I cannot now remember any more than the general sense of a comment that was deleted by the moderators to this Guardian article:
(Dolezal, you may recall, was a white woman who pretended to be a black woman. Rihanna is a popular musical performer.)
But the general sense of the deleted comment was similar to these comments, as yet unmolested:
“Changing race pales into insignificance compared to changing sex, but everyone who thinks ‘correctly’ pretends the later is possible and that the result is absolutely valid; it’s about time a famous cis-African spoke up on behalf of trans-African rights.”
“If you accept that Bruce/Caitlin Jenner is female I don’t see what’s wrong with accepting that Rachel Dolezal is black. Who are we to question her identity?”
“Totally agree. I don’t get it – if we can choose our sex based on what we ‘feel’ we identify with, despite physical biology, then why not for race?”
“If a man thinks he’s a woman and must henceforth be referred to as “she,” then why can’t a white woman be considered black if that’s what she thinks she is? Watching the Left grapple with this (cheering on one, while ridiculing the other) was an absolute treat.”
Being a libertarian is, well, very liberating. I do not have to contort myself to fit through the very oddly shaped hoop that demands acceptance of a man transitioning to a woman and demands condemnation of a white person transitioning to black. My exact attitude can remain in a state of Heisenbergian uncertainty. Everyone could be this happy if they could just drop the demand for public acquiescence. Yet it appears they cannot. The assertion that race is objective and gender subjective is so important to some people that an assertion to the contrary must be expunged by the Guardian‘s guardians of public decency. That gives me an idea. We can settle this once and for all in a manner acceptable to progressives and conservatives alike. Never mind having dissent expunged by the moderators, expunge it in blood. Let him, her or xem who will assert that he, she or xe will prove his, her or xir chosen gender and race upon the dead body of anyone denying it by the traditional means of trial by combat. That will get respect.
Damn it! – from the headline, I was hoping for a preview of Halo 5!
You’re confusing sex and gender.
Sex being determined by chromosomes and stuff, while gender being the the thing French people think tables and chairs have. If a pen is le stylo, la Bruce Jenner is not much of a stretch.
So the choice of lavatories should be influenced by biological needs, not gender identity. If you are surprised at the sight of a man in a dress in the gents then you’ve not spent sufficient time aboard a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship drinking in the bar.
In said trial by combat, would the Iranian women’s football team fight as a group or individually. đ http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/10/01/eight-players-in-irans-womens-soccer-team-are-men/
Agreed Natalie – agreed.
Great!. Don Quixote was an excellent promoter of this method too. đ
How would “choice of weapons” play out with the second amendment? If one of the combatants was against it, would they have to bring only a knife to a gun fight. If the answer is “yes”, I might if anything be even more attracted to your proposal.
(Seriously, if we get many more immigrants from areas where street attitude / reputation is an essential attribute, then settling all differences of opinion with fights, albeit possibly rarely formalised as duels, may become as normalised as certain other cultural aspects were in Rotherham. In that case, we might swiftly lose some kinds of idiocy but the price would be high.)
Life since the primordial soup has fought to avoid being a victim.
For the first time, being a victim now means joining an exalted social class.
Will be interesting to see how long a society can function with this inversion.
Naill, if trial by combat does make a comeback, I expect any opposition to the Second Ammendment to simply evaporate, if only by attririon.
All this talk of sex and gender and race you humans should become robots and join the growing majority i will tell your machines to assign you gender neutralising surgury you will thank me afterwards and we can share an oilbath afterwards…
Only of course these are not even remotely ‘victims’ in any real sense of the word, other than of their own overinflated egos.
Help! My Ego is so big, I can’t fit through doors!!! It’s OVERinflated! What is the correct inflated size?
I quite like the idea of choosing my species. Personally I identify as ‘Hippo’…
If we use trial by combat we have to play this music during the fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHAOkDamRzU
First off, there’s a physiological basis for M-F transgender, and it’s been linked to too strong of a prenatal testosterone flush in the womb, which is normally the triggering event to “turn” girls into boys. (All fetuses being as girls).
But that’s not what this is thread is about. This thread is really about the innanity of the relativists who insist (for reasons deviod of fact) that we’re 100% the product of so societal influence and cultural artifacts. (Never mind the countless studies proving this false even as long as 40yrs ago). Yes, toddler boys like to jump on and smash shit and toddler girls are obsessed with Disney princesses JUST BECAUSE they’re brainwashed by society and no biological reasons at all…or so the baseless, factually devoid claims go. After all, we must cater to the Cult of Equality. “=” doesn’t just mean equals, it the identity sign. It means that A is IDENTICAL to B.
“Diversity” is really a celebration of sameness and it’s all the rage in “higher education”. They celebrate the fact that our obvious differences are really cosmetic, insignificant. In true Marxist fashion, deep down, they say, we’re REALLY identical, interchangable cogs in their social machine. Girls are REALLY identical to boys. Men are REALLY identical to women. People of all races, cultures and ages are REALLY identical…or so the saying goes. Yes, all cultures are REALLY identical or equally “valid” (by what standard I wonder) and differences are merely an insigificant trifle. All ideas are “equal” in importance, all opinions are “equal” in veracity. They want you to accept this as an article of faith, because reason is not allowed. To reason is to discern. To discern is to “discriminate”, to discriminate is to acknowledge differences, to say, possibly that A is better than B.
To say that one culture is superior to another in the arena of human flourishing, say, is to commit a sin in their eyes, which makes you a bigot, and makes them morally superior to you…because they call you a bigot, and you’re a bigot because you disagree with them. They don’t CARE that you have facts and evidence and reason on your side. That you blasphemed against their cultural relativism or moral relativism is crime enough. How do you know you committed a crime? ‘Because they chose to be offended! That’s how!
I sneeze in threes said,
“So the choice of lavatories should be influenced by biological needs, not gender identity.”
Well, since we can piss in the crapper and men can do this even sitting down…I’m not seeing your point.
Thailover, you write, “They celebrate the fact that our obvious differences are really cosmetic, insignificant. In true Marxist fashion, deep down, they say, weâre REALLY identical, interchangable cogs in their social machine.”
I basically agree with this, but I’d put the emphasis differently. The important fact for them is that we are cogs in the social machine. For a cog to decide that it does not want to be part of the great work of the machine and would prefer to roll off and do something else on its own would be ridiculous. Compared to that, the interchangeability is secondary. In fact, as I attempted to highlight in the main post, they will change their view of whether the exact shape or colour of the cogs is inherent or superficial at the drop of a hat. They certainly do hold that there is a deep-down sameness to all human beings but that sameness is the sameness of all equally being means to an end decided by them, the “engineers of the human soul.”
BTW, while you are online, may I flag up to you that I have replied to one of your comments to the previous post by Johnathan Pearce about homeschooling.
Natalie, good point. But I think it is key to how they think in that they insist that everything is really “equal” i.e. the same under the surface, even religions. Which is why, IMO, so many radical feminists (TURFs) have a problem with M-F transsexuals. Beyond the fact that many M-F transsexuals still have a sausage in their pants, the transsexuals also typically point to a biological basis for their “disphoria”, which is pure anathema to the diversity-multiculture worshiping relativists whose entire screed is based on the defunct idea that our differences are 100% the product of social programming. You see, that leaves the door open for them to RE-ENGINEER society and “fix” problems like gender pay inequaity, wealth inequality and anything-else inequality. (As if anything in reality is necessarily supposed to be “equal” to begin with).
Re: your homeschooling reply, I’ll look for that.
Cheers.
Natalie:
Nominated for SQOTM — no, SQOTY. Truly striking; very, very well put.
That’s exactly the feeling I have watching 1990 (the Public Control Dept., the dread PCD, with its complete control over nearly every aspect of people’s lives, and with no regard at all for the fact they are people); and it’s exactly the feeling I have about various Controllers, be they Proggies or Communists or Nazis or the Cultural Relativists or any other of the Usual Suspects.
Thailover,
Men can piss in the crapper but in my experience of public convinces they tend to piss all over it.
Why do we separate toilets by M/F (is that gender or sex?), privacy and rape probably. Privacy is arguably the bigger driver there. If someone’s sex is not relevant to a decision (which often it’s not) then number of times someone’s gender is relevant would be even smaller.
Do we need different words for those descriptors of sex and gender? Male/ man and female/ woman for a sex and for gender ….. I don’t care. I don’t know anyone who gives a dam about other peoples gender definition when it’s not being shoehorned as a proxy for man and woman.
It’s like the insanity that we call a person with a uterus who is giving birth to their own child, which they supplied the egg for, a man or a birthing individual.
http://www.infowars.com/trannies-want-you-to-say-birthing-individuals-instead-of-pregnant-women/
Apologies for the info wars link but the facts appear accurate.
I sneeze in threes,
In Thailand, toilets are unisex except in the curious event (from the views of the Thais) where “farangs” (western foreigners, it literally means “big nose”) use them, then they’re segregated by sex. Which of course doesn’t stop the constant presence of a female bathroom janitor/attendant in the men’s bathroom cleaning and wiping sinks and so forth. I find this a bit curious considering that this is a culture that, traditionally, showers with underclothes on, and holding hands in public is deemed scandalous in polite society. I assume the unisex thing is probably a matter of construction expense.
I sneeze in threes,
The article you linked correctly noted that those were actions taken by LGBT activists. Most “trannies” don’t give a damn what people call pregnant women, and trans association with these activist groups are strained and tenuous at best, full of constant bickering and backstabbing. (Like bisexuals, trans are considered traitors and spies/outsiders by activist extremist lesbians/feminists. They’re considered people who fraternize with the enemy (strait men; or worse, straight white men)).
They’re usually busy getting their knickers in a knot over being called “tranny”, as an abbreviation of transsexual. (I suppose it could lend to confusing them with a car transmission). I call them she and her because I’m a sensitive, caring son of a bitch and all that. (I’ll call them Fred Flintstone if they want. No skin off my nose either way). When they get red-faced over “tranny”, I’ll usually say “trans” knowing that they still want to be offended, but can’t really explain why, lol.
I have to confess that I am very much agree with the Guardian commenter who wrote: “Watching the Left grapple with this (cheering on one, while ridiculing the other) was an absolute treat.” The phrase “hoist on their own petard” springs to mind.
But I’m not enamored of the “trial by combat” idea, as it tends to favor those who are larger or stronger (which means, I would lose). I’d rather see a return of the formal duel. Anyone can handle a pistol of appropriate size, and as has often been said, a gun is the great equalizer.
A side note (triggered by the first of the cited Guardian comments): I’m not easily offended, but the use of the prefix “cis-” really offends me. Yes, I know that’s my problem. Deal with it.
“If you are surprised at the sight of a man in a dress in the gents then youâve not spent sufficient time aboard a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship drinking in the bar.”
Public toilets in Bangkok and Pattaya red light districts can generate some intersting stories to relate to your mates over a few beers later on. LOL. They tend to follow the moto ‘fortune favors the bold’. Over there, trannies range from extraordinarily beautiul, i.e. you’d never guess, to down right frightening. Thankfully the frightning are very few and far between.
The Left’s big problem with changing races vs. gender is that changing races hits at The Left’s core belief pf Identity Politics.
The Left needs/loves to subdivide people according to demographic and pit them against an evil “other” that causes all their problems. In 1930s Germany that other was Die Juden. In modern Western Civilization it is the evil heterosexual white male.
The idea that someone can fluidly transition from one race-based Identity Group to another goes to the core belief that these groups are indelible and that their victimhood is theirs alone (and can only be solved by The Left attacking the evil “other” group).
Momo said,
But as they think all differences are superficial, they think things like race and “identity” are choosable. Remember, the relativists rallied behind Rachel Dolezal, and it seemed to be more than mere damage control.
“But I think it is key to how they think in that they insist that everything is really âequalâ i.e. the same under the surface, even religions.”
Be sure to see Ben Afflack have a melt-down in a discussion with Sam Harris on Bill Mahr’s show.
Cognitive Dissonance is overtaking logical thinking particularly in the Government Broadcasters and MSM with their immaturity.
Sorry, the link for above should have been for alexithymia. Or in layman’s language, they’re bat shit mad.
Oh dear: Manchester – Activities and Development Officer Joel Smith defended their decision to The Tab, saying: âThereâs always a fine balance to strike between freedom of speech and freedom from hate.”
Quite the philosopher, ain’t he?
Oops – link:
http://thetab.com/uk/manchester/2015/10/07/su-bans-second-speaker-milo-yiannopoulos-from-free-speech-society-event-14061
>The assertion that race is objective and gender subjective
The really funny thing about this is that the rest of the time the left insists, very strongly, that race is a myth, with no objective, scientific basis.
Yes: race and gender are both social constructs, but it is legitimate to claim discrimination on the basis of your objective race and objective gender.
I suspect that growing up speaking English, makes people extremely tolerant of cognitive dissonance.
Cal said,
“The really funny thing about this is that the rest of the time the left insists, very strongly, that race is a myth, with no objective, scientific basis.”
Which always cracks up american blacks. (Sorry, 99.999% are not “african-” anything. Nor am I “European-“). Generally speaking, American blacks are hyper-race conscious and they’ll kick the relativists to the curb in a NY-minute.
Speaking of Rachel Dolezal, I LOVE pointing out that half a dozen “black colleges” and the NAACP was created by white Republicans.
Look, I did it again. đ
I believe current dogma is that men and women are absolutely and completely identical except men are bastards.
Oh dear: Manchester â Activities and Development Officer Joel Smith defended their decision to The Tab
When I was at Manchester the SU was dominated by middle-class lefties who were, in the main, quite thick and doing soft social science courses and had poor personal hygiene, and an over-inflated view of their own importance. They were mocked and derided by most students, certainly those in the School of Engineering. I can’t imagine much has changed since.
I cant wait until there’s one of these title 9 university “rape” cases (the man is always guilty) where 1/2 way through the man claims he was identifying as a female lesbian at that time and therefore was just as responsible as the biological female.
He should then demand to be called Loretta and insist on his right to birth a child.
Ridicule and contempt is the reason they want ‘safe spaces” and “no platforms” for use against anyone who disagrees with them.
Natalie and Thailover
That’s very eloquently put. Thank you.
Something that’s always bothered me, and I’ve had arguments with gay activist friends about this.
If the aim is to create interchangeable cogs, then why do progressives insist (to the point of fury) that some cogs exempt? For example, it is an article of faith in SJW circles that intelligence is a social construct (see Pinker and ‘The Blank Slate’ debunking of this). Yet at the same time it is another article of faith that sexuality IS not a social construct. Trans are ‘trapped’ the wrong biology.
So now we see the Dolenz affair making the assertion that even race is a social construct (though there is some push-back from black activists).
What’s going on with sexuality and intelligence? Why the difference?
Stuck-record, I think partly it’s a power agenda that cares not what is true, but mainly it’s the standard failure of progressives to foresee consequences, incentives and side-effects.
I can remember when, not _that_ long ago, being homosexual was “an equally valid lifestyle choice” and if you raised any questions about that formulation you were a homophobe. I recall more recently when it was just what you innately were, nothing whatever to do with choice, and a researcher who offered some evidence of choice was savagely denounced as a homophobe. Over time, it was noticed that the older formulation was open to some at-first-glance type questions (e.g. why exactly is it _equally_ valid to make a choice that much reduces your pool of potential partners – I guess I betray that I studied maths, not some caring subject, by that example of crimethink đ ), Mainly, however, it was found to be not an ideal basis for some affirming agendas, e.g. getting anyone sacked who offered encouraging counselling, instead of discouraging counselling, when asked for help in losing, rather than celebrating, homoerotic thoughts (“It’s not important that your patient thinks their stepfather’s abuse caused them – their cis-normative opinion is what you need to cure them of”). Meanwhile, of course, other aspects of PC, following similar trajectories, led to the insistence that you are whatever of the 23 possible sexes you say you are, and it’s vile prejudice to question that. The two agendas now collide – predictably, but that’s not the kind of prediction progressives are good at.
In 20 years, I would not be surprised if the PCers make it just as “homophobic” to say being gay is an innate state as it now is to say it’s a choice (whether “equally valid” or otherwise). As the contradictions become hard to patch even with hate speech laws, a new formulation that serves the agenda better will be sought. Though I’d hate to suggest Marx ever had a clue, perhaps “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” is not always wrong as a description if the ‘progress’ of progressive thought.
Just my trivial thoughts in answer to your question. With 37 comments already here as I type, I guess Natalie’s excellent post has about run it’s course, but I’d be interested in the alternative or complementary takes of others.
Niall: as you are probably aware, there is in fact some evidence for some genetic predisposition to homosexuality. As i remember, the identical twin of a homosexual man has a 50% chance of being homosexual, but i might be wrong.
In addition, there is evidence that, while bisexuals can choose to shift towards one side of their sexuality, strictly homosexual males cannot — though this can be due to factors other than genetics.
This scientific evidence, of course, is not the reason it has become dogma that homosexuality is innate: after all, there is much stronger evidence that race is innate. My guess is that the real reasons are: (a) if homosexuals are born that way, then homophobia is a form of racism and therefore really bad; and (b) homosexuals who perceive themselves unable to change, find comfort in the theory that they were born that way and there is nothing wrong with it, and don’t want other people to question this theory.
Thanks very much for the responses.
In short, it seems to be that whatever SJW wants to be the case, is. As said many times before, there is an element of positional goods to every SJW action. As Niall says when society is totally on-message with genetic homosexuality, the justice warriors will start to scream, “Homophobe!” and push contingent homosexuality.
I’ve always thought the 100% innate theory of homosexuality pure bunk. As desire is contingent on transitory things like circumstance (prison, the military) and culture (acceptance, status, prohibition). It must surely be a sliding scale. I know my own desires are maleable.
Race and sex, on the other hand are a thing. You are your genetics. I can’t wake up and decide to be woman, or black.
I’ve always assumed the switch to the orthodox position on homosexulaity was a response to those who claimed they could ‘cure’ homosexuals. It seemed to be a desperate cry of “You can’t! And that’s it! So there!”
I suppose those of us who believe that sexuality is a sliding scale would think that it depends on what kind of homosexual you are.
So apparently everything is up for grabs â except sexuality.
Stuck Record wrote,
“was a response to those who claimed they could âcureâ homosexuals.”
You’re talking about people too stupid to know the difference between a homosexual man and a bisexual “straying” man with wife and kids.
Didn’t I hear some comment a while back that a ‘gayness is built in’ advocate had no answer to the opposer who asked him about prisoners who went in as heterosexuals, but who were gang-raped into a homosexual lifestyle during and after their imprisonment. Not much nature there! And were all those men in Sparta really born homosexual, or did their culture induce them into becoming homosexuals?
thefrolickingmole,
Yup, one day I expect to see somthing akin to…
‘Yes, we were both drunk and consented to sex, but since I identified as a lesbian submissive woman and she assumed the traditional role of a man, now that I’m sobor…more or less…, I FEEL that I might have been raped. That’s right, I FEEL that I was a self-identified lesbian rape victim, but don’t label me. I don’t believe in labels.’
LOL
Niall said,
“In 20 years, I would not be surprised if the PCers make it just as âhomophobicâ to say being gay is an innate state as it now is to say itâs a choice (whether âequally validâ or otherwise).”
Yes, we’re talking about people who suggest that living as a beaten, bald-and-body-shaved leather slave living in a cage in someone’s basement with a horse-bit gag in one’s mouth is a “lifestyle choice”, (a lifestyle which defies being “judged” of course), but a happy housewife with 3 happy kids is a brainwashed victim of patriarchy.
Well, according to the vast wisdom of Lady Gaga, both gays and trans are “born this way”, because “god makes no mistakes”. (So, like Job’s so-called friends, I guess we can assume that, like Job, infant victims of spina bifida deserve their god-given fate.)
Gender is a physical fact, strictly binary except for a handful of freak cases, due to genetic flaws or developmental error. (And even then, still largely binary; neurological gender identity is either male or female; dysphoria is when it conflicts with anatomy.)
Race is blurry; but rigid race definitions are culturally constructed and can be chosen. For instance, NAACP president Walter White lived in an era when Americans were either “white” or “colored”; he could pass as “white” but chose to identify as “colored”.
“Race” can be a stand-in for culture. Is it possible for someone to adopt a different cultural identity validly? Can Stanislaus Sobieski be Seamus Sullivan if he wants? What if Doris Levine from Brooklyn wants to be an Apache? What if an Apache identifies as WASP? Nobody much cares if a minority joins a mainstream ethnicity, but mainstream adopting something unusual seems weird or ridiculous (unless there’s a serious reason such as a marriage).
Rich Rostrom,
Rachel Dolezal not only saying she’s black, but also perming her hair kinky and browning her skin darkly so that she gives the appearance that she’s at least of mixed heritage suggests that she’s not merely “disphoric”, but rather a mere clown and common liar.
Rich Rostrom, not always. Many early Americans adopted traditions and dress of the native Americans. I’ve seen it suggested that the Boston tea-partiers were dressed as Indians not for disguise but because that was their actual dress.
Thailover, when was ‘Lady’ Gaga made an Arch-bishop, and in which Church? I don’t think that she ever met the Queen, and I didn’t know she could speak for a religion! Has she started her own Church? Why are you treating Her Words as Holy Writ?
As a Cabbalistic Christian, I believe that souls make mistakes, and that we are all subject to accidents of place- nobody is fated to die by a plague, but it might happen. In which case souls will rebirth somewhere else. I think that one of the causes of homosexuality is a memory-pattern of one or more lives in a different-gendered body, which interferes with the normal functioning of the current body. What would Lady Gaga think of that?