Friday, April 28, 2017

Will someone, please, tell me how I can avoid bigotry? PLEASE!!

I need someone to explain to me how sexual orientation makes any sense on the premise that 'gender identity' and not physiological sex constitutes man- and womanhood.

This conundrum causes me untold confusion and lots of sleepless nights. Because I really do not know how I am ever going to stop being a bigot and finally join rational, civilized society (you know, everyone who is faithful to the LGBT Magisterium). I really want to accept, celebrate, and affirm the identities of gays, Lesbians, and bisexuals, but I do not know how to do that without the concept of sexual orientation. But I do not know how that concept makes any coherent sense at all without assuming that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood.

But I also want to accept, affirm, and celebrate the identities of transgender people, and I can't do so unless I deny the premise of sexual orientation. Yet, if I do that, the identities of gays, Lesbians, and bisexuals make no sense to me at all, and that makes me a bigoted homophobic barbarian. So, then I have to affirm that physiological sex is what makes a man a man and a woman a woman, but then I am a vile, irrational, troglodytic transphobic bigot.

Help me, please, because I don't wanna be a bigot. I don't wanna be a bigot! Waah!

Thursday, March 23, 2017

And yet another installment of Modern Love

RJD:  Hey, I don't mean to offend, but you're a sight for very sore eyes.

Woman:  That's not meaning to offend, but what do you mean?

RJD:  Well.

Woman:  You're blushing.

RJD:  Am I that obvious?

Woman:  Yes, and before you get your hopes up, I must tell you that I don't go for men.  Sorry.

RJD:  Who you calling a man?

Woman:  Huh?  You!  Your Adam's Apple is so big, you could garrote someone with it.

RJD:  Whoa!  It's obviously not my place to tell you who you should be attracted to, but I need to call you out on your harmful, demeaning, and violent cissexism.

Woman:  Cis-what?

RJD:  You think I am not a woman because of what you perceive to be my 'male' anatomy.  That's a cissexist denial of my womanhood and my humanity.  

Woman:  Look, dude, and you are a dude--

RJD:  No, no, I am a woman.

Woman:  Do you have a penis?

RJD:  That's a rude question.

Woman:  Do you have a penis?

RJD:  Yes, and it's a girl's penis.  It's demeaning of you to want to debate my humanity.  Trans lives matter.  You want to erase my existence.  Fuck you and fuck the state, my womanhood is not a debate.

Woman:  Oh, I'm sorry.  I hurt you.  No, don't cry.  Listen, what can I do to make it up to you?

RJD:  Don't misgender me.  Don't be so cissexist.  Don't be a transphobe.

Woman:  I promise.  But can I do more?

RJD:  Well...

Woman:  You're blushing again...  Come on, it's alright.  It's just us women here.  You can tell me.

RJD:  Would you be willing to go down on me?

Woman:  Oh, okay.  You want me to suck your girl dick?

RJD:  Yes, please.

Woman:  Hold on.

RJD:  Oh, oh, thanks for this, yeah, right there, yeah, that's great external validation.  Yeah, yeah, oh, AAAH!  OH, MY GOD!  NO!  NO!

Woman:  Now, you're a woman, BITCH!  (exits)

(RJD collapses to the floor, holding his crotch.)

Sunday, March 5, 2017

A review of The Porning of America (2008)

I rate it two stars out of five.

I knew that my country had fallen into the pornographic sewer, but until I had read this book, I did not know how far. That's the reason I give the book two stars: It taught me something. I did not know, for instance, that mainstream ad campaigns now incorporate allusions to the money shot and porn facials. This is, of course, sickening and depressing, but I did learn something I did not know, and because I am not a Republican dittohead, I consider this a good thing. 

Otherwise, though, the book is idiocy. The authors wrote this book to sound the alarm about violently degrading porn that might well bring Nazi horrors to these shores and the generally porned atmosphere that threatens the innocence of children. But the authors make it very clear that they are not against all porn. Porn that doesn't celebrate domination of men over women but recognizes everyone's sexual joy is actually good. But porn that is stuck in the thesis-antithesis of domineering stud and submissive slut is really bad. This produces Nazi porn and leads straight to the horrors of Abu Ghraib. 

The book is pretty much a plea for a Hegelian dialectic of porn, in which the end of history happens when everyone acknowledges one another as a happy and equally empowered sex worker (as long as the sex workers are of legal age, or course, and their videos are kept in places where the kids can't find them). The authors actually suggest that good sex education programs can bring this about. So much for the authors' concern about a child's innocence, I guess. 

I could imagine a teacher asking, "Okay, class, why is bukakke bad porn?" One kid raises his hand, "Because the sperm sometimes gets on the lens and then you can't see nothing." "No," the teacher says somewhat irked, "it's bad because the woman is merely passive and not empowered." And the teacher shows good porn directed by Jenna Jameson. It's good, the teacher explains, because although the actresses seem to be depraved, filthy sluts, that's okay because, well, a woman is directing it and that means a woman now will receive her long overdue Hegelian recognition as a porn king! Isn't that inspirational, kiddies? Geez.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Hey, SJWs, where is your indignation?

Diatonic music is not more "natural" than dodecaphony. If people grew up with "atonal" and not "tonal" music, they would think Schönberg's String Quartets to be harmonious and Bach's Well-Tempered Klavier to be cacophonous. And yet we have the opposite situation: People grow up thinking that the social construct of the heptatonic scale is "normal" and "natural", causing lovers of tone rows to be depressed, despondent, and eventually suicidal. This is OUTRAGEOUS. Tonal EQUALITY now!

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Conceive Now!

Hey, everyone, Hallowe'en is only about 9 months away, so let's start conceiving ideas about really offensive costumes, the kind that will melt all the Yale Undergraduates. I have a few myself:

1. Donald Trump culturally appropriating the pussy cap.
2. Martin Luther in a Jewish Prayer Shawl
3. Caitlyn Jenner dressed in nothing but a jockstrap.
4. A Lesbians' sperm donor wearing a paternity petition.
5. Eve Ensler

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

A question for Zack Ford

Zack Ford, the LGBT Section's editor for ThinkProgress, would say, I think, that the denial of the gay, Lesbian, or bisexual identity constitutes hateful bigotry as does the denial of the trans identity.  Okay, if that's the case, then I have this question for him.  Who is the hateful bigot in the video?  Magdalen Berns, who because she wants to maintain her Lesbian identity must deny the claims of transwomen, or the MTF, who to maintain 'her' trans identity must deny biological sex and thereby make complete and utter nonsense of the Lesbian identity?