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?