Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Same-sex "marriage" is separate from same-sex sexuality, Mr. Ford.

Zack Ford tweeted this an hour ago "... same-sex marriage [sic] and same-sex sexuality can't be separated"

The two are separate because the re-definition of "marriage" required to include same-sex couples means that "marriage" no longer can imply sexual or erotic relations of any sort. This because there is no way to come up with a conception of marital consummation that will apply equally to same- and opposite-sex couples. Defining consummation as coitus is heterosexist bigotry. Defining consummation as any act of penetration excludes gay men who prefer frottage and Lesbians who eschew strap-ons and fisting, and if you define sex as anything that could lead to orgasm, given the infinite number of fetishes, anything could constitute "marital consummation" ranging from walking around barefoot to wearing a bathing cap to crying.

The individual fetish thus determines "marital consummation", thereby making it too subjective for a legal definition. Thus, "marriage" laws must jettison the legal concept of "marital consummation" altogether and therewith the notion that "marriage", be it same-sex or opposite-sex, has anything to do with sexuality.

"Marriage" now is nothing but a way to file joint tax returns and share pensions.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Seriously?

The Left (at least on Twitter) is now aping John Oliver, chanting about the Trump Presidency, "This is not normal! This is not normal!" What? And having two mommies is normal? "Girls" with penises are normal? Breastfeeding "men" are normal? And I thought the very concept of "normal" was a social construct devised by the powers that be to make the marginalized internalize their own oppression. The Left can go fuck itself.

I gotta ask.



Who is the bigot in this video? The Lesbian who insists upon a biological basis for man- and womanhood and thereby flatly denies the transgenderist concept of 'gender identity' or the transwoman who flatly denies that biological sex has anything to do with man- and womanhood and thereby makes complete and utter nonsense out of the very concept of sexual orientation?


Sunday, October 23, 2016

A friendly, periodic, prophylactic reminder

 Our right to petition for a redress of grievances has NEVER been and is not contingent upon the exercise of the franchise. So, when you parrot, "If you don't vote, you can't bitch," you are just telling everyone within earshot or who has access to your feed that you flunked civics class. Got that? Good.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Sexual Assault?

A legal definition of a sexual act is necessary for there to be a classification of sexual assault, and I don’t see how such a classification is possible if sex is now to be understood as the Department of Justice wants us to understand it, as an internal sense of gender and, hence, an incorporeal identity. One could respond that the premise of modern sexual assault law has nothing to do with sexual or gender identity but simply that the victim feels sexual assault to be more heinous than other kinds of assault. But doesn’t this just beg the question of what constitutes sexual assault? If nothing bodily picks out a person’s sex--and according to the DOJ Dear Colleague Letter to say otherwise constitutes constitutionally impermissible gender stereotyping--then how can any bodily assault be ‘sexual’?  Why should assaults involving penises and vaginas be considered "sexual" while those involving hands and faces are not when the former have been deemed to be as asexual as the latter?

There’s another problem with classifying assault as sexual. There are just too many fetishes, and if we included them all in the definition of sexual assault, then we would have to acknowledge such things as foot and hand fetishes, which would make unwanted handshakes or stepping on another’s toes sexual assault. This is obviously absurd, but doesn’t the principle of equality that underpins the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” demand equal treatment under the law of the sexual preferences of all consenting adults?   This would require the recognition of all fetishes under the rubric of "sexual assault", but doing so would criminalize normal everyday human interaction. Ignoring all fetishes would mean ignoring all the hand and foot fetishes along with the penis and vagina fetishes and thereby abolish the concept of 'sexual assault' altogether.   But how can there be any middle ground? If you define sexual acts as coitus, that’s heterosexist bigotry. Define them to include various penetrations of the vagina or by the penis, you are trivializing the sexual choices of foot fetishists, hand fetishists, and so on and so on, and thereby denying the dignity of their sexual lives and choices. You are also implicitly singling out some parts of the anatomy as sexual, and that, once again, runs afoul of the DOJ’s New Doctrine of Gender Identity.

Yes, I know that all this sounds quite silly, but silliness is no longer an objection. Thirty years ago most people regarded the idea of same-sex “marriage” to be silly. Most people now would think classifying anatomical expectations of sex as gender stereotyping to be silly. And yet both these ideas now have the force of law behind them.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Locker room banter among Neo-cons

"Hey, you just start bombing 'em. You don't have to wait."

"Yeah, and give the kids Tic-Tacs so they'll smile for the cameras."

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Progressives apparently require lobotomies

A guy named Bill Mitchell tweeted: "The same Liberals passing laws saying our daughters can be forced to shower naked with boys are now upset Trump entered a dressing room?"

To which the LGBT Section Editor of ThinkProgress, Zack Ford, responded:

"Trump is a cisgender man, not a transgender woman. I don't know why conservatives are struggling with this so much today."

When people undress or are naked, 'gender identity' is not the first thing that people notice. It is not even the second, third, or fourth thing. It never ceases to amaze me how lobotomized LGBT Apologists such as Zack Ford require us to be so that we can accept their raving, barking nonsense without question.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Spelling is crucial

I shall not eat at that Turkish Restaurant because I am xenophobic.

I shall not even try to walk across the floor because I am Zenophobic.

See the difference?

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

And, yes, another letter to the Editor written umsonst

Donald J. Trump has loudly and proudly endorsed the targeting of the families of terrorists, but this advocacy of the Nazi Policy of collective punishment was not enough to doom his candidacy. His decade old jokes about sexual assault apparently are enough to doom his candidacy. How is it that the promise to implement a bloody policy of the most evil political movement of the last century is not enough to disqualify one for the highest office in the land, but crass, offhand jokes caught on tape are? This worries me. As bad as jokes about sexual assault are, surely such jokes are not nearly as dangerous as the obstreperous championing of the stuff that Hitler’s goons did.

All this talk about sexual assault, though, does have me wondering how there can even be such a thing in the light of the Letter issued by Department of Justice regarding the rights of transgender students. That Letter, as you know, rules that denying transgender students access to facilities that match their gender identity constitutes discrimination based upon sex and thereby violates Title IX. The DOJ Letter does indeed explicitly state that sex encompasses the concept of "gender identity”. This inclusion requires that sex be re-defined as something that has nothing to do with anatomy. Otherwise, "gender identity" could not be included in the category of sex. Therefore, the DOJ Letter has re-defined sex to mean something that is incorporeal. If sex, then, is incorporeal, how can any bodily assault be classified as “sexual”?

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Where's the outrage?

Calling Trump's pussy grab comment misogynistic eclipses the many men with vaginas and is therefore transphobic.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Bigotry Update

Bigotry update: The following items are now considered hate speech. Saying any of them means that you are impervious to Public Reason and should be made to live under an overpass with the Registered Sex Offenders.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Having a mother and a father is the norm.
Saying "mother" and "father" instead of "parent".
Men have penises.
Women have vaginas.
A clitoridectomy is female genital mutilation.
Abortion is a woman's concern.
Menstruation is a woman's concern.
Drag queens should march in the Gay Pride Parade.
Lesbians do not have penises.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

I am out! I am free!

It's been a long and rocky road, but I can now finally admit the truth to you and, more importantly, myself. I am gay. It’s such a relief to be out. Finally! After so many years of deceit! Mr. Southern, would you please marry me?





Wednesday, September 28, 2016

And yet another letter the St. Louis Post-Dispatch won't publish

Dear Editor,

I read your paper's Q & A about gender identity with a desperate interest. I was hoping it would help my solve my identity crisis. I do not know if I am a straight man or a non-op Lesbian transwoman. Alas, your article only deepened my confusion. You write that gender identity is a feeling. Okay, well, I feel a very strong attraction to women. Does that mean I should identify as a man? But if I think I’m a man because I like women, wouldn’t that make me a vile, homophobic bigot? Lesbians like women, too, you know. Should I identify as a man because I feel comfortable wearing pants? But Hillary Clinton feels comfortable wearing pants, too, and she’s a woman (I think).

The article says gender is a social construct that varies from culture to culture. So, does that mean that gender identity varies as well? I like to cook. So, if I’m in a culture that deems cooking to be women’s work, should I identify as a woman? And if I am in a culture that deems cooking to be macho, should I identify as a man?

You do mention the possibility that the brain might determine gender identity but caution that the studies that suggest this are preliminary and provisional. Nevertheless, you do write that those who identify as men have brains somewhat differently structured from those who identify as women. But that offers me no help whatsoever. If different structures in the rest of the body do not determine manhood or womanhood, then why should different structures in the brain? If a transwoman can say that her penis is a woman’s penis because it belongs to a self-identified woman, then why can’t I say that my brain, whatever its physical structure, belongs to whatever gender I finally feel it’s best to identify with?

Your article, I regret to say, was no help at all. I still do not know whether I’m a straight man or a non-op Lesbian transwoman, and until I get this sorted out, I won’t know which public restroom I should use. Darn!

Sincerely,

Someone who might as well be an amoeba

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Transgenderist Anthropology and Prostitution

The anthropology that underpins transgenderism, namely the complete disassociation of the mind from the body, is precisely the anthropology necessary to understand prostitution as a "job like any other". If one locates human identity entirely in the mind, then there can be no parts of the body considered so integral to personhood that they should be off limits to the profanations of commerce. The entire body is merely an instrument, which means that one's "privates" have as much significance as one's arms and legs, and just as we do not think it is any violation of our dignity as humans to put our limbs to work, it should not be deemed below our dignity to put our "privates" to work either because neither our limbs nor our "privates" have anything to do with our identities as men and women. They are all equally instrumental. It is little wonder then that George Soros is funding both the Transgender Movement and the Pimp Lobby.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Nota Bene

The LGBT Alliance has trivialized the concept of bigotry to the point of absurdity. When "bigot" means girls who don't want to undress in front of exposed penises, then the concept no longer can be taken seriously. Thus, the word and the people to which it once referred are erased from serious public discourse. There are no bigots anymore. And this has done nothing but embolden the Trumpkins to let their "bigotry" hang out like the junk of transwomen in girls' locker rooms. Thanks a big bunch, LGBT Alliance!

Saturday, September 3, 2016

There is no way to escape bigotry

If you are for gay rights, then you accept the concept of sexual orientation. But sexual orientation presupposes a genital basis to manhood and womanhood. This directly contradicts the central premise of gender identity. Therefore, the very concept of sexual orientation is transphobic.

If you support trans rights, then you accept the concept of gender identity. That concept locates the basis for manhood and womanhood (and whatever) in the mind, making the body irrelevant to one's identity as a man or a woman (or whatever). This just makes complete nonsense out of the concept of sexual orientation and thereby erases the identities of Gays and Lesbians. Thus, support for the transgender community entails homophobia.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Sunday, August 7, 2016

A Sound Bite

The very concept of sexual orientation presumes the bodily basis of the male and female identities and, thus, contradicts the current doctrine of "gender identity". Therefore, the concept of sexual orientation is necessarily transphobic. The LGBT Alliance is a lie.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Not just moronic, but oxymoronic

Transgenderism used to rely upon heteronormativity as a source of identity. In fact, this remains the main second-wave feminist critique of transgenderism, that it re-inforces the gender rôles of heteronormativity. But the T people are supposed to be in an alliance with the L and the G, whose main goal is the overthrow of the source of all homophobia, which is--ding, ding, ding--heteronormativity. So, how the deuce can an alliance work between the foes of heteronormativity and those who need it for their core identities?

Enter the New and Improved Doctrine of Gender Identity, which holds that an individual's identity as a man, woman, or whatever attaches to nothing but an ipse dixit. This liberates gender identity not only from the body but from those homophobic gender rôles as well and thereby makes the T safe for the LGBT Alliance.

Not so fast. The isolation of gender identity to an ipse dixit has another thorny problem for the alliance: if being a man or a woman is nothing but an ipse dixit, then what is the basis for romantic/erotic attraction? The very concept of sexual orientation presumes the corporeal definitions of man and woman, definitions which according to the New Doctrine of Gender Identity can only be transphobic bigotry. The only way to be entirely free of transphobic bigotry is to change the basis of romantic/erotic attraction from corporeal identity to self-professed gender identity, but this guts the concept of sexual orientation entirely and therewith the identities of gays and Lesbians.

In other words, you are either transphobic or homophobic. The LGBT Alliance is a hopeless performative contradiction.


Monday, July 18, 2016

Quod erat Demonstrandum

"There is no justification for violence against law enforcement."

Therefore, Our War for Independence was unjustified.

Therefore, the governments that resulted from said war are illegitimate.

Therefore, the laws promulgated by those governments might as well be orders from the Mafia.

Therefore, the enforcers of these orders are simply Mafia Thugs.

Violence against Mafia Thugs is always justified.

An Opinion in Some Places

Quoth our dear leader, "There is no justification for violence against law enforcement."

A cop once told me that in some places basic arithmetic is an opinion. And cops can never be wrong. So, if the certainty of basic arithmetic is contingent upon location, I see no reason why the certainty of the above declaration by our president should not be as well. Therefore, the claim that nothing justifies violence against the police is, just like basic arithmetic, an opinion in some places.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

An Observation


Tom Wilkinson portrayed a heterodox parish Priest who sleeps with his maid in Priest. In The Exorcism of Emily Rose he plays an extremely orthodox priest who probably regards all fornicators as possessed.

In Fifty Shades of Grey, Dakota Johnson portrays an ingénue, easily seduced into sex slavery by money and power. In Cymbeline she plays Imogen, one of Shakespeare's most resolutely chaste heroines.

Derek Jacobi is openly gay and yet appeared in the Opus Dei propaganda film, There Be Dragons.

Jane Fonda portrayed Nancy Reagan in The Butler and did a strip tease in Barbarella.

Monica Bellucci portrayed the Blessed Virgin Mary in The Passion of the Christ and played a Bond Girl in Spectre.

Keifer Sutherland opposes torture and yet starred in the long-running pro-torture propaganda television series, 24.

Actors are whores.


Saturday, July 9, 2016

The "Cotton Ceiling"

It should be noted (because the mainstream news outlets do not note this) that the LGBT Alliance is fundamentally insane because at the very core of this alliance lies a flagrant violation of the law of non-contradiction.

The T want to be treated according to their "gender identity", regardless of operative status. This means that if a natal man identifies as a Lesbian woman, then other Lesbians should regard "her" as a potential date, whether "she" has a penis or no. To do otherwise would be a denial of "her" identity, but the acceptance of "gender identity" with all of its erotic implications entails a jettisoning of the very concept of sexual orientation.

Thus, Lesbianism can't mean attraction to anatomical women because that would be transphobic. Gays can't say that they are attracted only to anatomical men because that would be tantamount to a denial of pre-op and non-op gay transmen's identities, and that would be transphobic. But the Lesbians and gays would thereby be denying their own identities. The LGBT Alliance is one big huge logical contradiction.

There is only one way to salvage the reasonableness of the LGBT Alliance: declare basic, rudimentary logic to be a religious tenet and, thus, impermissible to use in public discourse.


Sunday, June 26, 2016

June 26, 2016

It is now June 26, 2016, the one year anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, arguably the most absurd Supreme Court Decision ever handed down. It is absurd for at least three reasons:

1) The decision rested primarily upon the Due Process Clause, which means that the state's refusal to regulate a relationship as a "marriage" is a deprivation of liberty. State regulation of anything is a constriction of liberty. It is blatantly contradictory and, hence, nonsensical to say that the refusal to constrict liberty amounts to a deprivation of liberty.

2) Obergefell mandates the listing of same-sex couples on birth certificates. It is CATEGORICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for two people of the same sex to make a baby. Justice Anthony Kennedy thereby declared rudimentary human biology to be unconstitutional.

3) Obergefell says that love is impossible without state recognition and thereby makes the state into the dispenser of what St. Paul calls the greatest of the three theological virtues. Thus, Obergefell establishes the state as the religion of love and thereby violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is a demonstrable idiot.

(Yes, I am a homophobic bigot. The only way not to be a homophobic bigot is to be impervious to basic logic and basic biology, and the only way to do that is by way of a frontal lobotomy. I'd rather be a homophobic bigot than lobotomize myself. Got that?)

Friday, June 17, 2016

The New Calvinism

The LGBT Agenda is the new Calvinism in this sense. One wag famously described Calvinism as "damned if you do, and damned if you don't because there was no way to appease the whimsical Deus absconditus.

We have a parallel case with the LGBT agenda. There is no way to appease it. If you embrace heteronormativity, you are embracing the source of all that oppresses gays and Lesbians and are ipso facto a genocidal bigot, and if you reject heteronormativity, you are rejecting the only thing that can give transgender people an objective, public identity and are ipso facto a genocidal bigot. Therefore, you are cast into the outer darkness of bigotry if you accept heteronormativity, and damned to bigotry if you don't. The LGBT god is just as whimsical as John Calvin's.


Tuesday, June 7, 2016

What makes you a bigot?

It's time to update the "what makes you a bigot" list.

If you think women are by nature caregivers and men by nature warriors, you are a sexist, heterosexist, and, thus, homophobic bigot.

If you think it insane that men, just because they are more nurturing than aggressive, identify as women and vice versa, then you are a transphobic bigot.

And if you think these two statements contradict one another, then you are a bigoted simpleton in woeful need of an introductory gender studies class.

Got that? There will be a quiz.

What I learned today

The German for "Safe Space" is "Lebensraum".

Monday, June 6, 2016

I just have to spit this out

When you ask the LGBT lunatics why sexual dimorphism is not normative, they will point to the existence of intersex people. When you point out that the intersex condition is an abnormality, they will say that the incidence of having green eyes is a statistical abnormality as well, and yet no one considers having green eyes to be a disability. They thereby implicitly make the claim that the standards for physical normality are entirely social constructions.

Hence, blind people do not suffer from blindness, instead they suffer from society's irrational prejudice for sight. I do not suffer from cerebral palsy, instead I suffer from society's irrational prejudice for a fine motor agility, and so on and so forth. Physical normality is not anything that nature prescribes because nature is completely and utterly mindless. Fine. But medical science can't get off the ground without some notion of a natural normative standard for the human body. Otherwise, it becomes just an imposition of arbitrary prejudices. Social constructivism, the ideological puppet master behind most if not all of this LGBT nonsense, is really dangerous lunacy.

Saturday, May 28, 2016

I tried to be nice

I met a same-sex couple this morning who just got "married". I did not want to be rude. So, I said the nicest thing I could say without compromising my principles (and lobotomizing myself). I congratulated them on their newly-acquired ability to file joint tax returns on both the state and federal level. I'm supposed to appear before the local Human Rights Tribunal on Tuesday. Damn.


Friday, May 27, 2016

Casuist Emergency!

On twitter I got into a debate with a Canadian who pretty much ordered me not to assume gender under any circumstances. I must assume gender neutrality until the person makes an explicit claim of self-identification. So, I sent this person a centerfold of a Playboy Playmate from 1979 and asked, "Is it wrong for me to assume the person pictured here is a woman?" The Canadian answered, "Yes."

My question is this: Did I commit a mortal sin by sending this lunatic an impure picture, or since I did so in the hope of bringing kanuk (improvised pronoun for the Canadian gender) back in alignment with kanuks rational soul, does the principle of double affect apply?


Thursday, May 26, 2016

Pornographic Anthropology

The anthropology that underpins the LGBT agenda is exactly the same as that which underpins pornography. According to LGBTism your identity as a man or woman is as locked up in the mind as is the Cartesian Ego. It does not and cannot extend to the body. Thus, just as in Cartesian anthropology the body can be regarded only as a machine, the sexed body in LGBTism can be nothing but an instrument.

If our sexed bodies are not integral parts of our identities as men and women but merely instruments, then it is hard to understand why they would be deserving of any special dignity. We don't accord the tools we use any special dignity. True, we take care of them. We'll keep our shovels sharp and clean, for instance, but only so we can keep exploiting them for digging ditches and shoveling all sorts of muck and dreck.

This is precisely how porn stars view their bodies--as mere tools--, and because their bodies are mere tools, they do not view their work as in any way degrading because their identities are completely separate from their performing bodies.

This very same dualism obtains in LGBT Dogma. It has to be so. Otherwise, Caitlyn would be Bruce, and that's just vile hate speech. The sexed body is completely divorced from personal identity, and that's exactly what porn stars say. It's the only way they can live with themselves--by essentially saying they're incorporeal angels rather than embodied whores.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Another False and Slanderous Analogy

The analogy that Loretta Lynch drew between North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill and Jim Crow Segregation Laws is demonstrably false. The evil of the latter was the segregation itself and not the criteria by which it was done. Jim Crow, in other words, was unjust because those laws mandated segregation of the races. It was not unjust because Bull Connor and his like refused to segregate by a mystical concept of “racial identity” instead of race.

Those who vehemently denounce NC's bathroom bill are not objecting to segregation of public facilities. They are objecting only to how the segregation is done. If the Jim Crow analogy were true, then the opponents of HB2 would call for the abolition of segregation altogether, but they are not doing that. Not even Loretta Lynch.

Of course, this won't stop them from using this analogy because logic means nothing to them. They will use this analogy because it allows them to demonize anyone who disagrees with them as a racist. That's what many of the same people did in the "marriage equality" debate when they incessantly compared the non-recoginition of same-sex “marriage” to the criminalization of interracial marriage. It did not bother them at all that this analogy was risibly false. The stated rationale of the anti-miscegenation laws was to prevent interracial breeding. So, if we are to take the comparison between anti-miscegenation laws and the non-recognition of same-sex “marriage” seriously, then the logic of that analogy dictates that the reason behind the opposition to “marriage equality” must have been the prevention of same-sex breeding. Even opponents of “marriage equality”, as troglodytic and unenlightened as they may be, know that you don’t need the law to keep same-sex couples from reproducing. Basic human biology does precisely that already. The analogy was inane. But proponents of “marriage equality" didn't care. Again, they just wanted to demonize their opponents as racists, basic logic be damned, in the hopes of shaming them into silence. The transgender activists are using this same demagogic strategy, and it is mendacious and loathsome.

The State of Intellectual Discourse on Twitter

"How do you define gender identity?"

"Eat a dick you piece of shit."

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Best Thing I Have Read Today

"Tim Cook has no trouble repressing the fate of untold thousands of Foxconn workers, who in China assemble Apple Products under slave-like conditions.  After all he has announced with a grand gesture his solidarity with the underprivileged by promoting the abolition of segregation by sex."
                                                                                               --Slavoj Žižek

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Eric Zorn Asks

“I feel the need to come with a derisive, schoolyard-style nickname for people who disagree with me -- something that suggests not only that they're wrong, not only that they're ignorant, but also that they are naive dupes who blindly follow ideology, and whose differences with me can only be explained by their credulity and their fealty to a corrupted worldview that, for some damn reason, they find comforting; a taunt that gainsays the idea that reasonable people might differ. Any suggestions?”

My suggestion: Gender Studies Professor

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Loretta Lynch

Our brave Attorney General Loretta Lynch thinks the government of her assigned state of birth, North Carolina, is engaging in Jim Crow-like bigotry for segregating public facilities according to biological sex instead of the brand new concept of gender identity. Putting aside what one would think would be obvious to any highly-trained J.D, namely that the analogy to Jim Crow is at best dubious because the evil of its laws consisted in the segregation itself and NOT by what criteria the segregation was done, Lynch’s push for the recognition of gender identity is problematic. How do you define gender identity?

Any definition of gender identity you can come up with runs afoul of either the claims of the transgender community or the wishes of the LGBT Alliance in general.

If you define gender by anatomy, then obviously you are contradicting the claims of women who had or still have penises. If you define it by behaviour, dress, or any other outward appearance, then you are making gender identity dependent upon the social construction of heteronormative gender rôles. Not only does that contradict the claims of many transgender people who, despite having been raised to conform to these rôles, have struggled to defy them, it also brings back the very thing that gays and Lesbians along with feminists have sought and worked tirelessly to overcome, namely traditional gender rôles.

So, if gender identity cannot be defined by anatomy, behaviour, or appearance, then what's left? Nothing besides the individual's say so, and an individiual’s say so is hardly a definition.

Gender identity lacks a definition. It is as metaphysically nebulous as souls are to atheists, and if we can't ask any one to accept something for which there can be no concrete definition, we certainly can't expect people to accept the impossibly murky concept of "gender identity".

Friday, May 6, 2016

Once again, how the deuce do you define "gender identity"?

Any definition of gender identity you can come up with runs afoul of either the claims of the transgender community or the wishes of the LGBT Alliance in general.

If you define GI by anatomy, then obviously you are contradicting the claims of women who had or still have penises. And if you define it by behaviour, dress, or any other outward appearance, then you are making gender identity dependent upon the social construction of heteronormative gender rôles. Not only does that contradict the claims of many transgender people who, despite having been raised to conform to these rôles, have struggled to defy them, it also brings back the very thing that gays and Lesbians along with feminists have sought and worked tirelessly to overcome, namely traditional gender rôles.

So, if gender identity cannot be defined by anatomy, behaviour, or appearance, then what's left? Nothing besides the individual's ipse dixit, and an ipse dixit is hardly a definition. Gender identity lacks a definition. It is as metaphysically nebulous as souls are to atheists, and if we can't ask any one to accept something for which there can be no concrete definition, we certainly can't expect people to accept the impossibly murky concept of "gender identity".

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Conundrum du jour

Anyone who objects to anything that gays and Lesbians want is a right-wing religious bigot.  Anyone who objects to any demands of the transgender community is also a right-wing religious bigot.  Okay, so who, pray tell, is the right-wing religious bigot in this latest contretemps?

Friday, April 29, 2016

Pope Francis, is suicide still a sin?

We can no longer consider all such cases to be gravely sinful situations and thus deprived of Grace. Therefore the Church must accompany such persons closely and in certain cases include access to the sacraments. How that works exactly with a corpse remains a mystery. I'm sure Cardinal Kasper can enlighten us on this.

The root of all bigotry

Language categorizes, categorizing is stereotyping, stereotyping is bigotry. Ergo, language is bigotry. We should grunt at one another.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Yet another argument against same-sex "marriage"

“Marriage Equality” will destroy paternity laws.

The Obergefell Decision mandates the extension of all the incidents of marriage to same-sex “marriage”. Probably the most salient of these is the presumption of paternity, which will have to be changed to the genderless “presumption of parentage”. The basis of this presumption will have to change as well. Up until now the basis has been biology but this won’t work for same-sex couples because no same-sex couple can have a child on their own. Therefore, the basis for this new presumption of parentage will have to change to contractual intent (this has actually already happened in several jurisdictions). Presumption of parentage cannot be based on both biology and intent, it must be one or the other. Otherwise, there would be a mess of conflicting claims between same-sex couples and their surrogates or sperm donors.

If contractual intent and not biology determines parentage, then how can the laws regarding paternity suits stand? They can’t. Paternity laws are premised upon exactly that which “marriage equality” denies, that there is a connection between reproduction and parenthood, and it must deny this connection. The arguments for “marriage equality” go down the drain if it is admitted that parenting is normatively a sexual, not an asexual, enterprise. And if parenting is normatively a sexual enterprise, then the state has a good reason to single out heterosexual relationships for special regulation, but that now, of course, is appalling bigotry. The Supreme Court has so ruled.

Because intent determines parentage, lack of intent will determine non-parentage, and, thus, lack of intent becomes a full-proof defense against a Paternity Suit. A man who had a one-night-stand that was not fully protected can always say that his intent was only to have a good time and NOT to become a parent. This vitiates the whole point of Paternity Laws.

Blame Descartes

Just as in Cartesian Philosophy there is no relation between the mind and the body, in the doctrine of gender identity, there is no relation between gender and sex.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world

Just waiting for someone to get fired for having whistled "Lola" in the elevator.

So, are there any other lunacies I must accept...

…in order to be re-admitted to civilized society?

Let’s see, I must accept same-sex “marriage”. If I don't that must mean that I want to prevent same-sex couples from breeding because not recognizing same-sex "marriage" is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as criminalizing interracial marriage.

I must accept “same-sex birth certificates” even though it is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a same-sex couple to make a baby.

I must accept that girls have penises and boys have vaginas.
I must accept that the sex of parents does not matter and that, therefore, amoebas raised me.

Are there any more lunacies I must accept? Please, tell me.

I want an answer

How does one know when one is outside the Cave and finally basking in the sunlight of Platonic Truth?

Just a quick thought

Nietzsche could not do without the concept of eternity because without it everything he cherished would lose value.  In other words, he could not refute Parmenides.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Progressive Journalist tries to help with my identity crisis

Me:
I have an Identity Crisis! I don't know if I'm a Straight Man or a Butch Non-Op Lesbian Transwoman. And according to the current concept of gender identity, there is no way of knowing one way or the other. Gender identity is really silly.

PJ:
If that confusion is causing you distress, I’d recommend seeing a therapist.

If you are lying, I’d point out that the fact that you know you’re lying disproves your point quite neatly.

Me:
There’s no way of knowing because gender identity is an unintelligible black box.

PJ:
Well, if you are a Butch Non-Op Lesbian Transwoman, then you should come out as such and help others better understand your identity. Only you can make sense of what it means to you.

Me:
It’s a thought experiment to show that gender identity has absolutely no functional meaning. Once again, according to the current conception of gender identity, you may not say that the penis determines maleness. Ian Mcewan said just that and was, as you know, pilloried for having said so. Gender identity cannot attach to certain ways of thinking because that’s neurosexism. Gender identity cannot attach to any sort of appearance such as dress, facial hair, etc., because that would be evil gender stereotyping. I’ve exhausted all the outward expressions to which gender identity can attach, and if gender identity has no outward expression, it is incommunicable and, thus, unintelligible. My thought experiment picks out two “gender identities” that are to all appearances EXACTLY the same, the only difference being the name of the “gender identity”. If two things are exactly the same, then, well, the different names they have cannot make a difference. This whole business with “gender identity” is a silly name game, and until you can come up with something other than a wholly incommunicable private feeling to which gender identity corresponds, I shall continue to stand by this point.

PJ:
Are you a Butch Non-Op Lesbian Transwoman? If not, how do you know?

Me:
There is no way for me to know given the current conception of ‘gender identity’. That’s the point.

PJ:
Well, how do you think about yourself? How do you dress yourself? How do you carry yourself? When you’re referred to as “him,” does that seem to fit? When you look in the mirror, do you see a body that represents who you feel you are? In particular, do you feel like having a penis matches your sense of self? Do you think it matches the way you feel most oriented toward sexuality?

And for all of these questions: Why or why not?

Me:
I think I’m a man, but I’m going by criteria that are horribly heterosexist, and the new wave of political correctness has forbidden the use of those criteria. I am supposed to use the criteria of ‘gender identity’, and according to those I do not know what to think. "Straight man” and "pre-op butch Lesbian woman" become synonyms, and the only reason why I would opt for the former is that it takes less time to pronounce.

I usually dress in pants and a shirt. Again, dress cannot determine my gender identity because that would be subordinating my identity to the vicissitudes of social construction.

I never got a chance to choose my pronouns. They were imposed upon me from the moment the physician said, “It’s a boy,” at my birth. I have never objected to this imposition but that’s only because I took the heteronormativity behind it for granted. I’m not allowed to do that anymore. I don’t object to masculine pronouns used to refer to me, and I would get very irate if someone would call me “she” but that’s only because I have internalized the heteronormativity that was imposed upon me. It has nothing to do with ‘gender identity’.

I cannot tell if I am a man or a woman by looking at my body in the mirror. To say that the body has anything to do with gender identity is to suggest that there are no women with penises, and that’s a horridly transphobic thing to say, as Ian McEwan found out.

I can view my penis as a membrum Viri or as something that obviates my need to purchase a strap-on. Does not solve the dilemma at all.

PJ:
I think the problem is that you’re trying to use an overgeneralized understanding of political correctness to obviate what actually defines gender.

The issue isn’t that dress, or appearance, or bodies do or don’t conform to heteronormativity. We have the spectrums of gender and expression that we have. The problem is trying to impose those on people who don’t identify the way you think they should. That doesn’t mean you can’t use them to define yourself.

It’s not a problem to say, “I have a penis and it matches how I understand my gender and so I’m not transgender.” It’s only a problem to say “all people who have penises are men regardless of whether their anatomy matches their identity and sense of self.”

Just because most of our concepts of gender have been socially constructed over time doesn’t mean they aren’t powerful forces, nor does it mean they cannot be internalized, nor does it mean that they are not significant factors for how we understand our identities and achieve positive mental health outcomes.

Me:
And, again, if the determination of gender identity varies so wildly from person to person such that there can be no reliable outward markers, then gender identity is not amenable to any kind of objective definition and, therefore, certainly not to a legal one.

And while I’m at it, I might as well ask this: As I understand it gender in gender studies used to be a social construct. Whereas sex was a given, the interpretation of it, i.e. gender, was purely a societal imposition. Now it is a core part of one’s identity. When exactly did this complete switcheroo take place? Of course, I am assuming that social construct is the opposite of core part of one’s identity. I suppose this assumption could be challenged, and even the core part of personal identity is a social construct, but if it is, then what are we to make of the central claim of transgender activists, namely that their gender identities are being squashed by unfair social constructs? That one social construct is at war with another? Well, it’s possible, I guess, but if even one’s core identity is a social construct, then how the devil can it be a personal identity at all? Not in any Aristotelian sense according to which identity inheres in the person and is not imposed from without. And not in a Sartrean sense, if identity is understood to be personal meaning, for aren’t we all supposed to make our own meanings and not have them foisted upon us by society? 

 So, I ask you, when did gender cease to be a social construct and start being a personal identity or, if you doubt the premise of the question, how can a social construct be a personal identity? If you argue, as you do above, that social construction becomes a personal identity by internalization, then I still must ask how is that identity in any way personal? It sounds to me that instead it is an absorption of the personal into the general and is, therefore, a nullification of the former.

PJ:
Take a queer studies course, already. I’m not your gender identity tutor — particularly given you’ve shown no desire to actually learn about or respect people.


Me:
According to you one must have a birth certificate to know that one has been born and take a queer studies course just to know the difference between a man and a woman. Did you have some college professor or some government agency teach you which hole of yours takes food, too? Geez.


[Postscript:
Me:
Do you think people who deny that women have penises and men vaginas are morally bad people?

PJ:
It depends.

First, I'd ask why they care.

If they just don't know anything about trans people, I'd probably just call them ignorant. I'd still say they bear responsibility for learning about trans people so they don't propagate harm.

If, like you, they claim to know better and engage in the space every day and constantly badger and reject transgender people, then yes, definitely morally bad. You're ego-driven and only care about being right (which you aren't anyway), with zero concern for the harm you've been told you do.

Isn't that the very definition of being morally bad? Knowing you're doing harm and continuing to do the harmful thing anyway?

Me:
Yes, that’s a good definition. It attaches to something communicable unlike “gender identity” which does not. Look, if you can come up with a definition to replace the one that involves sex organs, then I’ll gladly abandon the notion that men have penises and women have vaginas. But you can’t come up with any definition because any definition will involve the very heteronormative stereotyping you and the LGBT movement profess to repudiate and want to demolish. So, “gender identity" remains undefined, and yet you castigate me for knowing what it is and yet not respecting it. No, PJ, I don’t know what it is. How the deuce am I supposed to know what something is that eludes definition? Something that lacks definition, and "gender identity" lacks definition, is unintelligible, and that means it is unknowable. I am sure that you as an atheist have made a similar or even the exact same point about the “soul”. Believers cannot define the “soul” because it has no definition. Therefore, it is unintelligible and, thus, unknowable. Well, “gender identity” has the exact same status as the “soul” does for atheists like you. And if you are not a bad person for not respecting the “soul”, you hardly can say that I am bad for not respecting “gender identity”.

PJ:
I don't believe in souls, but I don't reject people who do.

Me:
(I should have made the rather obvious point  that if you can't ask atheists to believe in souls, then you certainly can't demand that people believe in "gender identity", which is just as metaphysically nebulous as atheists suppose souls to be.  PJ, as his is wont, committed the sophistry of conflating the rejection of the person's belief with rejection of the person.  If he followed the logic of the analogy, which he decidedly did not do, then he would have to say that acceptance of people who believe in souls entails the belief in souls, but he did not want to do that and, thus, he fucked up the analogy.)

Again, you miss the point. If you want the law to make classifications according to “gender identity”, and you’ve made it very clear that you do, then “gender identity” must have a definition. But you’ll continue to ignore this obvious difficulty (which has been pointed out to you ad nauseam) because you have no answer for it except to offer the incredibly lame definition of facial hair, make of watch, and hair length. And I’m sure that my pointing out your repeated failure to acknowledge this definitional problem makes me a bad person in your eyes.]


Sunday, April 17, 2016

A question

Gender used to be a social construct, not it's a core part of one's identity.  How did this happen?

Old Joke

Q.  What is the difference between a terrorist and an LGBT Activist?

A.  You can negotiate with the former.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Put this on a T-Shirt

Help!  I have an Identity Crisis!  

I don't know if I'm a Straight Man or 

a Butch Pre-Op Lesbian Transwoman.

Thought Experiment

What is the difference between a Straight Man and a very Butch Pre-Op Lesbian Transwoman?

Friday, April 15, 2016

What if the Left tried to enforce "gender identity"

Scene:  In front of two restrooms at a public library.  A person is between both of them, guarding their entrances.

A man approaches.

Guard:  Good day, Person.  You need to use the facilities?

Man:  Er, yes.  If you will excuse me, er--

Guard:  Just a moment, Person.  For security reasons I have to ask you a few questions.

Man:   Look, I really have to--

Guard:   This will only take a few seconds.  Perverts have been deliberately using the wrong bathrooms, thinking they are making some kind of clever social experiment, and we need to make sure that you are using the rest room that matches your true gender identity.

Man:  My what?  Come on, just let me use the men's room.

Guard:  Oh, you identify as a man?

Man:  Huh?   Of course, I am a man.  Are you blind or what?

Guard:  Not the question I asked, Person.  Have you always identified yourself as a man?

Man:  Look, I'm a man.  Just let me--

Guard:  Again, that's not what I asked, Person.  Have you always identified yourself as a man?

Man:  I don't know.  I never thought about it.  But I'm a man.  Let me use the men's room, PLEASE!

Guard:  Why do you think you're a man?

Man:  BECAUSE I HAVE A PENIS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THAT'S ABOUT TO GUSH IF YOU DON'T MOVE OUT OF MY WAY.

Guard:  Shh!  This is a library, Person.

Man:  Oh, sorry.  But did I give the right answer?

Guard:  No.  That was a wrong and very bigoted answer, Person.  Women have penises, too.  (Man is about to slug the guard, but Guard pulls out his gun).  Calm down, Person, calm down. Remember, this is a library.  No violence in this bastion of learning.

Man:  Sorry, but can't you see that I really have to go?

Guard:  I understand that, Person.  But the human being doesn't live by biological functions alone.  The human needs an identity, and we still have not sorted yours out.  Now, try again.  Think this time.  Why do you think you are a man?

Man:  (reduced to tears)  Because I have a deep, low voice?  Will that do?  Please, please, let that be the right answer, please!

Guard:  No, you just misgendered Caitlynn Jenner, and that's transphobic bigotry.

Man:  Because I dress like a man?  Come on, please, presentation is all that matters in transland, right?

Guard:  Person, that is transstereotyping.  And butch Lesbians don what bigots deem to be (does air quotes) "masculine" attire.  You should be ashamed of yourself, bigot.

Man:  FUCK IT:  I'M A MAN BECAUSE SOCIETY WITH ITS RIGID GENDER ROLES HAVE STRAITJACKETED ME INTO THINKING I WAS A MAN, BUT I ALWAYS WANTED TO BE A BUTCH LESBIAN WOMAN WITH HER OWN NATURAL STRAP-ON.  BUT EVIL HETERONORMATIVE,  HETEROSEXIST, TRANSPHOBIC SOCIETY ALWAYS STIFLED MY TRUE IDENTITY.  THANKS FOR FINALLY GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS SOUL-CHANGING CATHARTHIS!

Guard:  Excellent, Ma'am.  This way, Ma'am.  (Points to the Ladies' Room.  Man rushes in.  Thereafter, all kinds of shrieks emanate from the Ladies' Room.  It sounds like something from a Freddy Krüger film.)  Sorry about the disturbance, folks, but we just got a new born-again identity.  CAN I GET AN AMEN!

You know you are a really pathetic loser...

...when you are writing your heart out to some pretty young woman and it suddenly dawns on you that you are attempting to re-write "Dover Beach".

Wittgenstein's Beetle in a Box

Something that is intelligible can only be so if it corresponds to something that is identifiable. For instance, sadness is (usually) identifiable by tears, anger by raised voices and tense glowers, and so on. Gender identity, on the other hand, does not have, according to current gender theory, any outward expression at all. Anatomy does not express gender identity because lots of transwomen have penises. Dress and behavior cannot express gender identity because such gender stereotyping would put gender in an oppressive box, and the whole idea of current gender theory is a rebellion against exactly that. So, if gender identity does not attach to anatomy, dress, or behaviour, to what outward expression does it attach?  Professor Reilly-Cooper contends (as do I and, I would hope, any person with a functioning intellect) that it does not attach to any outward expression at all and is, thus, as incommunicable and unintelligible as Wittgenstein’s Beetle in a Box.

A Question

Deutsche Bank has recently announced that it will not expand its operations in North Carolina because the bank is morally outraged that the state continues to segregate public rest rooms and locker rooms by sex instead of the black box of "gender identity".  Wow!  Bankers can perform moral outrage now?  Have Business Schools started requiring a class in moral outrage now?

And, yet, for all its moral outrage at the oh, so blatant atrocities happening right now in North Carolina, Deutsche Bank is set to expand its operations in Saudi Arabia,  a country that lets incorrectly dressed girls burn to death.

So, my question is this:  How did North Carolina become so much more evil than Saudi Arabia?


Thursday, April 14, 2016

This won't be an exaggeration for much longer

Person: Oh, guess what. I’m pregnant!

Person 2: Oh, that’s wonderful! Do you know yet if it’s a boy or a girl?

Person: You gender binary bigot! Get away from me! AND GIVE ME BACK ALL THOSE SPRINGSTEEN ALBUMS I GAVE YOU. A person like you enjoying the talent of such a brave and righteous fighter against bigotry? I can't. I just can't.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

The Euthypho Dilemma applied to Gender Identity

Is a woman a woman because she is a woman or because she says she is? If the former, then womanhood has a status independent of whatever the woman may think, and if the latter then womanhood is wholly dependent upon an ipse dixit, which is the classical definition of arbitrariness.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Yet another exchange with PJ

Me:

Is gender identity anything other than a private feeling? Can it correspond to anything objectively verifiable? The answer to the latter question seems to be no. For if you say that gender identity corresponds to anatomy, then you are contradicting the deeply felt experiences of a person who has a penis and insists that she is a woman. If you say that gender identity corresponds to certain behaviours, dress, ways of thinking, etc., then that is simply gender stereotyping. So, if gender identity does not and cannot attach to anything bodily or anything having to do with appearance or behaviour, then it can only be a private feeling and an incommunicable one at that. Okay, well, if that’s the case, then gender identity is unintelligible, and why should an unintelligible private feeling have any title whatsoever to public recognition?

PJ:

I’m pretty sure if you ask a person, they can tell you what their gender is, so I don’t see how it’s private, incommunicable, or unintelligible. Maybe it’s just unintelligible to you because you pre-reject what a trans person would say anyway?

Me:

You’ve just admitted that gender is simply an ipse dixit, and, as you well know, an ipse dixit is meaningless.

PJ:

Except, everything anyone ever says about gender identity is that it has meaning and significance to them. So, it sounds like you just don’t care what trans people have to say for themselves. How that’s not bigotry I’ll never know, but of course you regularly admit it is.

Me:

You have drained gender of all objective meaning such that a person can say that its gender is farflinent and that would have has much meaning as “woman” or “man” under current gender theory.

PJ:

If somebody ever identifies themselves as farflinent to you, I would encourage you to ask them more questions about what that means and report back. I assume because you’re asking me, a non-transgender and non-farflinent individual, that you’re not actually looking to learn more about the experiences these people have in their identities.

Me:
Yeah, I have NOT denied this [i.e. that gender identity has meaning and significance to the individual]. What I have instead claimed is that its significance can have under current gender theory no objective significance. Therefore, the significance can only be private like, say, religious belief or the imaginary friendships of four-year-olds. And so my question still remains why should something that can only have private significance have any title to any kind of public recognition?

PJ:

Do you email Christian groups and complain about why their religious beliefs deserve any kind of public recognition? I haven’t seen any evidence showing the biological causes of any particular religious belief compared to the many studies demonstrating biological causes for gender identities.

Me:

[responding to PJ's suggestion that I should ask a self-identified farflinent more questions about its identity] That would be farflinentphobic, would it not? If an identity as a woman or a man is based upon nothing more than a feeling, then it seems to me that it is simply bigotry to ask a self-identified farflinent to come up with more justification for its identity than you would want from a self-identified man or woman.

PJ:

I know it’s hard for you to grasp, but there’s a difference between asking to learn more about a person’s gender and demanding a justification for it.

Me:

Okay, I can work with that as well, if a man tells you he is a man simply because he feels that he is a man, is there anything more to learn? If you ask if he has a penis, that’s just hateful transphobia, right? If you ask him if he thinks like a man or dresses like a man, then that betrays an expectation that gender identity should fulfill gender stereotypes, and that’s also very, very hateful and oh, so oppressive. Therefore, the self-report of a private feeling must suffice. You can’t learn anything more beyond that. And if that’s the case for any self-identified man or woman, then I have no idea why it should not equally be the case for a self-identified farflinent. What am I missing here, O Enlightened One?

PJ:

Why is it important for you to dissect what makes a person feel like their gender identity?

It seems like you have a rigid predisposition for understanding gender, and if someone can’t explain their identity to you in those terms, it isn’t legitimate.

Likewise, you aren’t interested in allowing a person to explain their gender to you if it doesn’t fit within that framework.

The answer to your question is this: you have a narrow view of gender identity (your “gender theory,” which is terminology I don’t know or use) that doesn’t actually allow for transgender people. You are upset because you can’t understand transgender people, but then you ask that they fit into the tiny boxes you have for them, and when they don’t, you dismiss them. You also then take umbrage that they couldn’t and also don’t care if your questions come off as insensitive because you feel like you deserve those answers.

If you actually want to be satisfied with all of this, you have to abandon your preconceptions. You have to actually meet some transgender people and let them talk to you about their identities on their terms, and you have to take them at their word. Only then will it make sense to you.

In the meantime, you’re just annoying me because I write stuff every day that operates on a level you can’t process from your narrow framework. But because you actually need to REALIZE trans people — learn about them as real individuals instead of just concepts — there’s not much I can do to open that framework for you.
So, take me at my word when I tell you that your schema for gender is just not grand enough to account for what’s happening in the world. If you truly want to resolve your cognitive dissonance, you’re going to have to rethink your understanding of gender in a way that actually allows for these experiences to fit.

Me:

In other words, you can’t tell me why gender identity is something more than a private feeling or an ipse dixit, so you just insult me. Typical.

PJ:

Well, you’re predisposed to dismiss it, so what does it matter what I say?

Besides, I disagree with your premise that a private feeling is insignificant. This is who these people are, and there are a lot of them, and their experiences are similar such that we’ve long established standards of care for supporting them. Why is your gut instinct to be skeptical? To look for reasons to doubt them and reject them?

I pointed out that religion is a private feeling, and one that has ZERO biological motivations and yet an incredible influence on policy and public life. You don’t hold it to the same scrutiny, though, which seems to suggest just a bias against transgender people. If you have another way of explaining that, I welcome to hear it, but I don’t think you do, which is why you avoided that point when I made it earlier in the thread.

You don’t seem satisfied by any response I can give you except to humor your rejection of trans people, which is never going to happen. Why do you keep writing?

Me:

Not once have you contradicted my claim that gender identity does not correspond with anatomy, ways of thinking, appearance or dress. These are the only objective correlatives I can think of, and you have not suggested any other. In the absence of any objective correlative, then, I think its fair to say that gender identity can only be a private feeling or, as Professor Reilly-Cooper puts it, Wittgenstein’s beetle-in-the-box. What am I missing here?

PJ:

Why is it an either/or question? Anatomy is part of gender. Appearance and dress is part of gender. A person’s sense of their role in society is part of gender. You’re just applying a limited schema and expecting it to fit. It’s just so much more complex than you want to give it credit for.

Me:

Yes, if a person who identifies as a man has a vagina, then according to current gender theory (a term I use for convenience) it is a man’s vagina. And if a self-identified woman has a penis, then it is a woman’s penis. But that gainsays my point as little as saying that if a boy has a watch, then it is a boy’s watch. Ownership says nothing about identity. My point was that gender identity as it is now understood has no objective markers. Anatomy does not mark out gender identity, neither does dress or behaviour. To say that a certain anatomy, dress, or behaviour is gendered by the person’s gendered identity does not answer the question of whether gender identity is a black box. It merely begs it.

PJ:

If you were motivated by compassion and doing right by people, I would encourage you to ask transgender people your questions so that you can better understand their journey.

Instead you waste hours of both of our times complaining that you can't make sense of your own bigotry. I can't help you, and I'm not really interested in trying anymore.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Freedom Fighters

Bruce Springsteen is more than old enough to remember that Ronald Reagan instilled in the American psyche the term "Freedom Fighter" as a moniker for the Contras.  So, does The Boss really want to compare LGBT Activists to those murderous thugs who terrorized Nicaragua all through the Eighties and when they were through, left that country the second poorest (after Haiti) in Latin America?

The Bathroom Wars are really getting silly.

A cryptic post

The Celestine Prophecy
Consider the Lobster
The Atheist's Guide to Reality
The Unity of Philosophical Experience
Love and Responsibility
The Ethical Slut

Only I and ----- know what all these books have in common.


Saturday, April 2, 2016

Would some enlightened gay man or Lesbian help me out, please? (or Gender Identity is Hamlet)

How the deuce is transgender theory compatible with justice for gays and Lesbians? I am still trying to figure this one out. Perhaps, an enlightened person as you profess to be can help me out. On one theory, transgender people inhabit gender rôles different from the gender assigned at birth. But this makes their identity depend upon the very thing that is the source of oppression for gays and Lesbians, namely heteronormativity. So, that won’t do at all.

Another theory, that seems to be vogue right now, states that gender identity has absolutely nothing to do with gender stereotypes, such as manner of dress or behaviour, and can have nothing do with any parts of the body because gender identity obviously often conflicts with the gendered interpretations that society has imposed upon the penis, vagina, XX and XY chromosomes, and so on. But this means that gender identity can correspond to nothing other than a wholly private feeling.

This theory does successfully divorce gender identity from that monstrous archenemy of the gay and Lesbian cause, heteronormativity, but in doing so makes one’s gender identity wholly opaque to all others for gender identity can have no reliable markers. Any possible marker you name will conflict with other claims that transgender or gay and Lesbian activists want to make. If you say that the penis identifies the male, then that contradicts that claim of the transwoman that she was always a woman, even when she had a penis or even if she still has one. And if you say that dress and behaviour constitute gender identity, you are once again bringing back the greatest oppressor of gays and Lesbians, that vile villain heteronormativity.

Therefore, gender identity must be nothing but a wholly private feeling.

But if it is that, then how the deuce can a wholly private feeling be the source of attraction? Attraction must be communicable in a way that a wholly private feeling is not. If gender is completely subjective, then how does it make sense for a straight man to say that he is attracted to women or a Lesbian to say that she is attracted to women? It makes more sense to say that you are attracted to sadness or anger because at least those feelings have, what gender identity apparently lacks, an objective correlative (See, T.S. Eliot is useful for something) that can be communicated.

You can still say, I suppose, that a straight man is attracted to vagina and a gay man is attracted to penis, and that erotic relationships have nothing whatsoever to do with gender identity at all. But would this not reduce all romantic relationships to the fetishizing of body parts? And wouldn’t that just fly in the face of the insistence that gay and Lesbian relationships are not fetishes or perversions but instead loving relationships of mutual respect? True, gender theory, on my account, would reduce ALL romantic relationships, homo- AND heterosexual, to the status of mere fetishes, and that’s a genuine equality, I suppose, but it comes at the price of making everyone, except the sexually abstinent, a fetishizing pervert, and I thought you guys wanted an equality of dignity and respect and not this kind of equality of fetishes and perversions.


What am I missing here?

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Toilet Identity Politics

The Bathroom Wars rage on as the North Carolina Republicans have decreed that public rest rooms and locker rooms are for sex, not what is now called “gender identity”, and the Enlightenistas are all up in arms as if the N.C. Legislature had just brought back burning witches at the stake.

The rationale of sexual segregation in rest rooms and locker rooms, I thought, was to curb promiscuity, but apparently that is as neanderthal and barbaric a notion as racial segregation. But the transgender advocates still want segregation. They just want it based upon gender identity and not biological sex. If I am understanding current gender theory correctly, then gender identity attaches to nothing except a completely subjective feeling. It cannot attach to anatomy because that’s invidious gender stereotyping, and it cannot attach to anything else such as dress, behaviour, etc., for the very same reason. The only touchstone, then, left for gender identity is private feeling, and that’s not a touchstone at all because it can only be verified by the person who has it. If that’s the case, gender identity has as much meaning as the imaginary friends of toddlers have to adults.

It seems to me, then, that the transgender activists want the purpose of segregation in public facilities to affirm private identities, all other reasons being irrational, troglodytic, atavistic gender stereotyping. But if that’s the rationale for what is now gender, not sexual, segregation, then the same rationale can be applied for those who wish to identify as black, white, hispanic, German, Catholic, Protestant, etc. If public facilities exist only to validate private identities, then the dictates of equality demand that all other identities be so accommodated as well. We should have restrooms for all identities, racial, ethnic, religious, and so on. Not only would that make Jim Crow Laws look positively enlightened, we would have nothing but rest rooms in our public spaces! The Bathroom Wars are really quite silly.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

The exception vitiates the rule

If it is bigotry to say that the human being is sexually dimorphic because such a claim would deny the humanity of the intersexed (or so some gender theorists allege), then by that very same logic the claim that the human is a biped would be bigotry against the congenitally legless.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

One more time

The stated rationale of the anti-miscegenation laws was to keep the races separate. Advocates of the patent absurdity of the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” insist upon a parallel between the criminalization of interracial marriage and the non-reccognition of same-sex “marriage”. But this is nonsense. If there were a parallel, then the rationale for the non-recognition of ss’m’ would have been parallel to that of the anti-miscegenation laws, i.e. just as the reason for the latter was the separation of the races, so the reason for the former would have to be the separation of the sexual orientations. But actually one of the arguments for “marriage equality” was that the sexual definition of marriage led to pathological mixed-orientation marriages. In other words, the non-recognition of ss’m’ is alleged to have done the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the anti-miscegenation laws did; the former led to a mixing of traits, the latter to their separation. Clearly and obviously the anti-miscegenation parallel is a category mistake, and the only reason why advocates of “marriage equality” insist upon using it is not to illuminate the matter of “equality” (it does no such thing) but simply to slander their opponents as racists and segregationists. The anti-miscegenation parallel, even if it is now court-approved dogma, is simply a very sleazy slur, and I resent it.

So much for a Classical Education

μηδὲν ἄγαν be damned!


Saturday, March 12, 2016

Hey, Police Department of Glen Carbon, Illinois

Seventeen years ago (yes, I know I have way too much time on my hands) an officer from your department told me that in some places 2 + 2 = 4 is an opinion.  So, according to him the certainty of this rather simple arithmetic equation depends upon location.  I used to think that this claim was self-evidently absurd.  But I was, of course, wrong to doubt armed authority.  A person with a badge and a gun can never be wrong.  Because he has a badge and a gun.  Therefore, everything he says must be completely reasonable.  And, so, the claim that the certainty of basic arithmetic depends upon location must be reasonable according to a very simple syllogism:  1)  Anything a person with a badge and a gun says is reasonable, 2) A person with a badge and a gun claimed that the certainty of a simple arithmetic equation depends upon location, 3) Therefore, this claim must be reasonable.

But, then again, if a person with a badge and a gun says that such syllogisms are valid only in some places, then, well, all bets are off.  But I haven't heard an armed, badged person say such a thing.  Yet.  And until one does, I guess I may assume the universal validity of properly-ordered syllogisms.  I just hope a police officer never tells me that he is lying right now because he might shoot me if I doubt him or if I believe him.

Anyway, the above syllogism, absent any police officer's statement to the contrary, is valid, and since it is valid, I would like to ask you, the Glen Carbon Police Department, how the certainty of a very simple and apparently self-evident equation depends upon location.  Would you, please, explain this to me?  I thought I had mastered basic arithmetic in grade school.  I thought I learned that a simple equation is true and certain everywhere, that 2 + 2 is as certain to equal 4 in St. Louis as in New York, in the U.S.A. as in the Congo, on Earth as on Saturn, etc.  But I was very, very wrong.  I apparently was asleep when the teacher explains to us how basic arithmetic is geographically contingent.  And I really feel embarrassed to have missed such a basic lesson, especially now since I am middle-aged and long past the age when I could have blamed my ignorance of such rudimentary stuff on immaturity.  I got to face it.  I am not three anymore.

So, Glen Carbon Police Department, would you please teach me what I missed in grade school?  Please, explain to me how the certainty of basic arithmetic depends upon location.   Pretty please?

Monday, February 22, 2016

Looky here

According to the Infallible Magisterium of the New York Times, it is completely normal for adults to want to have genetic ties with the children they raise, but if you dare say that it is also completely normal for children to desire a biological connection with their parents, you’re immediately branded as a vile bigot, unfit for civilized society. How this is NOT a glaring and blatant example of hypocrisy and a rank double standard, I really have no clue whatsoever.

But, then, again I am a benighted bigot, who just cannot accept Public Reason's value of equality, and Public Reason’s value of equality dictates that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equal in every way that matters. Therefore, a child's desire to have a biological connection with his parents cannot matter because if it did, that would mean that opposite-sex couples are in principle superior to same-sex couples. But that's just vile, inhuman heterosexist bigotry. 

Therefore, to maintain Public Reason's value of equality, one must deny any significance to a child's desire for a biological connection with his parents while at the same time asserting that it is normal for same-sex couples to desire a biological connection with the children they raise. After all, opposite-sex couples desire and normally have genetic ties with their children.  Therefore, equality demands that it is normal for same-sex couples to desire and have a biological connection with the children they raise as well.  That's the logic of equality, which apparently trumps rudimentary human biology. 

How this is not a blatant example of special pleading or even post hoc propter hoc reasoning, I have no clue at all. But, again, I am a benighted, hateful bigot, impervious to Public Reason and, therefore, should be cast out into the Outer Darkness.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Another Installment of Modern Love

Person:  Hey, Gorgeous, may I buy you a drink.

Person 2:  Oh, hey, you seem nice and all, but I swing for the other team.  I'm a Lesbian.

Person:  I'm a Lesbian, too.  Just non-op, and one who likes to dress very butch.  You're not transphobic, are you?

Person 2:  No, not at all.  What can I do to affirm your gender identity?

Person:  You want to test-drive my all-natural strap-on?

Person 2:  Join me in the Lady's Room?

Person:  Yes, it's time to christen our progressive city's progressive new bathroom ordinance.

Person 2:  Indeed.

Friday, February 19, 2016

This is Funny

Random Facebook Status Update by a Random Feminist:
I need feminism because 90% of CEOs are men.
Random Wag: How do you know they are men? Are you referring to them as men based on your own preconceived notion of what a man is?

Random Feminist: They are men because they look and act like men. What kind of question is that?

Random Wag: Isn’t it transphobic to assume that just because someone looks like a man, he is a man?

Random Feminist: Go fuck yourself.

Facebook is evil.

That's why I left it.  Again.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Newsflash

Court rules that it is invidious and, therefore, unlawful discrimination for the Capitalist not to sell the rope by which he will be hung.

Friday, February 5, 2016

Conundrum du jour

Is there any difference at all between a cisgender straight man and a pre-op transgender gay woman?`

I'm a pre-op transgender Lesbian, who likes to don very butch apparel.

More "equality" now!

I changed my mind. I'm all for "equality" between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, and I want more of it. If a gay man can enjoy a one-night stand without any fear of a paternity suit, then, dammit, I, as a straight man, should be able to do the same. The hallowed dictates of "equality" demand it!

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Pet Peeve

"Belie" means "give the lie to", NOT reveal. So, do not use "belie" when you want to mean reveal or you will wind up saying the exact opposite of what you mean. For instance, if you wish to say that a politician's bombast reveals his ignorance, then say just that. Do not say, "The politician's bombast belies his ignorance." That means that his bombast actually vitiates or contradicts his reputation for ignorance and thereby gives "bombast" a positive meaning that it really does not have. The misuse of "belie" does nothing but belie your pretension to be a precise practitioner of the English Language. Got that? Good.

Pace Don McLean...

...the Day the Music Died was the second of Dezember, 1928.

Was will das Weib?

Will someone, PLEASE, explain to me why young women swoon for that crass, sleazy, dirty old man and wife beater, Charles Bukowski?

Die Deutschen kennen doch Humor

"The eye of the writer should be human and unbribable. You don't have to play Blindman's Bluff. There are rose, blue, and black spectacles--they color reality as needed. Rose-colored spectacles fetch a high price, they are the most beloved, and the possibilities for bribery abound. But even black spectacles are now and and again in demand, and when the demand is there, then even black will pay handsomely. But we want to see things as they are with a human eye, which is normally not entirely dry or completely wet but is instead moist, and we do well to remember that the Latin word for moistness is Humor."
                                --Heinrich Böll,  "Bekenntnis zur Trümmerliteratur"

Catholic School and Good Catholic Values

About a decade ago or so there were radio spots in my area trumpeting the advantages of Catholic Schools. The announcer would mention a person who has enjoyed worldly success like Joe Garagialo or Mary Higgins Clark and then ask, "And why has he [or she] been so successful?" You could almost hear a drumroll. "Because he [or she] went to Catholic Schools where he learned good Catholic Values." I really wanted to do some radio spots of my own which would have gone something like this: "Sir Thomas More was the most respected man in England. He had it all, a loving family, wealth, a brilliant writing career, and political power. And he gave it all away to have his head chopped off. Why? Because he went to Catholic Schools where he learned good Catholic Values." Or this: "Jeanne la Pucelle was burned at the stake. Why? Because she went to Catholic Schools where she learned good Catholic Values." You get the idea.

Unfortunately, I did not have enough money to purchase such radio spots.  I've not had enough worldly success.  I went to Catholic School as well but guess that I did not learn enough of those good Catholic Values.  I am going to hell.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

What Aquinas would say of today's identity politics

cupiditas significationis suae non perficit naturam, sed tollit.

Advice?

My cat has refused to share her litter box with this transcat.  Apparently my cat has fallen under the sway of those Fundamentalist Bigots in Houston.  Any suggestions as to how I can get my ciscat to check her cisprivilege?

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Quid multa?

Today I was texting with a friend vacationing in France. He paid me a compliment, and I tried to thank him in Latin, but the perfidious Autocorrect made my "gratias tibi ago" into "gratias tibia ago". Autocorrect has something against Latin, and it is clear to me now that Autocorrect is an anti-Trad, Masonic plot, concocted by the bastard son of that anti-pope, Paul VI, the one with the wrong ears (NOT the one in the iron mask).

Monday, January 25, 2016

Just call me Nostradamus.

Alberta has just proscribed the use of "Mother" and "Father" in its schools.  I predicted this would happen.  True, I did not predict that it would happen in Alberta, but only that it would happen in the not so distant future, and I was right.  This nonsense is the direct result of the nonsense called "marriage equality" which, as I have argued on this weblog before, requires an asexual anthropology.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Obergefell and Due Process

By deciding Obergefell under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Kennedy declared the civil recognition of same-sex "marriage" to be a pre-political right. If a right is pre-political, then it can be exercised without government interference. Yet, the "right" to civil recognition of a relationship obviously cannot be exercised without government interference. The central holding of Obergefell rests, therefore, upon a rather blatant logical contradiction. Law is supposed to be rational. The Obergefell decision is fundamentally irrational and, therefore, cannot command any obedience or respect from a rational citizenry.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Note to Black People

The Academy Awards gave Tom Hanks the award for Best Actor two years in a row but never gave it to Peter O'Toole. The Oscars completely snubbed Citizen Kane. Hitchcock never won the Oscar for Best Director. And Kenneth Branagh's non-adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet was nominated for best-adapted screenplay. The Oscars are really silly. To get upset that the Oscars have not validated you is even sillier.

What if Descartes had been a couch potato?

Evil Demon: Two plus three is really five.

Descartes: Whatever you say, dear. Could you get me a beer while you're up?

Congruo, ergo sum!

If reality is all a social construction, then would that mean that non-conformity is non-Being?

Mother's Day (again)

Can someone, please, explain to me why the celebration of mother's day is NOT heterosexist bigotry now that "marriage equality" is now the law of the land? One of the main premises of "marriage equality" is that same-sex couples raise kids just as well as opposite-sex couples do. If that were not the case, then the state would have a good reason to treat opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex couples, but we all know that the only reasons for so doing are all bad, bigoted, and belial. Therefore, same-sex couples MUST be every bit as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples. And that means that the sex of parents cannot matter. At all. For to say that it does matter is to say that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are different and, therefore, not equal, and only really depraved, sadistic Nazis would say something so unspeakably EVIL. So, if you accept "marriage equality", you must say that parenting is an entirely asexual, genderless enterprise. You must assent to the notion that sex is UTTERLY and COMPLETELY irrelevant to parenting. But Mother's Day celebrates the particular sex of a parent under the assumption that the sex of the parent does indeed matter and thereby blasphemes against the Equality Dogma of Parental Asexuality. How is that NOT vile, disgusting, perverted, totally depraved and unregenerate heterosexist BIGOTRY?!

Monday, January 18, 2016

I know this is so 2004

But I refuse categorically to vote for any political candidate who supports legalized abortion.  But, then again, I've pretty much given up on voting altogether.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Tough Love

"Oh, I finally, finally have time to see Star Wars this weekend. It's been hard avoiding all discussions of the movie on tv and social media. But I've done it, and now I'll see Star Wars wide-eyed and bushy-tailed."

"Hans Solo is murdered by his own son."

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Star Wars VII

Against my better judgment I saw it tonight, and my Better Judgment was right.  Vapid script, vapid plot (pretty much the same as in the 1977 Film), characters so vapid that when they die you count them lucky that they don't have to endure another sequel.  Even the special effects were hardly an advance over the laser and noise spectacle of the Initial Film.  The one good thing about the new Star Wars is that J. J. Abrams was wise enough not to let Mark Hamill act.

Friday, January 15, 2016

Ted Cruz

A man with a nasal voice and an accipitrine nose should be auditioning for the rôle of a Nazi in a Spielberg adventure film and not running for president of the United States of America.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

I probably should not have found this joke funny, but I did. I am going to hell.

I probably should not have found this joke funny, but I did. I am going to hell.

The pope is in his flat, consulting with two German Priests when in come two French Archeologists. "Sorry, your Holiness, for bursting in this way," they said, "but we have incredible news that just can't wait." The Pope rises to his feet and says, "Tell me then." "Well, we finally found the Holy Sepulchre!"

"That's great," exclaims the Pope. "But there is some bad news," the French hasten to add, "there was a body in it. The Resurrection never happened." Upon hearing this the Pope faints.

The two German priests give one another bemused looks. One says to the other, "Interesting, this means that Jesus could have been a real person."


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Stink bugs

Anyone know how to get rid of them?  They are driving me insane.

Monday, January 11, 2016

And one more post

Just because I am triskaidekaphobic.  Good night.

The Flick by Annie Baker

When will I ever learn? I should know by now that the Pulitzer Prize for Drama might as well be a Razzie Award for really dumb plays. Proof won the Pulitzer, a play in which the protagonist learns that whereas a mathematical conjecture requires proof, love requires trust. Wow! Hallmark cards have the same level of wisdom at a cheaper price. August Osage County won a Pulitzer. That had a real shocking incest revelation! Well, fine, it's heartening to know that playwrights still think their jaded audiences in this age of sexual anarchy will be shocked by incest, but in the history of drama, incest revelations are a hackneyed trope and in the 2,500 years since Sophocles have long since become a hallmark of very lazy writing.

And now The Flick, a play about three people doing minimum wage work at a Movie Theatre with its heyday long gone. It's one of the last theatres with just one screen and one of the last, if not the last, to have not yet switched over to a digital projector. And, so, there's a lot of stuff in the play about how film is superior to digital, and, yeah, that's somewhat interesting. And one of the characters is a closeted gay, which is a tad unbelievable given that the play is set in Massachusetts (and not in, say, Alabama), but it's just more boring than unbelievable. Fortunately, the play devotes only one scene to this young man's sexual hang ups. Deo gratias! Most of the play is a litany of slaps at moviegoer slobs, you know, the people who spill soda and popcorn all over the aisles or who bring even messier food in the theatre like, say, burritos, etc. Such jokes are funny for maybe five minutes, but this play makes the violations of moviegoing etiquette into a fullblown existential crisis. If the message is that minimum wage workers have petty concerns, well, this is just insulting.

But the real drama in the play comes when the closeted gay guy is caught stealing money from the theatre. His co-workers were in on the scam, too, but he does not rat them out. Instead, he wants them to admit their guilt, and if they do, perhaps the owner will realize that, well, damn, he's just not paying his workers a livable wage, have mercy, and not fire any of them. The two co-workers are too fearful of losing their only livelihood to take a brave stand of solidarity. They would rather the gay guy, who is in college on a full ride and is, they assume, just doing this job for pocket money, take the fall all by himself. Well, hell, I can sympathize with that sort of reasoning. Yeah, it's cowardly, pusillanimous, and demeaning to our common humanity, but that's what the brutal logic of capitalism does to folks. And if that was the message of this play, and I am not quite sure it was--the play seems to want us to be appalled by the co-worker's petty cravenness--, a guy like Karl Marx and others have made this point more powerfully and, moreover, with the urgent rallying cry that if a system like capitalism destroys our human solidarity, then, well, we should destroy capitalism. All this play will move people to do is, maybe, have a quaint pseudo-intellectual chat about it over coffee, served by an underpaid barista.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

What if liberal societies operated upon a Nietzschean conception of harm?

Man: Police! Police!

Cop: Yes, what is it?

Man: I just got carjacked. A really big guy wearing a blue sweatshirt dragged me out of my car, beat me within an inch of my life, and took my wallet. I had three hundred dollars in that wallet, plus my id and my credit cards.

Cop: Well, what do you want me to do? We're free to do whatever we want as long as we don't harm anyone else. That's the bedrock principle of liberalism.

Man: What the...? He robbed me. He beat me up. Do you see the big bloody gash on my forehead?!

Cop: He didn't kill you. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He did you a favor, you resentful little tarantula!

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Ahmed, the wedding is tonight

This is a coded message. It contains sensitive, classified information that, if de-coded by the wrong people, could bring down the entire Military Industrial Complex:

afgå´gtae4tg†fgdzsvbGT©Œ®YWTRFEGSAGRDAVSZVGASDZXXSGQEATYAGAGZHARAET∞34EWFSAFZBHYE5E4ATEADGHYUERDZfghgrfbdsygtersKJJMMnnawfazWrrfszfssvxatarfRfusgdsdggckyoaazgvszuwarsfsawttesfgtawdatafsvwatfgtsgƒxvwafstsfggasdtfgstsreasffbiadgtadzhaedgcomeadgredtgaedaaezandddasrtfeaatfbgetaegdsadszmedasfsfghsrfsholesasfzvgaewstdteagsgzgbadhadetyeaaetgsdwastaatgagfssaetrfsataeaagagftrfsetat54esgddxhyrhsxbbaet44esgdzhjufrsjdhred5tresgjkdgjk5uey………“欈ˆˆ¨©∆∫∆ˆ•¶§∆∂ƒ˚southparkruleslrsaftgzatgeaqt´åwrtatgedsgteatsdgesdfv!!shantihshantihshantihawwtsedgsdgztsearfafesavafefrsatgga

Friday, January 8, 2016

We're serving our sentences, Mr. Kennedy!

Last night I had dinner with a fellow bachelor. Being a good law-abiding Teuton, I was obliged to tell him that this relational act is not recognized by the state and, therefore, per Kennedy's dicta in Obergefell can in no way mitigate our respective condemnations to loneliness.

No, I shan't let this go.  Obergefell is probably the dumbest Supreme Court Decision of all time, and I intend to mock it at every opportunity.  

Thursday, January 7, 2016

How many repressed people does it take to open a jar?

Three: One to hold the jar, and two to remind him of his childhood insecurities until he finally releases all his pent-up frustrations.

My Solution to the Bathroom Wars

Anyone who wants to blather about sports and tell dirty jokes, use the cismen restroom. Anyone who wants to gossip, use the ciswomen restroom. Anyone who wants to talk about how the recent season of "Transparent" "gets it", use the transwomen restroom for seniors. Anyone who wants an orgy, use the genderfluid restroom. Is there anyone I have not offended?

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Judge Roy Moore

Yes, he is showing contempt for the United States Supreme Court.  The United States Supreme Court deserves contempt.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Wait a minute!

Isn't the very notion of causality a 'comprehensive doctrine' by Rawlsian lights and as such a violation of liberty neutrality?!

Monday, January 4, 2016

Felix Culpa

You know you got a bad case of Original Sin when you prefer the dialectic to its outcome.

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Remember, kiddies!

If a heterosexual mistakes a homosexual for a heterosexual, that's bigotry.  If a homosexual mistakes a heterosexual for a homosexual, that's a compliment.  Got that?

Saturday, January 2, 2016

Why I'm a Political Nihilist

Liberalism ultimately undermines its own premises.
Libertarianism leads to Mafia Rule.
Socialism leads to the Gulag.
Republicanism leads to the Terror.
And Neoliberal, Consumerist Democracy leads to Couch Potatoes, who
  can talk only about "the game".

Friday, January 1, 2016

A Possible Scenario

A woman has a crush on a guy but to her dismay discovers that he is gay.  So, the woman says that she is a man.  The guy still resists the former woman's overtures, and so the transman charges the gay guy with having committed discriminatory transphobia before the New York City Commission on Human [sic] Rights.

Try this

If you want to know how stupid cops are, just ask one of them this question: if the law declared two plus two to be five, would it be right to disobey that law and wrong to enforce it? Most cops, I swear to God, will say that there will always be laws that strike some of us as unreasonable but just because a law may strike us as unreasonable is no justification for disobeying that law. As if basic arithmetic were subjective! Cops are really stupid thugs.