Transvestite Mansplaining

Perhaps I should define what “mansplaining” is before I start describing how this applies to way to many male transvestites and how mansplaining occupies way to big a role in the Transgender Borg ideology.

BTW… I take it as a complement when a transvestite or one of the Transgender Borg describe me as a Second Wave Radical Feminist.  But then I have a different view of the term.

From Urban Dictionary: 

  1. to delighting in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation
    Even though he knew she had an advanced degree in neuroscience, he felt the need to mansplain “there are molecules in the brain called neurotransmitters”
  2. To explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening. The mansplainer is often shocked and hurt when their mansplanation is not taken as absolute fact, criticized or even rejected altogether.

    Named for a behavior commonly exhibited by male newbies on internet forums frequented primarily by women. Often leads to a flounce. Either sex can be guilty of mansplaining.

    The members of the equestrian community were unimpressed when Bob posted an essay that mansplained a solution to a horsy problem they were all well-acquainted with.
  3. Despite claims of superior strength in avoiding over-emotional reactions, when a man encounters even one iota of criticism of men on the internet, he must then mansplain why women suck by comparison or must be radical feminists.

    Mansplain–to put women down in response to criticism.

    Even though Mansplain only points out a specific aspect of what some men do but not in every context, explainerOrMansplainer and Wicker33 were so overcome by the inability to accept criticism and had to condescendingly mansplain how women must be either dumb; (ironically) unable to take criticism (derp!); or should be dismissed as radical.
  4. To explain something in an unnecessarily long winded way, so as to dominate the conversation, and to make statements that are not based on facts, assuming that people will believe and agree with him because he is male.

    “The recession was caused by the government because it spent too much money and people should look after themselves and not expect society to look after its members or its community… ad nauseam.
    …Therefore its all womens fault.”

  5. A word typically used to imply that the previous speaker is overly condescending and/or has a different way of explaining because he happens to be a man and the other party a woman. Usually, this is based in an over- or misinterpretation based on prejudice about the alleged mainsplainers intentions or on an inability to take constructive feedback. Sometimes it is used as an attempt to unfairly discredit the speaker or his arguments without having to provide counter-arguments. Typically, the mansplainer is simultaneously implied to be sexist or misogynistic.

    Explainee: Women only earn 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. This is a grave injustice.

    Explainer: That is a misleading statement. In fact, after correcting for factors like hours worked, experience, physical danger involved, etc., the differences is just a few percent.

    Explainee (sarcastic): Thank you for mansplaining! I would never have thought of that with my tiny little brain!

What prompted me to think about this was a piece last week on Amanda Marcotte’s Pandagon:

Fighting the mansplaining anti-sex police

Amanda Marcotte

While I was not feeling up to much writing these past couple of days, that didn’t stop me from provoking anti-choicers on Twitter to disparage contraception, so that I could then retweet them and help further understanding of where the attack on reproductive rights are coming from. After all, it’s a surprisingly easy task that a lobotomized monkey could probably do, but no less entertaining for it. And in doing so, I had a revelation. It came after yet another dude (and so far, out of the dozens of people who explain to me that female sexuality is only for procreation, and not for pleasure, only one has been female) condescendingly explained that contraception “cheapens” sex, presumably by making it something you can have on more than an annual basis, I decided to have some more fun. After all, every time a guy explains that the tools we use to have frequent, spontaneous, carefree sex are naughty, he’s basically hanging a sign around his neck that says, “I don’t get laid much, if at all, so I don’t really know how this works.” Listening to anti-choice nuts talk about sex is like listening to Mitt Romney explain hip-hop. They’re so painfully out of the loop you can’t decide if you want to laugh at them or cringe in embarrassment for them. So I told the guy, hey look, when you say these things, people aren’t persuaded of anything but that you don’t know what the fuck sex is like.

At what point he told me defensively that he’s a virgin. To which I dusted off a hoary old joke and said, “Don’t play the game? Don’t make the rules.” Hey, at least it’s funnier than the aspirin-between-the-knees bit, and has the advantage of being true. To which he said I was being “ad hominem”, which is a phrase apparently 100% of conservatives think means “you’re wrong because you bested a conservative in an argument, and that’s against the rules we wrote”.

That’s when it occurred to me that one of the things that’s feeding the outrage about the contraception thing is that it’s a big clusterfuck of mansplaining.

Then I had several rambling rants from transvestite/Transgender Borg person hiding behind different aliases start mansplaining to me about how I was a nasty radical feminist cunt and a stupid man hater.

All because I have the courage to say that half of the bullshit put out by the Transgender Borg is pure Virginia Prince mansplaining as to why men dressed as women should be allowed in women’s spaces. I also had a bunch of mansplaining as to how women who point out how men have a history of rape and abuse of women are guilty of misandry.

Misandry is a Men’s Rights advocates term that is sort of like the right wing idea that rich white men are the most oppressed people on the face of the earth, especially when kids with the top grades at the poorest and shittiest schools get a few bonus points added to their college applications that border line white pricks who barely made it through their 20K per year prep school don’t get.

Oh the unfairness of it all.

Back in 1972 our office at the National Transsexual Counseling Unit inherited a box of books, along with a couple of biographies and Benjamin’s book were a couple of books  by “Charles ‘Virginia’ Prince” sic.  One was called “A Transvestite and His Wife”, a book that taught transvestites how to mansplain to their wives how their drive to dress in women’s clothes wasn’t a perversion (yes Prince used those words) and how to flatter (con) one’s wife into going along with her husband’s transvestism.

The other book “How to be a Woman Though Male” offered the basis for mansplaining the idea of “Gender”.

It doesn’t take  Radical Feminism to see that substituting Gender for Sex oppresses women.  Anyone who has studied the Second Wave critiques of oppressive sex roles should be able to see that. Anyone who remembers when jobs were defined as being something for men or something for women to do should be wary regarding the substituting of gender for sex. Why?  Because despite all the verbiage gender is about defined roles and not some sort of physical reality.

When male transgender folks start mansplaining to post-transsexual women why the Transgender Borg get to claim them as transgender forever, even if they don’t want to be part the Transgender Borg, it transcends mansplaining to flat out verbal abuse. I honestly don’t give a shit about your fictional dichotomy of cis-gender/transgender. When you start mansplaining it to me I just hear a cloud of “dickspeak”.

I honestly don’t care about how oppressed you feel at not being able to barge into a communal women’s changing area and join the females.  If you pass well enough to pull that one off and are discreet enough not to get caught, more power to you but I’ve been raped, I’ve had men expose themselves to me in inappropriate places and know how many seriously sick men there are out there.

You don’t get to recruit me to your cause and call me names because I consider myself to be a part of the community of women and not the transgender community.

I don’t see requiring letters from doctors attesting to your being on hormones and in treatment for trans-issues as some unreasonable requirement to expect, prior to your feeling free to use the women’s restroom.  So skip the mansplaining as to why I’m being horribly oppressive.

I’m all for social politeness and sensitive use of pronouns, just as I am all for employment and housing non-discrimination.  I support hate crimes laws and special accommodations for transgender prisoners.  But I’m not willing to go along with imposing those accommodations upon women.

Too often Transspeak, the Transgender Borg version of mansplaining sounds like a word game where women are asked to go along with the changing of the meaning of words.  At the same time in their eagerness for numbers the Transgender Borg have claimed so many marginal “identities” that the term “Transgender” no longer has any real meaning.

I don’t have much at all in common with major sections of the “transgender community” as I told a Dallas Activist the other night politics mean more to me than any trans-prefixed label.  It means something to me that we see each other at various demonstrations for different causes around the Dallas area.  Hell there are a lot of post-transsexuals I have little in common with.  I’m a left wing lesbian feminist.  Transsexualism doesn’t mandate politics.

Telling me I’m stupid or retro because I just don’t get it (Transgender Borg Ideology) is mansplaining not an argument.

Cardinal: Same-sex marriage is just as immoral as slavery

From The Independent UK:

Leading Catholic sparks outrage with attack on ‘grotesque’ plans to allow gay couples to marry

Jerome Taylor
Monday 05 March 2012

Supporters of gay marriage reacted with dismay yesterday after Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic clergyman said plans to allow same-sex marriages were as morally questionable as reintroducing slavery.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the head of Catholics in Scotland, described gay marriage as a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right” and said the Government’s plan to reform marriage laws was “madness”.

In a stinging response to the Government’s assurances that no church would be compelled to conduct gay marriages, he wrote: “No government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.

“Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that ‘no one will be forced to keep a slave’. Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?” The strength of the Cardinal’s intervention caused outrage among gay-rights activists and supporters of same-sex marriages.

Ben Summerskill, from the gay-rights campaign group Stonewall, described the Cardinal’s language as “insensitive beyond words”.

Continue reading at:

Will Greece Be Ruled by the Bankers – or Its People?

From Truth Out:

by: Peter Bratsis
Saturday 3 March 2012

The most central and constant dilemma in modern politics has been the choice between the political desires and demands of citizens versus the policy expertise and prudence of bureaucrats and specialists. For the more democratically inclined, those like Machiavelli and Aristotle, the judgments of the many, as flawed as they often may be, are nonetheless more trustworthy than the commands of the elite. The few, no matter their credentials or honors, are never able to match the collective intelligence of the multitude.

For others, including those who drafted the US Constitution, the whims and desires of the many are a great threat to social order, and the special few must stand as a moderating force between them and the levers of government.

Recent events in Greece have hinged on this tension. The Greek economic crisis is often presented as a product of too much democracy, of politicians bowing to the demands of citizens for jobs, pensions and low taxes. The troika of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Central Bank (ECB) and European Union have stepped forward to undo this damage by attempting to break the ties between the residents of Greece and those who govern them. The troika has imposed strict policy guidelines, formulated by economists and other specialists, and closely monitors the implementation of these policies by the Greek government. Most recently, they have demanded written guarantees from all political parties in Greece that the austerity programs will be continued regardless of any future elections. Any “regressive” movements toward the demands of the Greek people provoke swift retributions from the troika.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Will Greece Be Ruled by the Bankers – or Its People?

Have You No Shame, Rush?

From The New York Times:

Published: March 3, 2012


AS a woman who has been viciously slashed by Rush Limbaugh, I can tell you, it’s no fun.

At first you think, if he objects to the substance of what you’re saying, why can’t he just object to the substance of what you’re saying? Why go after you in the most personal and humiliating way?

Then, once you accept the fact that he has become the puppet master of the Republican Party by stirring bloodlust (earning enough to bribe Elton John to play at his fourth wedding), you still cringe at the thought that your mom might hear the ugly things he said.

Now he’s brutalizing a poised, wholesome-looking 30-year-old Georgetown law student as a “slut,” “a prostitute” and “round-heeled” simply for testifying to lawmakers about wanting the school to amend its health insurance to cover contraception.

Sandra Fluke “goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?” Limbaugh coarsely ranted. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. The johns.”

Isn’t this the last guy who should be pointing fingers and accusing others of taking pills for recreational purposes?

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Have You No Shame, Rush?

Who, Me? Limbaugh Regrets Not Slurring American Women With a Better Euphemism for Slut

From RH Reality Check:

by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
March 4, 2012

After spending three days on his radio show calling Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who testified in front of Congress about the importance of health insurance coverage, names like “slut” and “prostitute,” Rush Limbaugh did something unusual: he apologized.

Just kidding!

It’s being reported as an apology, but if you actually read it, it’s not.

In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

In other words, Limbaugh is saying that there’s nothing wrong with his belief that women who use contraception—that is, 99 percent of American women—are immoral, filthy sluts. He just wishes that he had chosen better euphemisms, perhaps “hussy” and “lady of the night” while arguing that the only proper course for women who don’t want to get pregnant is to abstain from sex completely. (Limbaugh very pointedly doesn’t suggest this to men. On the contrary, he demands that women provide sex tapes if they dare use contraception, so he can masturbate to them. While celibacy is required for women in Limbaugh’s world, he has no problem with male sexuality. Or Viagra coverage, for that matter.)

By the way, we’re already aware that he wasn’t just making a personal attack on Fluke. Since 99 percent of American women use contraception—and since contraception is already covered by insurance and subsidized by the government—Limbaugh was using Fluke as a stand-in to argue that every woman who has ever had sex for any other reason than procreation is a bad person. In other words, pretty much all women. Which is a way of saying that Limbaugh wasn’t attacking Fluke, but just using her for a punching bag to express his hatred of all women.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Who, Me? Limbaugh Regrets Not Slurring American Women With a Better Euphemism for Slut

US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

From World Socialist Web Site:

By Tom Carter
3 March 2012

A bill passed Monday in the US Congress and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader.

The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility.

Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to “enter or remain in” an area designated as “restricted.”

The bill defines the areas that qualify as “restricted” in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” and “a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

GOP Bill Labels All Single-Parent And All Gay Households As Child Abuse

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

by David Badash
March 2, 2012

A GOP lawmaker in Wisconsinis trying to pass a bill that would classify “non marital parenthood” as a cause of child abuse. Since gays cannot legally mary in Wisconsin, the bill automatically includes single and coupled gays and lesbians, plus any single person regardless of orientation.

The bill “requir[es] the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board  to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.” Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman, who has a long history of radical positions, wants to spend tax dollars “educating” the public — with no scientific proof (because there is none) — that gays, lesbians, single mothers, and single fathers should not be allowed to be parents because their children will grow up in an abusive home.

In fact, Senator Grothman is claiming that the very lack of two married opposite sex parents in a household constitutes child abuse. Apparently, Senator Grothman believes that marriage is for procreation, and therefore only married people should be allowed to raise children.

In essence, the bill could, if it became law, be used to outlaw all gay couples raising children, and all single-parent households.

It truly boggles the mind, how stupid these radical conservatives are.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on GOP Bill Labels All Single-Parent And All Gay Households As Child Abuse