Everyone’s at it these days. Putin’s been trying his best. Hamas didn’t have enough paragliders to do it properly and most of their weaponry was being used for life-saving treatments in hospitals, anyway. Netanyahu is, allegedly, having a go at it. And if the protesters stoked up on intersectional meth get their way, we’ll be seeing it soon “from the river to the sea”.
It’s happened in the past too. This report from the BBC shows that things were bleak for minorities even in Mediaeval1 times
Now I finally understand why it was called The Black Death.
The report blames the “devastating effects” of - wait for it - you won’t ever be able to guess - it’s a real doozy
premodern structural racism
Well I never.
Actually this has been a problem elsewhere in the world. Large structures have been really quite naughty. Another report, also allegedly from the BBC, highlights this
Why hippos?
I’m glad you asked.
Yesterday it was, apparently, the Transgender Day of Remembrance in the UK. I kind of missed it. How thoughtless of me. Although trans people have died in the UK, we’re still trying to find evidence of one who died at the hands of some hateful bigot because they were trans. A few have died at the hands of doctors after things went wrong in the “let’s carve up this healthy body” process of beautification.
As one TwitterX commentator noted : more people in the world die from hippo attacks each year than because they’re victims of trans hate
The UK Labour Party, who supported this year’s day of remembrance, are going to recognise the trans death toll caused by hippos for next year’s event. We should not forget trans hippo death.
This design is only provisional because, as critics have pointed out, it’s not clear whether we’re supposed to remember all the transgender hippos who have died, or whether it’s transgender people who have died as a result of hippo attacks.
We should not forget - whatever design is finally settled upon. The devastating effect of death by hippo for the trans community needs greater public awareness.
If it’s not genocide by hippo then it’s TERF’s and their ilk who want to bring about Trans Genocide™. The rainbow people just can’t win, can they?
I was reminded of Senator Cavanaugh’s insightful speech which consisted of nearly 3 minutes of saying
Transpeople belong here. We need transpeople. We love transpeople
It starts off at a reasonable level, but gradually ramps up as if someone is increasing the voltage in a Milgram experiment. It gets really quite manic very quickly.
Transpeople “belong” here? Well it kind of depends what you mean by “here” and also what you mean by “trans”. Women in particular might have a few words to say if the “here” refers to the ladies loos, for example. If you’re including the non-binary, or AGP type of trans, or one of the increasing number of “female” rapists we have in that “trans” label, then there are places they definitely don’t belong - like women’s prisons.
We love transpeople? I’m assuming she’s not talking about some sub-genre on Pornhub here, but they’re human beings and so there’s little to quibble about here. Of course we’d like them to be loved, just as we’d like any human being to be loved. I suspect Cavanaugh means something a little more pro-active than this, however.
We “need” transpeople?
We do? What for? I’m genuinely curious. It’s like saying we need left-handed lesbians, or straight men with long eyebrows.
The point here is not to analyse Cavanaugh’s speech in any great detail, but to think about the underlying attitude it implies.
If Birthing Person Nature was to buck xir ideas up and stop popping out people born in the wrong bodies tomorrow, what would the world lose? Would we be better, or worse, off?
We’ve all seen the cases of parents who seem absolutely delighted that their kid is trans.
If you’re a parent, and your kid is born into one of the most allegedly oppressed and vilified groups on the planet why would you celebrate?
But enough about those unfortunate parents whose kids are born with ginger hair.
Aren’t trans people facing Trans Genocide™? In this supposedly hateful world aren’t you going to have to keep them in the attic like Anne Frank? Or locked in a library on campus like Jewish students today?
The only ones under real threat, it seems to me, are those who get labelled as a TERF. We remind ourselves of the statement made at a recent rally by a trans person - if you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face.
It’s a case of “be kind” or I’ll smash your fucking face in. Bit similar to “get jabbed” or you’ll lose your fucking job, I guess.
Other activists are not quite as violent and merely require that TERF’s suck their trans dicks.
It’s yet another one of those curious woke inversions of reality - the actual threats of violence, intimidation, and aggression seem, strangely, not to be coming from the TERF side of the turf at all. It’s a rather milquetoast Trans Genocide™ these TERF’s are indulging in.
But underlying all of this fun and games is the notion that trans is something to be welcomed.
If we take the “wrong body” erm, explanation™, of trans then wouldn’t it have been better if they’d been born in the “right” body in the first place?
If not, why not?
It’s a noble and humane thing we do to try to make people feel good about themselves. There are some disabled2 people who say they prefer being the way they are. This is what used to be called putting a brave face on things - and more power to them for it. It’s a coping mechanism for having been dealt a shitty hand.
But how many parents would wish for their children to be born blind?
And here’s the problem. What is “trans”? Is it a case of something having gone “wrong”? Is it entirely natural and normal? If nothing has gone “wrong” then what are doctors trying to do3 when they “treat” this condition?
The gender critical movement are accused of wanting Trans Genocide™. But wouldn’t it be better if nobody was “born trans” in the first place? Why would you want someone to undergo a series of expensive and often traumatic surgeries (with a reasonably high probability of complications) followed by a lifetime dependence on powerful drugs with consequent side effects?
I don’t get it.
If someone does really struggle with their inner sense of self and their sex, then it’s definitely right that there should be support and help available. We should, I hope, always have room (and resource) in our society to alleviate suffering as best we can.
We have to admit that, in some cases (hopefully rare) it might be that the very best we can currently4 do to alleviate that gender dysphoric suffering is the medical transformation pathway. I don’t know (although, shall we say, I have some doubts).
It’s the same with a lot of woke stuff - the people getting all high on this intersectional meth don’t seem to really care about the people involved. Their focus is on the promotion of an ideology. They don’t seem to be interested in research that might point away from the the current “gender affirming care” model - even if it turned out to be better for the majority. Because it’s not really about people, it’s about an ideology.
I want the very best for people; straight, gay, trans or otherwise. I recognise that there are going to competing interests sometimes and that not everyone can get their own way in everything. We ought to be able to compromise - as we do in lots of other things when it comes to creating stable and peaceful communities.
I just don’t know what the best thing actually is for trans people. If it turns out that the “best” we can do are these surgeries and lifelong drug regimens then I’d have to accept that, because I want the best for trans people. But I think we can do better - and we should be trying to do better.
But of course there’s a “bait and switch” going on. There are people who really do suffer from a sex/gender incongruence. Can we class someone who is driven to transform as a result of some fetish in quite the same way, though? Not all “trans” are of the gender dysphoric suffering variety that we should (rightly) aim to treat in as caring and compassionate way as we know how.
Ultimately I think we should aim5 for Trans Genocide™ - because if there was no such thing as trans then nobody would be suffering from a sex/gender incongruence. Isn’t that a good thing, to aim for the reduction of suffering?
Is wishing for there to be a cure for blindness, Blind Genocide™?
What ‘we’ should do about those who are weaponizing an ideology in pursuit of their own narcissistic or fetishistic goals is another question. The only suffering going on there is the suffering they seem to cause, or wish upon, others.
This is the old English spelling - which should be pronounced as “Media Evil”
Absolutely no idea what the “correct” non-offensive terminology for this is, these days
Other than improving their bank balance
Once again we have to ask ourselves the hypothetical question of whether, at some future date, there was a “talking therapy” that worked very well to alleviate the suffering caused by gender dysphoria we would support it? It seems obvious to me that this hypothetical therapy would be a wonderful thing - but the current stance seems to be to describe this as “conversion therapy” and many on the TRA side of things would be against it.
Just to clarify for the spectacularly stupid here; no, I’m not talking about actual, literal, genocide.
This is why they need the “Q”. It answers all the questions according to its bizarre internal illogic. Why is the trans movement actually _more_ about those who seem to be selecting a lifestyle/brand than those who suffer from a lifelong disorder? Why do we need trans people? Because “queer” is being used by certain people as a verb. (Oh, and as for giving sight to the blind— remember what happened with the “deaf community” and cochlear implants?) Really, they have a point— what is up with the fact that I am not running into a lot of lepers these days in the US of A? Where are the bigots who thought we should eradicate polio? It’s time to queer medicine! (While I’m kidding about this, my next point is serious: hypocrites sing the praises of being “queer” in a culture in which— if it weren’t for the Amish community nearby— I wouldn’t have encountered a child with Down Syndrome in the last decade.)
I'm thinking Geneocide will be up and coming in the future. Updated and improved AI+machine learning driven CRISPR-technology used to delete genes or sequences deemed wrong.
Will use up a heck of a lot of zygotes at first of course, until the algorithms have enough data to create an improving model to run simulations in.
Eventually, they will want to let the zygotes develop to full maturity in carriers, whether these are artificial wombs or actual women (paid to do it, possibly paid in credits given to their own children or paid with a breeding license).
I still wonder about the canadian genticist who got material from a functioning fully fertile hermaphrodite over 20 years ago. Did they actually throw away all the material including terminated zygotes from self-fertilisation after eight weeks?
Are they tracking the donor and his-hers offspring?
Because if we know one thing about science - any science - it is that it never ever stop pursuing a lead until it has exhausted all current possibilites.
Not GATTACA or Blade Runner or any of the other eugenics/genetics-is-the-new-scary-tech stories: just the usual corporate greed of Monsanto or Pfizer-BionTech and the hard-on for control among the politicos leading to ever-faster cascading genetical damage introduced into our entire species via anything from vaccines to food to aerosols, and not only into us but animals and plants too.
Just as it was with Kadmium, Mercury, Dioxin, Hormoslyr, and so many other substances: use and pollute first, for profit. Then discover risks and damages. Then, grudgingly, alter processes ever so slowly or just move to where there are no rules for pollution. For the most worthless thing on the planet: money.
Radix Malorum Est Cupiditas.