{Moved up from prior post)
We’ve gone from using the state to force religiously conservative bakers to design cakes for same-sex weddings to this. It’s all about exerting power over others to serve your narcism.
Trans activist barbarism:
You are trying to legally force women to touch your genitals. Your behavior is monstrous. You are preying on these women and you should be ashamed and be shamed by society for it. https://t.co/IQ0cABQuGX
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) July 20, 2019
Surely real feminism also covers a woman’s right not to have to wax someone’s knob & bollocks if they don’t want to. https://t.co/RqsrtQs42o
— Ricky Gervais (@rickygervais) July 21, 2019
A female waxer who declines to handle male genitalia could face legal consequences in the bastion of woke insanity otherwise known as Canada.
— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) July 22, 2019
This vision of "social justice" poses a threat to free society.
My latest: https://t.co/3vxAqqgMki
10 Comments for “Trans Radicalism: Sliding Off the Slippery Slope”
posted by Jorge on
“Real feminism includes all women, including trans women.”
It is too easy to point out the gatekeeping that gets justified in the previous post as highlighted. The underlying message is that only “real” gays need be accepted. So, too, would it be easy to say that “real” feminism should include “real” women. The decision to divide an in-group and merge an out-group into an in-group are essentially the same kind of social and philosophical gatekeeping. That these are all choices and can lead to different decisions is what reveals their artificial, subjective nature. They are not about gays, transgenders, or women at all, they are about value and pragmatic judgments. How else can you get to a place where a real woman has a penis, and that real woman with a penis never fits the definition of a man?
I’m going to share one more time that I think society adopted the reverse meaning of “transgender man” and “transgender woman” than I think we should have, especially with respect to per-operation people.
(But if we put transgender women into male prisons, they die.)
And we are paying a very steep price for prison safety.
posted by Jorge on
“per-operation people”
Ugh! Spellcheck did me wrong. Pre-operation people.
posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on
–Yaniv says that self-identifying as a woman is sufficient to be treated as a woman
Well then, Yaniv seems to misunderstand what gender identity is all about. I am sure that homocons and transphobes will not take advantage of her ignorance…..oh, wait.
posted by Jimbo on
That’s right, we’re “transphobes” if we call out this increasing insanity: Sporting events being required by anti-discrimination law to allow biological males who “present” as women to compete as women. Health clubs being required to allow biological males who “present” as women to use the women’s locker rooms and showers. And now this absurdity. But we’re conservative transphobes for noticing and should just shut up. Got it.
posted by Jorge on
The whole point of anti-discrimination law is to say, “You cannot punish people for things that have nothing to do with why they are here.”
A transgender person in a job, on the street, in a store is not there for any purpose that has anything to do with whether their gender identity and gender expression are different than their sex.
A transgender person in a prison, too, is there to serve their time, and kept confined in conditions that require the safety of inmates at large. We do not deny people medical care, socialization, and safety just because they are socially deviant.
In my opinion, the line is clearly crossed where a transgender person is in a location that is sex-segregated for reasons of privacy and dignity, because they are there precisely because of their genitalia. Locker rooms are a big example. Waxing is an even more obvious one.
posted by Rob McGee on
How can you “misunderstand” something that doesn’t have a well-defined definition? You can’t misunderstand astrology, for instance, because no one agrees on what distinguishes “valid astrology” from “bogus astrology.”
posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on
Well, it looks like “Jimbo” did not understand our post. Golly, gee wiz.
posted by Jimbo on
Well, it looks like “Jimbo” did not understand our post. Golly, gee wiz.
And so what didn’t I understand? Perhaps you don’t understand that sarcasm is not an argument.
posted by JohnInCA on
Why is one woman’s crusade a “slippery slope”, but one preacher’s crusade “just an outlier”?
posted by mike king & David Bauler on
no sarcasm from us. just Midwestern family, friendship and good food.