Subset is Just Another Word for Colony

I love it when the Transgender Borg Collective pulls out the meme: “Transsexual is just a subset of Transgender.”

If they had an freaking sense of humor they would add, “We are Borg, you have been assimilated into the Borg collective and we have decided you are a subset.”

It is a very male privileged trait to have the arrogance to decide that a whole class of women are a “subset” of a bunch of predominantly heterosexual male transvestites.

Excuse me…  I forgot how the Prince of heterosexual transvestites pathologized the term transvestite along with transsexualism, the better to coin a new and improved term that better suited his misogynistic ideology of gender.  He was very good at coming up with alternative terms for transvestites.  Almost as good as he was at training Transvestite Men’s Rights Advocates in how they should abuse their wives to get them to go along with hubby’s hobby.

After all the ideology of transgender sprang from such misogynistic works as The Transvestite and his Wife and How to be a Woman, though Male.

All the babble about gender reduces the differences between male and female to a matter of clothes and behavior, something that is in and of itself extremely hostile to equality between the sexes, since gender defines women as among other things submissive, empty headed, and trivial.  A care giver rather than agent in control of her own life.

Defining transsexual as a subset of transvestite/transgender is straight out of the Book of Prince.  He defined us that way.  He was often given to saying that transsexuals were either gay men who had surgery so they could have sex with straight men (Who he automatically assumed were more attractive than gay men).  That those who had SRS and came out as lesbians had made a mistake. (He urged the medical establishment to not operate on transsexuals who would become lesbians after surgery.) He also pushed the inverted penis, dead hole meme, good only as a sperm receptacle when having sex with men.

Transsexuals had every reason in the world to hate transvestites and the whole Transgender Borg ideology, as it has a more negative impact on us than the handful of strange lesbian separatists.  For one thing those lesbian separatists are not claiming dominion over us or colonizing us and making us unto a subset.

The very idea that transgender should “include transsexual” is virtually identical to the idea that  the words ‘man and mankind’ should be deemed to include “women and womankind” but that women or womankind can not serve as a substitute since that would be insulting to men by degrading their status to the level of women.

It seems absurd for me to have to lecture people on the basics of feminist challenges to patriarchal reinforcing grammar some 40 years after those challenges were first made.

For the Record: If you need to grasp the basic critique of misogynistic usage of grammar rules to reinforce the  patriarchal dominance of men over women I highly recommend you read Words and Women by Kate Swift and Casey Miller.

Perhaps then you will recall how men took it upon themselves to speak for women and used language as a tool of oppression.

“Subset”; the very idea of such a denigrating and dismissive term fostering any sort of relationship among equals smacks of male arrogance.

Make no mistake about it you can dress transvestism in all sorts of drag and use all sorts of fancy euphemisms, all sorts of highly academic sounding bullshit, in an attempt to put lip stick on a pig, but behind all that image is still the hard core misogyny that gave birth to the Transgender Movement.  Look deep enough, follow the trail and eventually you get to the chief male pig, the Prince of many names.

So post-transsexual women are a subset of a bunch of men who live behind the pink door of gender where clothes and adherence to strict gender roles make one a man or woman.  So post-transsexual women are a subset and therefore subject to shanghaiing into the world of gender queers and their fascination with fucking gender and the creation of a third sex/gender comprised of transgressive “gender outlaws”.

For millennia women were considered a subset of men with men providing the definition of human and women tagging along as a “subset”.

Simone de Beauvoir called her feminist masterpiece, The Second Sex.

To be woman and be considered a subset of men means being considered less than men on every level.

When Julia Serano, who I generally admire, trotted out the subset bit in a recent post on her blog  A “Transsexual Versus Transgender” Intervention*. she made a fool of herself.  Thereby, once again proving the correctness of my partner Tina’s dictum.  “Transsexuals should keep their mouths shut and their minds open for the first few years after they have SRS.”

But moreover Julia used the term subset during her efforts to rein the post-transsexual dissenters from the ideology of the Borg back into the Borg collective.

That is like pouring liquid oxygen on a fire.

I have had to rewrite this post a half dozen times to not have it be totally filled with rage and  the word fuck plus variations on the basic word fuck.

Nothing says we own you so get back in line like having a bunch of basically heterosexual Men’s Rights Advocates albeit males who wear women’s clothes and embrace feminine gender roles telling a bunch of female bodied people to STFU and get back in line.

You see our role as post-transsexual women is to be enablers of male transvestites albeit full time transvestites who may take hormones and call their dicks neo-clits, but who are men nonetheless.

Our role is to be used as shield that legitimize their bullshit.  To be used to pass laws that are not necessarily in the interests of women, either women assigned female at birth or reassigned via SRS to female later in life.

Even after several rewrites I am so totally furious at the use and presumption of labeling transsexual as a “subset” of transgender I want to fucking scream:  I am not a fucking subset of a bunch of men in dresses.  I do not give a damn what sort of tower of gender babble they use.

Women have vaginas.  Men have penises.  If there is doubt as to what you are pull down your pants and look.

If you wonder why post-transsexuals have staged an anti-colonialist revolution look no further than your oppressive Men’s Rights Advocates in Dresses misogynistic rhetoric.

Fuck you!

I am not a subset.  Especially a subset of transgenders.

Smoked out: tobacco giant’s war on science

From The Independent UK:

Philip Morris seeks to force university to hand over confidential health research into teenage smokers

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Thursday, 1 September 2011

The world’s largest tobacco company is attempting to gain access to confidential information about British teenagers’ smoking habits.

Philip Morris International, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, is seeking to force a British university to reveal full details of its research involving confidential interviews with thousands of children aged between 11 and 16 about their attitudes towards smoking and cigarette packaging.

The demands from the tobacco company, made using the UK’s Freedom of Information law, have coincided with an internet hate campaign targeted at university researchers involved in smoking studies.

One of the academics has received anonymous abusive phone calls at her home at night. She believes they are prompted by an organised campaign by the tobacco industry to discredit her work, although there is no evidence that the cigarette companies are directly responsible. Philip Morris says it has a “legitimate interest” in the information, but researchers at Stirling University say that handing over highly sensitive data would be a gross breach of confidence that could jeopardise future studies.

The researchers also believe that the requests are having a chilling effect on co-operation with other academics who fear that sharing their own unpublished data with Stirling will lead to it being handed over to the tobacco industry.

Philip Morris International made its first Freedom of Information (FOI) request anonymously through a London law firm in September 2009. However, the Information Commissioner rejected the request on the grounds that that law firm, Clifford Chance, had to name its client.

Philip Morris then put in two further FOI requests under its own name seeking all of the raw data on which Stirling’s Institute for Social Marketing has based its many studies on smoking knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in children and adults.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Smoked out: tobacco giant’s war on science

Concerns About the Religious Right Are Not Overblown

From Psychology Today:

by Dave Niose
August 23, 2011

In a Washington Post On Faith column a few days ago, Lisa Miller, a senior Newsweek religion writer, makes a rather puzzling argument, saying that concerns of secular progressives about the influence of conservative religion in presidential politicsare overblown. “Here we go again,” she complains. “The Republican primaries are six months away, and already news stories are raising fears on the left about ‘crazy Christians.'”

Miller points to criticism of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann as evidence of these unfounded “fears on the left,” implying that the critics are alarmist. This analysis, however, is demonstrably flawed, because it essentially asks us to ignore over three decades of history, to accept as “normal” the fact that major-party presidential contenders conduct themselves in ways that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. If we raise concerns that Bachmann calls church-state separation “a myth,” for example, Miller’s response seems to be simple: Chill out. Be not afraid of evangelicals.

As a religion reporter, Miller has become so desensitized to the Religious Right that she has apparently become oblivious to the wrecking-ball effect that it has had on American politics. To her, politics-as-usual apparently includes high-profile prayer festivals by presidential hopefuls, like Rick Perry’s “Response” rally.  Rational observers (and not just those on “the left”) responded to such overt religious pandering with serious concern, but vocal criticism of Perry’s political religiosity only seems to cause Miller to roll her eyes and quip, “Here we go again . . .”

The fact that Miller, responsible for religion coverage for a major national publication, doesn’t seem to understand the big-picture significance of candidates exhibiting religion-based behavior and making religion-based statements that would have gotten them laughed off the political stage not very long ago, is a sign of just how far the Religious Right has dragged America from the realm of reason. We now routinely have candidates for the highest office who vocally deny evolution, resist efforts to address climate change, care about education only when the issues involve prayer or Intelligent Design, are hostile to the Environmental Protection Agency (which was created by Richard Nixon), and claim the moral high ground via a constant outward display of conservative religion.

None of this would have been remotely “mainstream” in either party before the Religious Right, but Miller nevertheless sees concerns about politically mobilized fundamentalist Christianity as an annoyance. It’s easy to forget, as Miller apparently has, that entities such as the Congressional Prayer Caucus, now taken for granted as a powerful center of religious conservatism on Capitol Hill, did not even exist until just a few years ago. More and more, we see overt fundamentalist Christianity asserting itself in American public policy and, worst of all, being seen as normal. To secular citizens, this is a troubling development, made even worse by mainstream writers like Miller accusing us of overreacting.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Concerns About the Religious Right Are Not Overblown

Reject free trade pacts

From SF Gate:

Curtis Ellis
Friday, September 9, 2011

So much for bipartisanship. President Obama unveiled his jobs agenda before Congress, and Republicans really like the part of it voters hate the most.

The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose “free trade” agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Poll after poll shows Americans believe trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, after which these new pacts are patterned, hurt America.

Even supporters of the proposed deals, in their more candid moments, acknowledge they will do little to boost employment. Independent analysts say increased imports from the South Korea agreement could cost at least 159,000 jobs.

The South Korea trade agreement would have the largest economic impact of the three proposed deals. South Korea is an export powerhouse, selling us more than $8 billion in autos and $5 billion in electronics in 2006 alone. But Korean consumer buying power is small, about equal to that of Los Angeles, so U.S. exports are not expected to increase dramatically.

A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission, a nonpartisan government agency, details the specific sectors of the U.S. economy that will gain under the Korea deal – agriculture and financial services – and those that will lose – electronics, motor vehicles, textiles and apparel, as the trade deficit in manufactured goods would rise by more than $2 billion.

The report says the effect on the U.S. economy overall will be negligible because “expected losses in output and employment in contracting sectors are expected to be offset by gains in expanding sectors.” (Emphasis added.)

But output and employment are not the same thing.

By the report’s analysis, a Wall Street bank landing a billion-dollar deal in South Korea offsets the losses that South Carolina textile workers suffer from increased imports, even though the bank might not hire a single additional person. Financial and insurance firms might prosper under the South Korea pact, but that doesn’t necessarily mean more jobs for Americans. It’s hard to imagine Fred MacMurray selling double-indemnity policies in Seoul. And while U.S. portfolio managers will be allowed to pitch mutual funds and pension funds in Korea, will Korean asset managers eagerly turn over their portfolios to the same people who just finished crashing the world economy?

Continue reading at:

American poverty levels hit record high

From The Guardian UK:

US poverty rate swells for third year to 15.1% with the number of poor in 2010 the largest on record

Reuters, Wednesday 14 September 2011

A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, pushing the US poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according to a government report on Tuesday on the grim effects of stubbornly high unemployment.

Underscoring the economic challenges that face President Barack Obama and Congress, the US census Bureau said the poverty rate rose for a third consecutive year to hit 15.1% in 2010. The number in poverty was the largest since the government first began publishing estimates in 1959.

The report surfaces at a time when the economic straits of ordinary Americans are at the forefront of the 2012 election campaign.

Obama is suffering from low job approval ratings on the economy and evidence of rising poverty could give popular momentum to the $450 billion job-creation program he unveiled last week.

The census data also could come into play in the deliberations of a bipartisan super committee in Congress, which has been charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings over 10 years by 23 November.

The United States has the highest poverty rate among developed countries, according to the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The poverty line for an American family of four with two children is an income $22,113 a year.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on American poverty levels hit record high