inclusion, and if one insists on inclusion then you can't possibly have equity. Something that Helen Joyce kind of nailed in her "The five stages of victory":
HJ: "If you put up a sign saying 'men only' or 'women only' — you commit sex discrimination, in other words — you can only do so under the 'single sex exceptions' in the Equality Act, and it’s now clear that those refer to biological sex."
The crux of the matter is that "sex discrimination" is now the law of the land. More than a bit of justification for that given the significant physiological differences between the two sexes that should have some bearing on different rights. Though it is decidedly moot exactly what those might encompass -- first dibs on the lifeboats on sinking ships? Being excluded from the draft? Segregated sports and toilets? Special sections at the backs of buses (which may well be safer)? Inquiring minds and all that -- will be interesting to see how all of that plays out over the coming years.
What has shat me in the past, and continues to shit me now is the idea that being tolerant isn't enough. All this crap has to be embraced, espoused and enthusiastically supported.
I'll out myself as a grotesque homophobe, worthy of nothing but death...I don't like being around camp men. I have had and still have normal gay friends, but the whole lisping, mincing, flappy wrist thing irritates me intensely, just like any posing wanker of any kind irritates me.. But even so, I'll tolerate such people. Live and let live, you do you etc, but that's not enough...I have to march down the street shouting for more of it and waving Pride flags etc etc...and if I don't I'm a fascist monster.
Same same with trans folks. I don't like being around them and will avoid them if possible, but I wish them no harm. Let them cut their cocks off, or turn their forearms into fake cocks or whatever, as long as I'm not involved.
But no..."silence is violence"! If I'm not out in the streets boosting trans right every second of the day, I'm a transphobe and I'll cause thousand of traumatised teens to kill themselves. FFS.
I am glad society is turning against these people. They're horrible and stupid. They shout "be kind" while being terribly unkind. The sooner we're rid of them, the better.
Very much agree.
I'm probably a bit more tolerant of camp behaviour than you, but I totally get where you're coming from. We 'like' what we like.
Back when I used to live in a lovely little coastal village there was a gay couple who ran the off licence at the nearest town. One was a hairy hulking brute of a guy whom you wouldn't know was gay unless he told you. The other had more camp than Butlins. Mr Camp, however, was a hoot - very funny and a lot of fun with a wicked sense of humour. I suppose I just viewed him as 'eccentric' rather than offensive - and we've had a long tradition of appreciating eccentric nutters in the UK.
As for 'celebrating' and 'promoting' all of this genderish nonsense - yeah, fuck that. I don't wish any harm at all on people who may be different to me in this regard, but neither am I going to fawn over them.
It goes like this:
Repressed/forbidden ->
Tolerated/allowed ->
Accepted/public ->
Endorsed/subsidised ->
Mandatory; alternatives repressed
---
Despite "Accepted" being in the middle, the Golden position is "Tolerated/allowed", as this is the only one where whatever it is doesn't impinge on the liberties of others.
It's like the rules we had in our collective way back:
"Don't do stuff that disturbs or creates problems for anyone else"
Want to watch porn and beat the meat? Do it in your room. Smoking you do outdoors. No drugs. No getting wasted on booze. Wash and shower and do the dishes. Use headphones.
It's funny, but the only one person we had to kick out? A fat butch lesbian who set fire to her room when we demanded money up front for her share of the power bill.
My friend the Burger King (dude made a career by starting at the ground level in a burger joint), addicted to anime, Red Bull and not sleeping? No problem.
My wife's friend the schizophrenic tatoo-piercing-artist who listened to white noise to be able to sleep? No problem.
The girl younger than our son who had real bad scoliosis and issues as long as the day, and had grown up without a father present? No problem.
The guy who had done three tours in Bosnia and gone on to become a "private security contractor" and who slept with his (unloaded, firing pin removed) 9mm under his pillow, instead of a Teddy or a blanky? No problem.
But the politically correct, fat, butch lesbian who would go on about her father being a migrant? Cray-cray all the way.
With respect Professor I don’t understand your use of my last name in your caption. Wouldn’t Gaines’ logic (truth or common sense) beats Biles’ bile be a better caption? In any event, I completely agree that’s one’s sex is biologically fixed and no amount denial (or wordsmithing or costuming) can change that.
If I went with your suggestion for the title then you'd lose the nice symmetry 😂
What you would lose in symmetry you would GAIN in clarity. This would make you a rara avis in the world of blogging.
"...but why is it my business to be “uplifting” any of these so-called communities?"
Because these people have been raised on the fallacy (or as I like to all it: Grosse Lüge) that "all humans are equal". Since we objectively and subjectively aren't, these people always come off as losers. The men are weak in body, mind and spirit, cowardly custards of the "run to teacher"-variety. The women are acerbic and spiteful hags of all ages projecting self-hate same way as a farmer spreads manure.
In order to be equal then, you and the world must adjust, adapt and acquiesce and let them win. Everything but them winning and having their way means inequality, you see. The proper way to deal with such is the way Vyvvyan dealt with (P)Rick in 'The Young Ones".
Come to think of it, they do resemble Rik Mayall's character quite a bit, don't they?
Tangentially, 95% of all post-1980s psychiatric diagnoses can be easily cured. If the option on offer is institutionalisation for as long as you're mentally ill, most everyone with modern diagnsoes get better immediately: the lithmus test for if someone is a true XYZ is and remains: do they benefit from the classification, or is it detrimental?
I don't know how many students with "ADHD" I've seen that suddenly got better when I informed them that the diagnosis meant they'd be getting more home work than the others, since being impaired in a way affecting their learning ability means they have to study a lot more to achieve the same result. In more than 95%, the diagnosis ceased to be a problem.
Strange, that.
RR: "What is more interesting to me is just how and why so many very well-educated and otherwise intelligent people came to support such obvious bollocks."
ICYMI, you might encouraged by this apology from Tom Harris -- "Telegraph columnist. Former Labour MP":
TH: "Mea culpa: my part in the rise of the trans cult; The Gender Recognition Bill looked harmless enough. If only I'd known ... "
https://tomharris2.substack.com/p/mea-culpa-my-part-in-the-rise-of
RR: "The notion of gender here relies explicitly on the existence of the sex binary. This thing we call ‘gender’ is, it is claimed here, a social construct that arises from the biological binary of sex."
Try thinking that "gender" is two sets of sexually dimorphic traits -- some socially constructed, and some "bred in the bone". Those traits that are more typical of females are feminine ones, and those more typical of males are masculine ones. But "typical of" is not "unique to":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
As for "arises from the biological binary of sex", of course gender is going to be a binary itself simply because the way it's defined: traits more typical of females, and those more typical of males. But those traits are NOT what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place -- entirely different kettles of fish, in fact species from different phyla.
ICYMI and apropos of which, you might have some interest in Colin Wright's latest kick at that kitty which elaborates on that concept of sexually dimorphic traits separate from those that define the sexes (gametes, baby):
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/biology-is-not-binary-but-sex-is
But he kind of goes off the rails with this bit, though it provides something of an avenue into a more or less rational and scientific justification for "gender identity":
Wright: "A male with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, for instance, may have a female-typical appearance due to his body’s inability to respond to androgens like testosterone—but he is still male. Why? Because he has testes, which have the biological function to produce sperm, even if that function is disrupted. CAIS is a male-only condition."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms
You might take a close look at the "phenotypes" of those individuals. Clearly, as I've suggested elsewhere, almost any red-blooded Amurican boy -- or Canadian or English boy -- would probably jump their bones at the drop of a hat. Clearly, a bunch of faggots, the lot of them -- at least if we had to follow suit from Wright's "thesis" ...
Yet if we do follow Wright over that cliff then will we be obliged to call these "women" "men"? Put them into men's prisons, toilets, and change-rooms? Deny their right to play in women's sports because they're "designed to produce sperm" -- even if they may never do so, are probably incapable of ever doing so?
Not at all sure how to address that -- something of a horns of a dilemma situation. But it seems one way off those "horns" is to argue that breasts and female genitalia and "secondary sexual characteristics" are just "feminine genders" -- traits that are typical of females, but not unique to them. Those "gendered" traits in CAIS "women" are, of course, entirely natural -- the result of biological processes that have kind of gone off the rails. Whereas in transwomen, those traits -- breasts and "neovaginas" -- are entirely the creations of the medical and pharmacological professions: trans-mogrifications, so to speak, by Drs. Mengele and Frankenstein. Both are "expressing" a "feminine gender identity", but only the former is natural.
Seems to be an important principle to differentiate between the traits -- physiological and psychological -- that are typical of but not unique to each sex, and those that define the sexes.
RR: "All the airy-fairy talk of ‘inclusion’ and ‘be kind’ and ‘uplifting’ meets the immovable wall of reality. Men are not women. Never will be. Never have been."
Indeed. You might have some interest in this CBC story on the Biles-Gaines "contretemps" that highlights the incompatibility of "equity" and "inclusion"
"American says current system doesn't adequately address balance between competitive equity and inclusivity"; https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/gymnastics/artistic/simone-biles-riley-gaines-apology-1.7560594
Kind of a pair of mutually exclusive properties -- sort of a "Pauli Exclusion Principle" for sex and gender. 😉🙂 If one wants equity then one can't have inclusion, and if one insists on inclusion then you can't possibly have equity. Something that Helen Joyce kind of nailed in her "The five stages of victory":
HJ: "If you put up a sign saying 'men only' or 'women only' — you commit sex discrimination, in other words — you can only do so under the 'single sex exceptions' in the Equality Act, and it’s now clear that those refer to biological sex."
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-five-stages-of-victory/
The crux of the matter is that "sex discrimination" is now the law of the land. More than a bit of justification for that given the significant physiological differences between the two sexes that should have some bearing on different rights. Though it is decidedly moot exactly what those might encompass -- first dibs on the lifeboats on sinking ships? Being excluded from the draft? Segregated sports and toilets? Special sections at the backs of buses (which may well be safer)? Inquiring minds and all that -- will be interesting to see how all of that plays out over the coming years.