How far does it make sense to go to humor a tiny group of neurotics?
Especially if the neurotics only get angrier and more unwell with each concession.
By the way, if you are dealing with a neurotic in your private life, remember that accommodating the neurosis makes it worse. “It doesn’t cost me anything to do this little thing” makes the neurotic sicker and the neurotic’s demands shriller.
The other day you posted about how everyone has a woke breaking point. This is it for me, the erasure of women and now mothers from the language, and the general throwing of women under the insane woke bus. What’s happening to lesbians, who seem to be the last stand against these attacks on women, the physical violence and online abuse they face, tells you that trans rights have little to do with actual trans people (who generally want to be left the fuck alone to live their lives) and everything to do with these initiatives being yet another arm of patriarchal oppression, a new bullshit tactic meant to roll back the hard-won rights and protections based on sex.
“trans rights have little to do with actual trans people”
Simple rule: Almost every time that people want to redraw categories and call something old something new… the goal is to make people stupid and to make it harder to talk about.
Blanc hards (I put in a space for google related reasons) taxonomy is very revealing here, when it comes to mtf trans people the two broad groups are
HST S (very feminine males who want to become as feminine as possible to attract the masculine men they’re attracted to.
A G’s, usually heterosexual men who derive some kind of pleasure out of imagining themselves as women.
There are sub-categories from each group but almost all the erasure of women is coming from a (semi-autistic?) subset of the AGs.
ftm tra ns phenomena are very different (more often related to ambivalence and/or body revulsion from puberty and hesitance about accepting female sexual roles – which most young women grow out of if they don’t have unethical medical people leading them toward irreversible medical interventions…
trans is a very real phenomena attested in almost all societies (from gatherers to industrial countries) and it’s great for their ethical and legal rights to be recognized…. but erasing women from language and trying to intimidate lesbians into being penetrated by anatomical men and a whole bunch of bridges too far for me to.
Why “chestfeeding”? What is so exclusionary about breasts? Even men have breasts. They generally aren’t enlarged in men, but men have them, there are nipples, and there are even underdeveloped mammary glands. Men even get cancer in them sometimes. Breasts are organs that humans have and referencing them in regard to their function of providing milk should not be controversial. In fact, implying that transmen don’t have breasts would imply that transmen aren’t even mammals.
It’s not totalitarianism unless everybody is forced loudly to proclaim things they know to be untrue. You have to cede your authority to make basic judgments about observable reality. You have to wake up every day and wait for the new list of things to believe and say to be handed down to you. If you are told that January starts in August, your task is to accept it and thank the authorities for letting you know. If you are told that humans have three heads, your task is to respond “yes, absolutely.”
To think that feminism had a huge role in bringing this about.
LikeLike
Why did feminists think it was a good idea to sign off on the notion that the differences between men and women are in the mind rather than the chest and pelvis? I came up thinking that the most egalitarian and feminist approach was to say that men and women can live as they want, love as they want, study what they want, pursue whatever work they want, etc. Even if some preferences might, for whatever reason, be more common in one sex or the other, there’s nothing about being a man or woman that intrinsically requires one to have whatever personality or preferences or whatever. You can wear a dress and be a man, have short hair and be a woman, work as a mechanic and be a woman, or work as a nurse and be a man. And so forth. The only difference that’s intrinsic is some anatomical stuff.
Then everyone declares that being a man or woman is something in the brain, not in the chest and pelvis. And, um, well, that has some obvious implications. The old school essentialists must be salivating at the notion that the fundamental distinctions between men and women are in the mind.
I know! God, it was a gigantic mistake. I’ve made myself hoarse arguing that “male” and “female” are physiological categories. There’s no “female personality”! It was supposed to be the whole point of feminism! I have a different body than a man but this shouldn’t mean I can’t have the same rights. If this isn’t what feminism is about, then I don’t get what’s the point of it at all.
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment