TheTransgender Borg and the “Radical Feminists” are Such Identical Twins That I Can’t tell them Apart

Yesterday, in the comments section of the post: Transgender Borg Tell Post-Transsexual Women Who Do Not Embrace the TG Umbrella, “STFU!I explained the euphemistic way, the genteel Texas manner of bestowing a “Bless your little heart.” in stead of saying “Fuck you, shit for brains.” the way I used to.

I know this series of articles is going to bring me hate mail.  this is why I am thankful  Word-Press includes several firewalls.  I have always had the Spam Blaster set to Max. Which means even regular posters often have their mail held up.  Which causes some regular posters to wonder why they are moderated even though they are not.

On the other hand those who blast me with inchoate rage filled hate mail wind up on the moderated list.  Where I get to see their hate mail and decide if I will let it through or not.

I tried hard for the first couple of years to avoid the ad hominem attacks in either posts or comment sections that one sees on so many post-transsexual or Transgender Borg Blogs.

I have tended to attack stupid ideology rather than people.  But I have found there are actual people behind the vile hatred.

Back to the comments section of the above mentioned post.

This morning I was greeted by a piece of hate mail, which I let through while slapping the poster on to the moderated list.

The funny thing was how it could have come from either a “radical feminist” or a member of the Transgender Borg Collective.  Their opinion of post-transsexual women is so identical as to be virtually indistinguishable.

I decided to bestow a heart blessing upon the sender and treat the sender as a member of the Borg due to a careful parsing of the post.

But honestly this begs the real questions.  Are the the ‘radical feminists” members of the Transgender Borg Collective?  Or.  Are the Transgender Borg really “radical feminists”?

5 Responses to “TheTransgender Borg and the “Radical Feminists” are Such Identical Twins That I Can’t tell them Apart”

  1. deena17 Says:

    Oh gosh Suzan did you have to ask such a tough question? I’m a ditz so I guess the answer is “should I care”? To me everyone simply is whatever he or she thinks, bless their hearts. Seems simple enough but its really not because what a person represents to the world is not necessarily synonymous with their actual thoughts. Perhaps my favorite example of that is the proverbial man in a dress who announces to the world “I am a woman”. I can’t ever recall an instance of a “born female” making such a proclamation. Or another example, the employee who feels compelled to tell the boss that he or she is honest. Bless his heart that’s the one to keep a careful eye on.

    Now I’m confused so bless my heart its time to check the latest Doonesbury cartoon and see what the Red Rascal is doing. At least I know that’s fiction (I think). http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/01

  2. Teagan Says:

    If the radfems are in fact members of the TG Borg, that would make them misogynists. Feminist misogynists. Hmm, that doesn’t quite seem to work. So I’ll go with “they sound similar because they view post-transsexual women as a threat.” There must be some “-ist” which with we can describe that succinctly.

    • Suzan Says:

      Perhaps we should start driving home the idea that cultural feminism not only isn’t radical feminism but that it is fake feminism indistinguishable from right wing Taliban Religious misogyny.

  3. Andrea Rosenfield Says:

    Suzan, you and I must be psychically linked because I started typing this to Teagan before your last comment:

    The belief system espoused by some of these RadFems is the *opposite* of feminism. Just because someone *says* they’re something, doesn’t mean they really are that (as if the TG Borg hasn’t made that abundantly clear).

    Seriously, break down the more mouth-frothy version of “lesbian feminism” being peddled, and what do you see? Biology *is* destiny(!). Females are defined by their uteruses(!), and need different laws(!) because of their reproductive ability(!). Sex identity and sexual orientation are choices(!), and can be changed(!!!). Some elective medical procedures should be banned by the government(!). [This last one is particularly dangerous, as the overt goal of banning SRS is being used to set precedent for the covert goal of banning abortion.]

    That’s not feminism. That’s not lesbianism. That’s radical social-conservatism operating under a “false flag.”

    The last point would explain why the anti-TS agitation started up from within the lesbian community suddenly in 1973 (immediately after Roe and the announced de-lisiting of homosexuality as a mental illness), and for the past 30 years has flared up during pro-choice administrations, and then gone mostly dormant during anti-choice administrations (when abortion rights can be attacked directly).

    That anti-TS ideology also conveniently diverts feminist attention away from men, and onto the only women in the world with less power and agency than themselves. It’s a perfect appeal to the mean-girl instincts of female sociopaths, who will pick it up and use it to disrupt the mainstream feminist groups all by themselves, with just the occasional nudge from above.

    So, my marker’s on: RadFemSep as we know it was a social-conservative COINTELPRO-style operation in the first place, designed to disrupt the feminist movement. (The mean-girl trashings and politics of personal destruction are classic PSYOP tactics too).

    As for the Transgender Borg, my marker’s on: The RadFems didn’t think it up, but they heavily abetted the promotion of “Transgender” so they’d have an alternative to SRS to point at while attacking transsexual women. Didn’t Bornstein mention at some point that part of the reason she wrote “Gender Outlaw” was because some dykes in San Francisco had convinced her she could never be a woman? This would mesh with things I’ve heard from women who knew her back in the late 1980s, when she was going through her initial “regret phase” and looking for reinforcement of that exact sentiment. It also would mesh with why so many early torch-bearers for “Transgender” came out of the lesbian community. (And no, I’m not playing along with that “Zie” crap).

    Thinking big-picture, “Outlaw” and the reprint of Raymond’s “Empire” were both published concurrently in 1994 (Thesis/Antithesis); that same year the first “Camp Trans” was held (Problem-Reaction-Solution). [Maybe coincidentally, maybe not, this was all at the same time the revised 1994 DSM added what we know as the AGP/HSTS specifiers to “Transvestic Fetishism” to give them access to surgery and ID changes and stuff.]

    An organized “operation,” perhaps? Yvonne Cook-Riley more or less admitted it was, in the August Bilerico interview: “Now, as we moved through this thing we discovered that there was [sic] groups out there that wanted to give the community a name, and they were not in the community.” (Leave it to Weiss to not ask WHO these outsiders were, or why they might want a “community” with a name to be created.)

    But ask an umbrella-wielder why they need this “we are all one” stuff, and they’ll tell you, “The bigots see it all as the same.” The TG Borg and the anti-TS RadFems both see it all as the same; it’s a cornerstone of both their ideologies. Ladies and gentlemen, there are “the bigots.” Take either side of that fight, and you fall for whatever the entity that invented both of them are trying to lay on you (again, this is the Thesis/Antithesis model of social engineering in practice – two “opposing” sides that agree on whatever’s being pushed by the social engineers; MichFest/CampTrans is the Problem-Reaction-Solution mechanism to induce people to take a side).

    BTW, another synchronicity occurs in 2003-2004, when many of the personalities we recognize as representing the “TG Borg Collective” and the “Usual Suspect” misogynist “LGBT” (I’m not so sure about that) websites appeared on the scene promoting them, concurrent with both the Lawrence decision and the release of “The Man Who Would Be Queen.” I’m still chewing on the full implications of that one; it seems mostly designed to attach a millstone to the necks of gays and lesbians to make ENDA impossible. Maybe other things too, still working on it…

  4. Andrea B. Says:

    I agree that radical feminists and transgender borg have the same opinions about transsexual people.

    What most forget or don’t realise, is that Prince went around lecturing feminists in the 60’s and 70’s coming out with the similar and worse crap to that radical feminists spout against transsexual people. Prince had a pathological hatred of transsexual people, which he encouraged and seeded in a lot of other people.

    Also a strange thing. I find it impossible to access Christin Williams blog from my computer. Anyone else have that problem, or is it just me?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: