Yesterday I got into an argument with a Transgender Warrior on Facebook. Someone named Bayne MacGregor.
Looking at Bayne’s photo I hope they don’t insist on using the Women’s Restroom.
It isn’t enough that the gender queer/third sex wing of the Transgender Borg have managed to get post-op transsexuals included in “The Community” now they are getting us included in the right wing bills that would make it illegal for us to use the restrooms consistent with our genitals.
I listened to this person mansplain to me about the risk heterosexual women faced from lesbians using the same restroom.
“When I protested his bullshit and stated: I put women, as in adult females first. I put their concerns first, even before the interests of transgender people because that is what it means to be a feminist.” Bayne used his privileged position to tell me I needed therapy to overcome my internalized transphobia. Interestingly the spell checker in most programs doesn’t recognize “transphobia” as a word.
Bayne wildly exaggerates the number of “non-binary” what ever the fuck that phrase is actually supposed to mean any where other than on Tthe Planet of the Transgender Borg. Bayne is truly out of this world, when it comes to dictating to transsexuals, especially post-op what their role in this Brave New World Order will be. Sort of like Stokley Carmichael back in the days of SNCC dictating that, “The position of women in SNCC is to be prone.”
Well I’ve come a long way, baby.
Mansplaining doesn’t fly.
Nor does transsplaining.
There is a whole new crowd of kids coming along and hopefully in a generation or so the phenomena of people coming out in middle age will be a thing of the past. Hopefully the whole Transgender Community will wither on the vine along with the politicos and professional activists of the whole LGBT Inc begging industry.
Some one posed the question of what advice I would give Jazz or any of the public transkids. My advice would be, “Get your SRS, change your name. Leave the Transgender Community and assimilate into the world of non trans-folks.
Especially since so many superstitious morons have so little respect for women and LGBT because thei imaginary sky daddies tell them that women and LGBT people aren’t really human.
23 Mar 2015
Can’t we all just get along?”
Among progressive and moderate religious believers, ecumenicalism is a big deal. For many of these believers, being respectful of religious beliefs that are different from theirs is a central guiding principle. In this view, different religions are seen as a beautifully varied tapestry of faith: each strand with its own truths, each with its own unique perspective on God and its own unique way of worshipping him. Her. It. Them. Whatever. Respecting other people’s religious beliefs is a cornerstone of this worldview… to the point where criticizing or even questioning anyone else’s religious belief is seen as rude and offensive at best, bigoted and intolerant at worst.
Don’t atheists want a world where everyone’s right to their own religious views — including no religious views — is universally acknowledged? Don’t we want a world with no religious wars or hatreds? Don’t we want a world where a diversity of perspectives on religion is accepted and even embraced? Why would atheists have any objections at all to the principles of religious ecumenicalism?
Oh, let’s see. Where shall I begin?
Well, for starters: It’s bullshit.
Progressive and moderate religious believers absolutely have objections to religious beliefs that are different from theirs. Serious, passionate objections. They object to the Religious Right; they object to Al Qaeda. They object to right-wing fundamentalists preaching homophobic hatred, to Muslim extremists executing women for adultery, to the Catholic Church trying to stop condom distribution in AIDS-riddled Africa, to religious extremists all over the Middle East trying to bomb each other back to the Stone Age. Etc., etc., etc. Even when they share the same nominal faith as these believers, they are clearly appalled at the connection: they fervently reject being seen as having anything in common with them, and often go to great lengths to distance themselves from them.
And they should. I’m not saying they shouldn’t. In fact, one of my main critiques of progressive believers is that their opposition to hateful religious extremists isn’t vehement enough.
But it’s disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst, to say that criticism of other religious beliefs is inherently bigoted and offensive… and then make an exception for beliefs that are opposed to your own. You don’t get to speak out about how hard-line extremists are clearly getting Christ’s message wrong (or Mohammad’s, or Moses’, or Buddha’s, or whoever) — and then squawk about religious intolerance when others say you’re the one getting it wrong. That’s just not playing fair.
And, of course, it’s ridiculously hypocritical to engage in fervent political and cultural discourse — as so many progressive ecumenical believers do — and then expect religion to get a free pass. It’s absurd to accept and even welcome vigorous public debate over politics, science, medicine, economics, gender, sexuality, education, the role of government, etc… and then get appalled and insulted when religion is treated as just another hypothesis about the world, one that can be debated and criticized like any other.
However, if ecumenicalism were just hypocritical bullshit, I probably wouldn’t care very much. Hypocritical bullshit is all over the human race like a cheap suit. I’m not going to get worked up into a lather every time I see another example of it. So why does this bug me so much?
Imagine the screams of outrage if this proposition were to advocate killing all Black people, or all Christians.
I’m a gun owner. I remember what other self proclaimed German Christians did some 75 years ago. I will not go to my death without taking at least one of these Taliban Anti-Christian Murderers with me.
In the mean time tax the Churches and all their holdings at the same rate any other profit making business is taxed.
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Nay, that I mean to do.
What exactly to make of the proposed “Sodomite Suppression Act”? This ballot initiative wasn’t introduced in some African country, the Middle East, or in Russia, but right here in California, home of many, many sodomites. A lawyer by the name of Matt McLaughlin wants to change the Golden State’s penal code to make homosexual behavior a capital crime (pdf):
Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.
If the state refuses to enforce this law, it says the general public is “empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state from any and all liability.” It’s so bonkers and evil that it almost comes full circle to be utterly hilarious, like Marvin the Martian threatening to destroy Earth. Mind you, the location is what makes it funny. Legislation like this would be exceedingly dangerous elsewhere in the world. But in California, even if this guy actually starts collecting signatures (that will make for some interesting encounters in parking lots) and it ends up on the ballot, the initiative could never be implemented, as it is blatantly unconstitutional.
California’s ballot initiative system, though, does not appear to be able to stop him from moving forward with his proposal and signature-gathering, even knowing full well it will never be implemented. From the Sacramento Bee:
[T]he measure is likely to proceed to the signature-gathering stage. At the moment, its fate rests with state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is charged with writing a title and summary for the proposal. Legal experts say she has little choice but to let the process continue and that McLaughlin is unlikely to face professional repercussions.
Over the years, the $200 price tag for submitting an initiative has enabled California political activists to draft and submit thousands of orphan causes: eliminating divorce, requiring public schools to offer Christmas caroling, making criminals of those who lie during political campaigns.
Carol Dahmen, a media consultant in Sacramento who started the petition to disbar McLaughlin, argues that this one is different. Along with disbarment, Dahmen wants to draw attention to reforming the system, calling McLaughlin the “poster boy of what is still wrong with the initiative process.”
“It’s an interesting discussion about free speech, and I get that,” Dahmen said. “But this is a lawyer, and he’s advocating for murder.”
The issue is who should make the call that a ballot initiative is illegal. As an elected official embroiled in state politics, letting the attorney general make that choice could create serious problems in less clear-cut situations. As it stands, Harris has been criticized (and sued) for writing slanted summaries of ballot initiatives that affected the possibility of their passage. It may have to be up to a judge to make the call, if needed.
Continue reading at: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/20/kill-all-gays-law-proposed-in-california
All comes from the Jew; all returns to the Jew.”
— Édouard Drumont (1844–1917), founder of the Anti-Semitic League of France
I. The Scourge of Our Time
The French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, the son of Holocaust survivors, is an accomplished, even gifted, pessimist. To his disciples, he is a Jewish Zola, accusing France’s bien-pensant intellectual class of complicity in its own suicide. To his foes, he is a reactionary whose nostalgia for a fairy-tale French past is induced by an irrational fear of Muslims. Finkielkraut’s cast of mind is generally dark, but when we met in Paris in early January, two days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, he was positively grim.
“My French identity is reinforced by the very large number of people who openly declare, often now with violence, their hostility to French values and culture,” he said. “I live in a strange place. There is so much guilt and so much worry.” We were seated at a table in his apartment, near the Luxembourg Gardens. I had come to discuss with him the precarious future of French Jewry, but, as the hunt for the Charlie Hebdo killers seemed to be reaching its conclusion, we had become fixated on the television.
Finkielkraut sees himself as an alienated man of the left. He says he loathes both radical Islamism and its most ferocious French critic, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s extreme right-wing—and once openly anti-Semitic—National Front party. But he has lately come to find radical Islamism to be a more immediate, even existential, threat to France than the National Front. “I don’t trust Le Pen. I think there is real violence in her,” he told me. “But she is so successful because there actually is a problem of Islam in France, and until now she has been the only one to dare say it.”
Suddenly, there was news: a kosher supermarket in Porte de Vincennes, in eastern Paris, had come under attack. “Of course,” Finkielkraut said. “The Jews.” Even before anti-Semitic riots broke out in France last summer, Finkielkraut had become preoccupied with the well-being of France’s Jews.
We knew nothing about this new attack—except that we already knew everything. “People don’t defend the Jews as we expected to be defended,” he said. “It would be easier for the left to defend the Jews if the attackers were white and rightists.”
I asked him a very old Jewish question: Do you have a bag packed?
“We should not leave,” he said, “but maybe for our children or grandchildren there will be no choice.”
Reports suggested that a number of people were dead at the market. I said goodbye, and took the Métro to Porte de Vincennes. Stations near the market were closed, so I walked through neighborhoods crowded with police. Sirens echoed through the streets. Teenagers gathered by the barricades, taking selfies. No one had much information. One young man, however, said of the victims, “It’s just the Feuj.” Feuj, an inversion of Juif—“Jew”—is often used as a slur.
From The Dallas Voice: http://m.dallasvoice.com/planet-confusion-10192130.html
March 20, 2015
I’m pissed off; I’m perplexed, and I’m scared. I’ll try and sort out what’s swirling in my pretty little head.
On Feb. 28, a female member of the Planet Fitness in Midland, Mich., complained to management about someone who “looked like a man” being in the women’s locker room. The woman who made the complaint ultimately had her membership revoked, with Planet Fitness officials citing as their reason the woman’s disruptive activities in warning other female members that the gym might let “men” into the women’s locker room facilities.
Planet Fitness has a policy of “No Judgment” and permits members to use whatever facilities match their “sincere, self-reported gender.”
Fine. But honestly, I’m conflicted.
I have held off on addressing this. My fear was that the person in the locker room was a cross-dresser, and that’s what she appears to be: no hormones, no transition.
To me, that is abuse of the privilege and is exactly what the opposition wanted in order to illustrate their point that “men” who “feel like a woman today” can waltz into women-only spaces with impunity.
That makes me sick.
Where do you draw the line? I have been on hormones for years now. I’ve had years of therapy, gender reassignment surgery, breast augmentation and electrolysis. I’m a broke — but happy — woman.
I work out at a gym and use the ladies locker room, but I also have a vagina. I’m not sure if that should be a requirement, but discretion sure should be if you have the original equipment.
Should we require hormones? OK, for how long? Who checks?
The best I can come up with is that if you are irrevocably committed to living your life as a woman, then come on in. If you are trying it on? Do us all a favor and stay out.
This whole thing really pisses me off.
Living in Texas, where too many people would like to see us all dead, I sure as hell don’t need anyone making my life more difficult than it already is. I am so careful and so respectful; I don’t think that it’s too much to ask for others to be the same way.
Right now, one bad apple really can screw it up for all of us.
Continue reading at: http://m.dallasvoice.com/planet-confusion-10192130.html
Reposted from Paisley Currah: http://paisleycurrah.com/2015/03/13/disappearing-women/
By Paisley Currah
March 13, 2015
In her most recent column, “Who Has Abortions?,” Katha Pollitt says, “We can, and should, support trans men and other gender-non-conforming people without erasing women from the fight for reproductive rights.” I agree. I’ve got a draft of quite a few fragments and links for a long blog post on feminism and trans politics–on reproductive rights, on women’s colleges, on how TERFS have derailed real conversations about feminism in trans communities, and on the outsized role those on the trans-masculine side of the gender spectrum play in setting out the official gender line for trans politics. I’ve not had the time to pull it all together, so instead, I’m just posting bits and pieces. Pollitt’s column today prodded me into posting the first bit.
But yes, I think Pollitt is right on this one. Here’s part of her explanation:
The real damage of abolishing “women” in abortion contexts, though, is to our political analysis. What happens to Dr. Tiller’s motto, “Trust Women”? There was a whole feminist philosophy expressed in those two words: women are competent moral actors and they, not men, clergy or the state, are the experts on their own lives, and should be the ones to decide how to shape them. It is because abortion gives power specifically to women that it was criminalized. How did Selina Meyer put it on Veep? If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM. Restricting abortion is all about keeping women under the male thumb: controlling women’s sexual and reproductive capacities is what patriarchy is all about. Indeed, that women should decide for themselves is controversial even now. Although the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that men were not entitled to be notified if their wife was planning to end a pregnancy, some polls show large majorities of Americans believe husbands have a right to know. Once you start talking about “people,” not “women,” you lose what abortion means historically, symbolically and socially.
I think it’s entirely possible to point out that it’s not just women who become pregnant and still keep in focus the bare political fact that abortion rights and access are gender issues, that it’s almost only women who get pregnant and who need abortions, and that abortion rights and access are under assault all over the US precisely because it’s primarily a “women’s issue.” Obviously abortion access shouldn’t be restricted by gender identity and providers should clearly communicate this in the messaging. Trans men need to know they can access to these services.
That said, taking “women” out of abortion rights rhetoric, putting “vagina” on the list of unacceptable words, has the faint reek of misogyny. Pollitt doesn’t call it by that name, but she writes:
But a feminism that can’t say “women”—or “vagina” or “sisterhood” or even the cutesy “ladyparts”— is cutting the ground from under itself. It’s not just about slogans like “the War on Women“ or “Stand with Texas Women, “ important as they are and challenging as it would be to replace them with gender-neutral language that carried the same emotional charge. How do you even talk about women’s being underrepresented politically, or earning less than men, or being victims of rape and domestic violence? In an era where politics is all about identity, as a tool for organizing and claiming public space, are women about to lose theirs?
It’s not just reproductive rights language that is fast being “de-gendered.” Women’s colleges are also being asked to get rid of that exclusionary category. Many of us have long argued that women’s colleges need to admit trans women, regardless of the gender listed on their identity documents. And students who were admitted to women’s colleges as women and whose gender identity shifts during their college years need to be allowed to stay, and supported in their transition. But some of the discussions about changing who counts as a woman for college admission have morphed into an argument that everyone but cisgender men should be eligible to apply. Monica Potts, at the New Republic, says this is simply misogyny.
Feminist blogger and prison abolitionist Emma Caterine sees it differently. As she argues in a piece bluntly titled, “Trans Women are Not Agents of the Patriarchy”:
One of Potts’ main concerns is the push on women’s campuses to eradicate words like “sisterhood” from use. But this isn’t an example of trans activism, as Potts puts it, being “indistinguishable from old-school misogyny”; that’s just old-school misogyny disguised as trans activism. Trans activism fights to make a world that is better for trans people, and while trans men are an important part of that, the fight to make a place for themselves at women’s colleges has nothing to do with them being trans and everything to do with them being entitled men.
Trans women are on the precipice of being recognized as women at women’s-only institutions. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that now is also the moment when those institutions are being asked to retreat from their historic mission of educating women. It’s certainly not the intention of the activists calling for the all-but cis men rule, but the effect is to suggest that once trans women gain entrance, all bets are off, everything is up for grabs. The unstated but inescapable implication of all this–that trans women aren’t women. That’s trans-misogyny.
Sure makes me glad I no longer live in Cali. If I were an LGBT person there I’d be sure to have a gun even if I had to do so illegally. Remember the Taliban Christers passed Prop 8. Don’t be the unarmed Jew in Germany or Poland circa 1939.
Time for LGBT People to take a page from the Israeli book of self-defense.
Be prepared to fight or leave.
From The Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15394181.html
by Jack Jenkins
March 17, 2015
On Monday, Rabbi Denise Eger was installed as the first openly gay president of Reform Judaism’s Central Conference of American Rabbis, which claims around 2,000 rabbis and 862 congregations in the United States.
“It really shows an arc of L.G.B.T. civil rights,” Eger told the New York Times. “I smile a lot — with a smile of incredulousness.”
Eger’s new position is, unquestionably, a historic moment for Reform Judaism. But when placed alongside the greater American religious landscape, her achievement is remarkable in part because of how common such stories have become. It’s hardly the first time a mainstream American faith community has proclaimed spiritual support for LGBT rights — the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association chose a lesbian Rabbi to be their president in 2007, Unitarian Universalists have been passing resolutions affirming everyone regardless of their sexuality since 1970, and several of the largest mainline Christian denominations have moved to embrace various versions of LGBT rights. Since the early 2000s, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have all voted in favor of supporting gay ordination and same-sex marriage, and the Episcopal Church famously elected Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, to the position of bishop in 2003. And while the United Methodist Church, the largest mainline Christian denomination, officially opposes marriage equality and the ordination of LGBT ministers, Methodist bishops and priests across the country are now refusing to enforce church discipline on clergy who officiate same-sex weddings. Meanwhile, nearly half of religious Americans see no conflict between their faith and LGBT rights.
The issue has become omnipresent at the national gatherings of evangelical Christian institutions such as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), whose leaders disavowed destructive “ex-gay” therapy in 2014 but continue to enforce a no-tolerance policy toward theologies that promote acceptance of same-sex relationships. When a SBC pastor in California told his congregation last year that he had adopted a conciliatory view of homosexuality, for example, national-level officials promptly responded by kicking the church out of the denomination. The larger evangelical community has also adopted a strategy of silencing or rejecting believers who publicly endorse pro-LGBT views: when World Vision, an evangelical charity, announced last March that it would start hiring gay employees, funders began pulling money from the organization, resulting in the group reversing its decision within 48 hours; Brandan Robertson, a young evangelical and author of the popular blog Revangelical, lost a book deal in January after he refused to sign a pledge asking him not to “condone, encourage or accept the homosexual lifestyle”; and in February, the Evangelical Covenant Church denomination “terminated” its partnership with Christ Church: Portland after the pastor preached passionate support for LGBT acceptance.
19 Mar 2015
In light of the recent New York Times revelation that potential GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is “pursu[ing] some highly unconventional income streams” to finance his run for the White House — including a “cure” for diabetes that consists of cinnamon and chromium picolinate — increased attention is being paid to highly lucrative fad diets, the science behind which is sketchy at best.
Evidence for the damaging effects of “toxins” is thin on the ground — as in, scientists claim that the kinds of toxins that are eliminated via these diets not only don’t, but can’t possibly exist.
As Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University told The Guardian‘s Dara Mohammadi, “there are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other isn’t.” The former involves the medical treatment of people with life-threatening drug addictions, whereas “[t]he other is the word being hijacked by entrepreneurs, quacks and charlatans to sell a bogus treatment that allegedly detoxifies your body of toxins you’re supposed to have accumulated.”
If the human body did accumulate toxins in the manner that detox advocates claim, people wouldn’t need a detox — they’d be dead.
“The healthy body has kidneys, a liver, skin, even lungs that are detoxifying as we speak,” he said. “There is no known way — certainly not through detox treatments — to make something that works perfectly well in a healthy body work better.”
Many of these detox products claim to “cleanse” the toxins stored in the liver — but toxins aren’t stored in the liver. The liver processes harmful substances that enter the body and transform them into water-soluble compounds that can be excreted. Yet health food store shelves are stocked with teas and tinctures — as well as hair brushes and shampoos — that promise to somehow rid the body of these mysterious toxins.
Colonic irrigation is not as palpably absurd as a hairbrush that can cleanse toxins from the liver, but it’s no more based in science. Enema and colon cleanse advocates claim that the walls of the colon contain a toxin-housing “plaque” that slow releases the dreaded compounds into the body.
Heaven help the tran-man or trans-woman who voices an opinion contrary to the agreed upon Transgender Borg Manual of Right thought, Right Speech.
Some months ago two long time trans-activists, Andrea James and Calpernia Addams were on the receiving end of communal abuse for their opinion regarding a word which until very recently was in common usage among various groups of trans-folks albeit trans-folks of the lower socioeconomic classes who were often employed in the profession of dispensing personalized sexual services.
Never mind that dispensing of this word which will not be mentioned left folks with awkward phrase constructions such as _____ Bars and _____ Chasers.
Political Correctness uber Alles.
I haven’t really followed this story nor have I had the energy to dig into it in anything but a superficial manner. That’s one of those problems with actually having crises in a real 3D life. You don’t have the time or energy to get involved in bullshit fights regarding political correctness.
It appears that Zoey Tur’s thought crime against the Pure Thought, Pure speech wing of the Transgender Borg amounted to her suggesting that pre-ops or newly in transition folks show a little fucking common sense when it comes to invading women’s restrooms and locker rooms.
I can’t be bothered arguing about what she said.
That isn’t the point. What is the point is the trashing people are now engaged is vastly worse than any sin Zoey may have committed.
Seems like folks who should know better. People like Dana Beyer and Monica Roberts are engaged in a contest to see who can hurl the most mud at Zoey Tur.
TransGriot: The Mounting Problems With Zoey
Why are people who are supposedly serious activists suddenly channeling Jennifer Usher? What’s with the use of Zoey’s birth name and the seeming willingness to malgender her?
Grow the fuck up.
Why does it seem as though engaging in ad hominem attacks has become a part of being a trans-activist.
I have already developed a negative bias with regards to self proclaimed professional community activists, thanks for nurturing my negative feelings.