Thursday, December 7, 2017


I have a compilation of Greek Recipes from some Orthodox Parish. A few years ago a friend and I decided to do the recipe for cold cucumber soup (Cold soups are the best--screw you, Archie Bunker). A fairly simple recipe, which we followed to the letter, and after we were done, we tasted it, and my friend said that there was something missing, and, yeah, well, I thought so, too--after she said so, that is. So we thought and thought and smacked our tongues and thought some more. And then my friend exclaimed, I know! Lemon Juice! But Lemon Juice was not listed in the recipe, and then I realized that this was a Greek Orthodox Cook Book. Lemon Juice is just assumed, and if you don't know that, you're either a Protestant or a hopeless and hapless Scholastic. Either way, you're damned.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

A Hypothetical

Hey, what about this hypothetical (which will never happen, but if that's an objection, trollyology would be doomed): A gay baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex 'wedding'. His justification for this refusal is that because the underpinning anthropology of 'marriage equality' is that sexual difference is as trivial and meaningless as race, acknowledging a same-sex 'marriage' is tantamount to an admission that we are all asexual and thus can have no sexual orientation at all. Thus, the logic of 'marriage equality' erases the gay identity, and the baker refuses to be erased.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

A Man for All Seasons, re-written for our times

Cromwell: Did you talk of the Queen's identity?

Rich: Yes

Cromwell: What did you say?

Rich: I said to him, "Supposing there were an act of parliament... say that l, Richard Rich, were to be king. Would not you, Master More, take me for king?" "That I would," he said, "For then you would be king."

Cromwell: Yes?

Rich: Then he said, "But I will put you a higher case. How, if there were an act of parliament, to say that everyone can identify as God?"

More: This is true and then you said--

Cromwell: Silence! Continue

Rich: But then I said, "l will put you a middle case. Parliament has declared that we now have a Queen. Why will you not accept her?"

Cromwell: Well?

Rich: And then he said,

"Quia membrum viri habet."

Cromwell: Repeat the prisoner's words.

He said, "Because he has a schlong, a dick, a penis, you goddamn fuckwit!" Or words to that effect.

The Jury: He denied Her Majesty's gender and her preferred pronouns!

Monday, November 27, 2017

A question for John Corvino

In a piece published today in "The Stone", Dr. John Corvino claims that same-sex 'marriage' is so fundamental to the gay identity that discrimination against the former is tantamount to discrimination against the latter. Okay, but how does this square with his previous claim that the question of 'marriage equality' is separate from the one about the morality of homosexual relations?

In his book, What's Wrong with Homosexuality, he writes, " “The connection between the morality debate and the marriage debate is not absolute. One can believe that homosexuality is morally wrong while also believing that same-sex couples should have the legal freedom to marry, just as one can believe that divorce is morally wrong while also believing that a free society should permit it. Conversely, one can oppose same-sex marriage without believing that homosexuality is morally wrong (although the position is rare). [What’s Wrong with Homosexuality, p. 149]”).

If Dr. Corvino can acknowledge that it is possible, albeit rare, to oppose the civil recognition of same-sex 'marriage' while at the same time thinking that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual relations, then why does he insist that discrimination against same-sex 'marriage' is necessarily discrimination against the gay identity?  If the question of same-sex 'marriage' is separable from the morality of homoerotic relations, which, as John Corvino has made abundantly clear, CANNOT be understood apart from the gay identity, then it stands to reason that one can discriminate according to the former without discriminating according to the latter.  Thus, according to Dr. Corvino's own claim, discrimination against same-sex 'marriage' is NOT NECESSARILY discrimination against the homosexual orientation.  What am I missing here?  I hope Dr. Corvino will tell me.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

According to transgender logic...

...people born with tails show that we are not a tailless species, conjoined twins mean that the number of legs is a spectrum, people born without reproductive organs mean that we're asexual, and the occurrence of acephaly means that "Homo sapiens" is a bigoted misnomer. Transgenderism is really stupid, people. I can't believe people have fallen for this shit, but, then again, nearly half of the American electorate voted for Donald J. Trump.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Thanksgiving 2000

Thanksgiving 2000 for my extended Rummy Family was going to be rough, and sensing that it would be so, the matriarch pleaded with all her children not to bring up the Election, which at that time was still being fiercely contested. Thanksgiving came and the children all came with their spouses and children, and when they all sat down, Bill, an in-law, usurped the traditional chair of Joe, one of the sons, and Joe did not like this at all and proceeded to be noticeably passive-aggressive. Joe made dagger eyes as Bill comfortably settled in to what Joe regarded as his birthright. Bill gleefully kept caressing the armrests and mentioned how wonderfully soft the seat and backrests were. Joe reached for his knife. Tense silence hovered around the table until Joe's brother, Jimmy, blurted out, "So, how about those Elections, eh?"

Monday, November 20, 2017

Cleopatra's Nose

I've decided to write a play about the Lindsay Shepherd Affair. Only I'm gonna alter the facts a bit. The Graduate Student TA gets hauled before the university tribunal not for showing her tutorial class Peterson's pronoun position but instead for daring to cite Pascal's quip about Cleopatra's Nose in an intro to Hegel class, casting doubt on the progressive march of History, and thereby creating a toxic learning environment. For if History hangs upon such random things as the subjective allure of a woman's nose, then what's the fucking point of trying to understand anything at all, knowing that the Bitch Goddess Fortuna will simply laugh at you regardless?! The Graduate Student TA is accused of targeting Orthodox Believers of the Historical Dialectic.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Some tips for debating a transactivist

When debating a transactivist, do not lose it and blurt out, "Good God, you are fucking insane!" Yes, I know it's tempting, and I have done it myself, more times than I care to admit, but the lunatics will just take that outburst of invective as confirmation that anyone who disagrees with them is an irrational hater. But more importantly, they are used to such invective. It really doesn't hurt them at all. If you really want to get a substantive blow in, then frustrate them with these questions:

"So, can you, please, provide me with a non-circular definition of 'gender identity'?"

"Please, would you explain to me how sexual orientation makes any sense whatsoever on the premise that 'gender identity' and not physiological sex constitutes man- and womanhood?"

"If physiological sex is irrelevant to one's identity as a man or a woman, then why should insurance cover gender confirmation surgery as medical necessities?"

"If the existence of intersex people means that sexual dimorphism is not the norm, does the existence of congenitally legless people mean that bipedality is not the norm, either?"

"If 'men' can now get pregnant, does that mean Gloria Steinem's prophecy has come true, that abortion is now a sacrament?"

"If physicians have the power to assign sex, then have they the power to assign sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and the ability to walk to the lame?"

And so on and so forth. Trust me, these questions are much more effective than a "fuck you" or a raised middle finger.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

John Dryden on the Aftermath of the Protestant 'Reformation'

’Tis true, my Friend, (and far be Flattery hence)
This good had full as bad a Consequence:
The Book thus put in every vulgar hand,
Which each presum’d he best cou’d understand,
The Common Rule was made the common Prey;
And at the mercy of the Rabble lay.
The tender Page with horney Fists was gaul’d;
And he was gifted most that loudest baul’d;
The Spirit gave the Doctoral Degree,
And every member of a Company
Was of his Trade and of the Bible free.
Plain Truths enough for needfull use they found;
But men wou’d still be itching to expound;
Each was ambitious of th’ obscurest place,
No measure ta’n from Knowledge, all from GRACE.
Study and Pains were now no more their Care;
Texts were explain’d by Fasting and by Prayer:
This was the Fruit the private Spirit brought;
Occasion’d by great Zeal and little Thought.
While Crouds unlearn’d, with rude Devotion warm,
About the Sacred Viands buz and swarm,
The Fly-blown Text creates a crawling Brood;
And turns to Maggots what was meant for Food.
A Thousand daily Sects rise up, and dye;
A Thousand more the perish’d Race supply:
So all we make of Heavens discover’d Will
Is, not to have it, or to use it ill.
The Danger’s much the same; on several Shelves
If others wreck us or we wreck our selves.
        --from Religio Laici

Thursday, October 26, 2017


J. K. Rowling liked a Radical Feminist piece on Sam Kriss, in which blasphemy was committed against the most sacred doctrine of 'gender identity'. Ms. Rowling has thereby revealed herself to be one of the most vile creatures ever to have thrown itself on the Wrong Side of History, a TERF. There will be a burning of Harry Potter Books tomorrow.

Freudians, do your worst!

Weird dream. I dreamt that I invaded a movie à la The Purple Rose of Cairo, and to gain access to Paul Newman, I promised I would give him five bucks. It worked. I did get access to Paul Newman, and he took the five bucks.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

A Possible Scenario

A twelve-year-old boy joins a Shia Youth Group. At around this time he experiences same-sex attraction. Because he's around Iranian Shia, he's told that he is a girl trapped inside a male body. He tells his parents this. The parents consider themselves stalwart allies of the gay movement and are just horrified that the son insists he is a girl just because he likes boys. But the boy starts wearing a burqa, demands to be called 'Aisha', and clamors for puberty blockers. The parents take him to a therapist in the hope that the boy can be persuaded to like his own body.  Thereupon Social Services come and take the boy away.

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Exorcist, re-written for our times

Psychiatrist: Ms. MacNeil, have you been telling Regan that she should be a girl because she has what's commonly regarded as a girl's body?

Chris MacNeil: What kind of question is that? I'm paying you nearly my life's fortune, and you ask me that?

Psychiatrist: Well, Ms. MacNeil, if you are telling Regan that she--actually, they--should be a girl when they identify as Legion, that could cause a most vehement case of gender dysphoria, and that may well be the cause of all these violent outbreaks.

Chris MacNeil: She's levitating her mahogany bed for God's sake! What the--

Psychiatrist: Yes, that's unusually extreme, admittedly, but when one's identity is grossly misaligned with one's body, very bad things frequently happen. Ms. MacNeil, have you ever asked Regan if they would feel more comfortable, more themselves if they had the body or bodies of Legion?

Chris MacNeil: You want to give her bodies? Plural? How would that even be possible?

Psychiatrist: Calm down, Ms. MacNeil. And you should refer to Legion by their preferred pronouns. That's obviously a big part of the problem.

Chris MacNeil: Am I hearing you right? Regan will stop twisting her head if--

Psychiatrist: Ms. MacNeil, there is no Regan. There never was a Regan. They have always been Legion, and their pronouns are "they, their, and them." The quicker you acknowledge this, the quicker Legion can put their dysphoria behind them. Work with us, Ms. MacNeil.

Chris MacNeil: Oh, fuck you shrinks. You're insane. I'm finding a priest.

Psychiatrist: Well, there's Fr. James Martin, but he'll just refer you back to us.

Chris MacNeil: Then I'll find another who truly cares for my little daughter.

Psychiatrist: There you go again. They are your spawn, not your daughter. You are misgendering them and thereby causing them mental anguish. It's my informed opinion as a licensed physician that you are a clear and present danger to the well-being of Legion, and I regret to say this, but I am obligated now to report you to Social Services.

Chris MacNeil: Go to hell!

Psychiatrist: You can't leave, Ms. MacNeil. The power of Jennifer Pritzker and George Soros compels you!

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Why Jeff Sessions is right

According to Obama's DOJ and several circuit court decisions, Title VII applies to transpeople because of the Price Waterhouse precedent in 1989. In that case SCOTUS ruled that companies may not fire a woman for not conforming to a gender stereotype, e.g. she dresses in a masculine manner, she does not talk in a womanly manner, and so on.

Obama's DOJ and many circuit courts have applied this reasoning to transpeople thus: just as it is gender stereotyping to discriminate against women for not conforming to what an arbitrary social construct says how a woman should dress, behave, etc., so is it also gender stereotyping to say that a transwoman is a man for not conforming to what an arbitrary social construct says what kind of anatomy a woman should have. The very notion of physiological sex becomes a species of constitutionally impermissible gender stereotyping.

Thus, the reasoning that allows the use of 'sex' in Title VII to 'encompass' the concept of 'gender identity' renders the concept of sex utterly and completely meaningless. Jeff Sessions was absolutely right to reject this wholesale deconstruction of Title VII's protections against sex discrimination.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Very Important Talking Point

If you claim that the transgender movement wants to replace sex with the concept of 'gender identity', you might be accused of alarmism and then subjected to a wearisome lecture of how court precedent has acknowledged that sex encompasses 'gender identity' and that this all transactivists want--for 'gender identity' to be included in the notion of sex. Therefore, the claim is that it's just silly to think that 'gender identity' will replace sex because it, in fact, is comprehended by sex. This is just a flat-out gaslighting LIE. 'Gender identity' and sex are irreconcilable rivals and simply cannot co-exist.

The trans line is very clear. Transmen and transwomen insist that their man- and womanhood are not a whit less real than that of cismen and ciswomen, and if that claim can make any sense at all, then there must be only one cause for man- and womanhood. Two or more causes would justify separate categories (and separate facilities) for transpeople, and they have made it abundantly clear that this is transphobic bigotry. Thus the only way to give transpeople the recognition they feel that justice demands is to supplant the notion of physiological sex entirely with the wholly subjective notion of 'gender identity'. Sex cannot, therefore, encompass ‘gender identity’. Instead, it must be replaced by it.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

A simple 3-step explanation why the LGBT Alliance is a logical contradiction

1. Accepting gays and Lesbians means accepting the concept of sexual orientation which assumes that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood.

2. Accepting transpeople entails the denial that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood.

3. Acceptance of the concept of sexual orientation affirms physiological sex, and acceptance of transpeople denies it.

Thus, affirmation of gays and Lesbians requires transphobia, and affirmation of transpeople requires homophobia.  The LGBT Alliance is a logical contradiction.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Hefner's boast

Hefner boasted of having slept with over a thousand women. Okay, let's do the math on this. Let's assume that he did not start notching his belt until after his divorce from Mildred in 1959, which would mean that the era of his promiscuity lasted for about fifty-eight years. Well, he says that he did not cheat on his wives. So, let's subtract ten years, the time he was with Kimberly, and five years, the time he was with Crystal. Okay, that leaves forty-three years of promiscuity. More than a thousand women in forty-three years means that on average he slept with a different woman every sixteen days. People use toothbrushes for longer periods of time than that.   So, Mr. Hefner considered women to be more disposable than toothbrushes.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Make Massachusetts Think Again!

Massachusetts is famous throughout the world for its Institutions of Higher Learning such as Harvard, M.I.T., and Tufts. And yet that Commonwealth now has legislators who are so ignorant of basic logic, they do not know that tautologies cannot be definitions. For instance, just last year they passed a transgender law that defined 'gender identity' as one's 'gender-related identity'. Even a grade-schooler from Kentucky would realize that this is an empty repetition of words. That the legislators of such a supposedly smart state would pass this vacuous redundancy off as a legal definition is cause for lamentation. But don't despair! There is hope! You can help rectify this sorry situation! You can call up the sponsors of the Transgender Bill, passed last year, and play them, from the lecture below, this excellent primer on the uselessness of tautologies as definitions. The primer is just under one minute in duration, from 18:49-19:45. Do your part to help make Massachusetts think again!

Sunday, September 24, 2017


The gender rôles in chess are inalterably fixed. Thus, if you like to play chess, you must also like the notion of packing the genderfluid off to concentration camps. Only Nazis play chess. Don't be a Nazi.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

A question

By the way, why should one's deeply felt internal sense of gender be given more deference than, say, one's deeply felt internal sense that billboards are absolutely repulsive and should be removed or one's deeply felt internal sense that President Donald J. Trump is a grave existential threat to global stability and should be ousted from office or one's deeply felt internal sense that Caitlyn Jenner is simply a silly old man in drag? I want to know this.

Monday, September 18, 2017

The SJW Translation of 1 Corinthians 13

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in critical thought but rejoices with random moments of intersectional solipsism."

Nota Bene:

Evopsych does NOT justify the doctrine of 'gender identity'. The two things are actually precise opposites. Evopsych understands sex as the determinant of man- and womanhood and 'gender' as the epiphenomenon thereof, and the doctrine of 'gender identity' understands the two things in reverse, 'gender' determines man- and womanhood and sex is its epiphenomenon.

Sunday, September 3, 2017

An Open Letter to Rex Huppke of the Chicago Tribune

Dear Mr. Huppke,

my takeaway from Your Chicago Statement is that we should all accept people for who they are or, in the case of transpersons, how they identify themselves. If this is the correct understanding, then I have a basic problem that perhaps you can help me with. My problem is not religious, nor is it my desire to reject and hate people different than I am. My problem is strictly logical. I want to affirm and accept and embrace gays and Lesbians, but to do so, I must say that physiological sex constitutes man- and womanhood. Otherwise, the concept of sexual orientation makes no sense, and if sexual orientation makes no sense, than being gay or Lesbian makes no sense.

It is here that logic becomes really vicious. If I accept the premise that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood, then I simply cannot accept the identities of trans people. I must call Caitlyn Bruce and refer to Janet Mock as a ‘he’, and so on and so forth, and that, as you well know, is vile transphobia, the reason why the suicide rate is so astronomically high among transpeople. And I don’t want to do that, but if I accept transpeople, I must accept their identities, and such an acceptance requires that I deny that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood. But this denial renders sexual orientation meaningless and the identities of gays and Lesbians therewith.

It seems that acceptance of gays and Lesbians requires hateful transphobic bigotry and acceptance of transpeople requires hateful homophobia. How would The Chicago Statement resolve this logical dilemma? Love means never having to say you're sorry, but does love mean throwing basic logic out the window, too?


Tuesday, August 29, 2017

The Once and Future Liberal

So, I just now finished Mark Lilla's new book, in which he laments how identity politics has dissolved liberal solidarity. What is his suggested antidote to the fissiparous disaster that he holds identity politics to be (all the while going out of his way to praise its various gains, lest his own students scalp him)? An appeal to our common humanity? Nope. Although he does not say this, I suspect that as a good liberal Dr. Lilla would think that such an appeal requires too many metaphysical assumptions to be effective. Besides, he wants American Solidarity. An appeal to a common humanity might make people realize how evil America is (given how much America has done in recent decades to screw up the common humanity in the rest of the world) and thereby lead to a souring on Project America, and that's the opposite of what Dr. Lilla wants.

So, he doesn't even mention our common humanity. Instead he pokes around for something else that will unite all us Americans despite the differences between black and white, gay and straight, cis and trans, gun-lovers and gun-controllers, pro-choice and pro-life, etc., and his answer is (drum roll, please) an awareness that we are all citizens with equal rights and corresponding duties. But he never quite says what the purpose of these duties are, except to suggest that this purpose was quite obvious when we all fought the good war against the global fascists in the '40s. And, there we have it, folks. War clarifies a nation's purpose. Freunde und Feinde. Carl Schmitt, call your office. Geez.

The Second Coming

Falconer: Hello

Falcon: What?

Falconer: I said Hello!

Falcon: What? What?


Falcon: Oh, fuck it. I'm off, you wanker.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Ethical John

(A short skit inspired by Not a Job, Not a Choice by Janice G. Raymond)

[Scene: a room with freshly painted walls, a plastic chair, and a bed with one fitted sheet and no cover and no pillow. Two people walk in, a man pushing fifty and a girl who can't be any older than sixteen.]

Girl: We get started now, no? You take pants off, I suck your big, wonderful cock, no?

Man: Oh, sweetie, yes, but wait. (he fumbles around in his pockets) Damn, where is that fucking pamphlet? (reaches into his back pants pocket) Oh, here we go. (Takes out a booklet with the title "How to be an ethical john" and waves it in front of the girl's face) See, here, I must ask you a few questions from this pamphlet I got at the beer hall. You understand, don't you?

Girl: (falls back on the bed as if on cue and rolls her eyes) Okay, but, please, go quick, there are seven other--(really loud knock is heard)--er, no, I want the big cock in my mouth soon. (Raises her voice as she looks over her shoulder to door) Very soon, okay?

Man: What was that loud knock?

Girl: My heart thumps loudly for your big cock, no?

Man: Oh, okay. (paging through the booklet) So, here we go. "We here at the New Moral order understand that you men have needs, and that a brothel visit can be a fulfilling and rewarding experience. But it can be even more fulfilling if you do your business with a clean conscience." (another loud knock)

Girl: Hurry, please.

Man: Okay, I guess we can skip that part. Okay, here are the questions that it says I am ethically obligated to ask you. Ready?

Girl: (rolls eyes again) Yes, you big picture of throbbing manhood.

Man: How old are you?

Girl: I am fif-- (loud knock again). I am fucking. I mean I want to fucking now. Please!

Man: How old are you?

Girl: I am-- (loud knock) I am eighteen. Young, fresh, and legal.

Man: Okay, that's great. Okay, just a few more questions. Do you have any large debts that have indentured you to work for unscrupulous gangsters?

Girl: What means this "indentured"? (Very loud knock) No, no! I am no indentured. I am very, very dentured. And I am very dentured for your big cock.

Man: Oh, that's very, very good. Okay, just one more question, and then we can (in an embarrassingly excited, squealing voice) begin!

Girl: I can no wait.

Man: Do you find sex work to be an exciting career choice with abundant opportunities for upward mobility?

Girl: (Several loud knocks) My heart thumps loud yeses to whatever you asked. You can hear it, no?

Man: Okay, great! (Takes off his pants and drawers) Now, get down on your knees and suck my cock, bitch!

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Liberalism and Identity Politics

As much as Dr. Lilla laments how identity politics have fractured our common humanity, he seems to be blissfully unaware of one of the classic critiques of modern Liberalism, that it atomizes the individual into an isolated, consumerist cipher.

This is inevitable, according to this critique, because Liberalism is premised upon the freedom from any comprehensive doctrine that would dictate to the individual how ze should express hir individuality, but without any comprehensive doctrines, there can be no essentialist anthropology by which a common humanity can make any sense at all.

The only thing left is commerce, which makes human worth a number on a ledger. This is, of course, a recipe for slitting one's wrists. So, of course, liberals had to poke around for something more meaningful. But they could not look to religion. That's the very thing AGAINST which Liberalism defines itself. And, of course, they cannot look to an Aristotelean Teleology because of Darwin and, moreover, because Teleology presupposes essences which impede individual freedom, and that would just vitiate the whole point of Liberalism.

So, if Liberalism was to find anything more meaningful than the maxim "Ze who dies with the most toys wins", it could only do so from its own resources. But the only resource it has is individual subjectivity, and the only thing that can be done with this resource is Sartrean Decisionism. Everyone has to make hir own meaning. And, thus, everyone has to choose hir own essence, and, violà, you have modern identity politics!

Friday, August 11, 2017

Belaboring the point

The accommodation of trans persons requires the replacement of sex with the incorrigibly mystical concept of 'gender identity'. The two concepts cannot exist side by side. Otherwise, that would justify differential treatment of the cis and the trans. Thus, the law can acknowledge only one concept as the basis of man- and womanhood, and since the acknowledgement of sex is transphobic and directly responsible for thirty deadly assaults against trans people and even more suicides per diem, the law must declare that 'gender identity' is the only thing that makes a man a man and a woman a woman. But 'gender identity' simply cannot be defined. All definitions are either circular or hopelessly subjective. Therefore, the acknowledgement of trans rights entails the recognition that we are all amoebas.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

And yet another unpublished letter to the Post-Dispatch

Dear Editor,

In your paper’s Q&A about gender identity, you report that gender is a social construct but 'gender identity' is innate. If gender is a social construct, then it is imposed from without and is, thus, not internal to the individual. But gender identity is innate and, therefore, is internal to the individual. So, how can gender be a social construct but one’s own identification of gender be inborn? Why isn’t that a glaring violation of the rule of non-contradiction? Would you, please, explain this to me? Pretty, pretty please. I'm trying so hard not to be a transphobic bigot, but basic logic gets in the way. Help me, please. I don't wanna be a bigot. I don't wanna be a bigot. Waaa!!!


Thursday, August 3, 2017

Even logic is 'hate speech'.

A person who used to be one of my closest and dearest friends now thinks me a mentally ill right-wing extremist bigot for so much as daring to question the claims put forward by the transgender movement. Even for pointing out that the Massachusetts definition of 'gender identity' ("'Gender identity' shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth.") has what is to be defined on both sides of the copula and, therefore, constitutes a classic tautology. Logical observations are now irrational hatreds--in the eyes of my former friend, at least.   I wish I could say that she is a stupid, uneducated twit, easily swayed by faddish causes, but she's not.  She is one of the five smartest, most articulate, and most well-read people I have ever met or shall ever hope to meet, and yet she now must have a safe space to shield her from basic logic.  This is really scary.

Monday, July 31, 2017

The trans version of a classically sexist joke

A group of men are enjoying a beer and a smoke at a neighborhood bar after a long day at the office when all of a sudden a bearded man in an evening dress and a tiara bursts in and zeroes in on the co-workers.

"Excuse me," he says in a flustered voice, "would one of you, please, help me, please! Female pronouns didn't work as I thought they would. I get to use the female restroom now, but that doesn't work, either--"

"What the fuck are you going on about?" asks one of the men at the bar.

"I want to feel like a woman. Please, will one of you boys make me feel like a woman?"

Another man steps up and takes off his shirt and says to the tranny, "No problem. Here, iron this."

The tranny takes the shirt, tears well up in his eyes, and he moans, "Oh, thank you, thank you."

Sunday, July 30, 2017

More modern love

Girl: So, what was your childhood like?

Boy: Oh, I really loved playing with trucks in the mud. Drove my mom crazy!

Girl: Oh, yeah, really? Me, too!

Boy: Wait! You played with trucks, too?

Girl: Sure did.

Boy: In the mud?

Girl: Yeah, even in my Easter Dress once. Mom nearly killed me.

Boy: Woah! Okay, this date is so over!

Girl: What's wrong?

Boy: I'm sorry, but I am not gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. Love is a human right and all. But I'm not gay, okay. And, please, would you sync up your gender expression with your gender identity before some other poor schmo wastes his good money on a dinner and a movie. Geez. I am outta here.

Saturday, July 29, 2017


According to the Enlightenistas, empathy is the basis of all morality and hence the basis of getting along with others in a society. Also, according to the Enlightenistas, I must get along with transgender persons. Fine, but there's a problem. To get along with transgender people, I must have empathy with them. To do so I must have transgender feelings, but then I would be transgender because that's what being transgender is, having transgender feelings. Ergo, to get along with transgender people, I must be transgender myself, but I don't wanna be transgender. Therefore, I must remain a transphobic bigot. Waa!

Saturday, July 22, 2017

How transactivists argue

Mom: Get your hands out of the cookie jar right now, Mister!

Five-Year-Old: But, Mommy, studies show that the suicide rate among kids not allowed to eat cookies whenever they want is huge. Really huge. As huge as Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Sunday, July 16, 2017


Oh. My. God. In some Orthodox Catholic Circles, it is the wont of converts to look down upon Cradle Catholics because whereas the latter are Catholic by mere accident of birth, the former made a deliberate choice for the Faith and are, thus, more meritorious. Nevermind that this line of thinking is Anabaptist and, therefore, heretical. Converts tend to thrive on feelings of superiority.

And now some transwomen are applying this Anabaptist Logic to womanhood. The femininity of transwomen is more real than that of those assigned the female gender at birth because the former have made a conscious choice to be women and thus have had to think about what it means to be a woman whereas the latter have simple taken the womanly grace for granted. Theirs is, hence, a cheap, thoughtless womanhood. Thus, sex has become yet another Protestant Sect!

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Disabled Pride!

I have cerebral palsy. I walk and talk funny. I don't feel normal. This causes me all kinds of anxiety and social awkwardness. I have a fundamental, foundational, human right to normality, dammit! Therefore, I demand that everyone talk and walk as funny as I do, and if you think this demand is ridiculous, then you are a bigot and your bigotry will cause suicidal ideation. So, your bigotry is genocidal violence. You may very well have blood on your hands. You should be very, very ashamed of yourself, bigot!

Furthermore, you must be willing to date me (if you are under 35, a cisfemale, and look killer in a black turtleneck, that is). Otherwise, I shall publicly shame you as a cripplehater. Got that?!

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The New Calvinism

Since this month is Pride Month, when every one is expected to celebrate all things LGBT or else be publicly shamed as a vile, hateful bigot, who probably pulled wings off butterflies as a kid, I might as well post this again as a friendly reminder that bigotry is unavoidable:

To affirm the identities of gays and Lesbians, one must accept the concept of sexual orientation, which assumes that physiological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood, and yet it is precisely this assumption that the trans identity flatly denies. Thus, affirmation of the gay and Lesbian identities entails the denial of the trans identity, and affirmation of the trans identity requires making complete and utter nonsense of sexual orientation and by extension the denial of the gay and Lesbian identities. Or, in other words, affirmation of the gay and Lesbian identities requires transphobia, and affirmation of the trans identity requires homophobia. The LGBT Alliance has made it logically impossible to avoid bigotry. It is the New Calvinism. You are a bigot if you do, and a bigot if you don't.

Friday, April 28, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, March 23, 2017

And yet another installment of Modern Love

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

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

RJD:  Well.

Woman:  You're blushing.

RJD:  Am I that obvious?

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

RJD:  Who you calling a man?

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

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

Woman:  Cis-what?

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

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

RJD:  No, no, I am a woman.

Woman:  Do you have a penis?

RJD:  That's a rude question.

Woman:  Do you have a penis?

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

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

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

Woman:  I promise.  But can I do more?

RJD:  Well...

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

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

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

RJD:  Yes, please.

Woman:  Hold on.

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

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

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

Sunday, March 5, 2017

A review of The Porning of America (2008)

I rate it two stars out of five.

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

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

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

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

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Hey, SJWs, where is your indignation?

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

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Conceive Now!

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

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

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

A question for Zack Ford

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

Monday, February 13, 2017

What the residents of Oroville must be thinking now

Where's a little Dutch boy when you really, really need one?!

Saturday, February 11, 2017

"Marriage Equality", again

To accept "marriage equality", one must also accept "parent equality" or the notion that it makes no difference at all whether children are raised by opposite- or same-sex couples. Otherwise, you would be implicitly acknowledging a societally significant difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and that's just vile bigotry. Therefore, you must accept that opposite-sex parents are the SAME as same-sex "parents", and that, in turn, means that "parenting" is an asexual enterprise and, thus, we have all been raised by amoebas.

I was raised by a man and a woman. I refuse to say that I was raised by amoebas. Therefore, I refuse to say "parent equality" is anything other than an absurdity, and, therefore, I say that I will always have nothing but spitting contempt for the insulting lunacy known as "marriage equality".

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Preparation for Hitler by Max Picard

[From Max Picard's book Hitler in uns selbst]

During a trip to Germany in 1932, I received a visit from the chairman of a major German political party, who asked me how it was possible that Hitler had become so well known, that he had acquired so many supporters. I pointed to an illustrated newspaper that was lying on the table and asked him to thumb through it. The first page had a picture of an almost naked female dancer. On the second page a battalion of soldiers were doing exercises with machine guns, and underneath was shown some scientist in a laboratory. The third page had a chart chronicling the development of the bicycle from the mid-19th century to the present day, next to which a Chinese poem was printed. The next page had photos of workers from some factory performing calisthenics during their free time, and underneath were the knotscripts of an Indian Tribe in South America. On the opposite page stood some lawmaker, sunning himself on a bright summer’s day.

“This is how,” I said, “a person today perceives the things of the outer world. People today approach all things in an incoherent jumble. This shows that their inner world is also an incoherent jumble. People today no longer confront the stable givenness of things, and the things no longer come to a person as they are for themselves. The person does not approach an individual thing by a particular act. Rather, an incoherent jumble of the external world comes to him, whose inner world is an incoherent jumble. Whatever may hap upon him is not examined. He is simply content that something happens at all, and in this incoherent jumble anything and anyone can sneak in—even Adolf Hitler. He is then in the inner world of the person without anyone noticing how he got there. It no longer depends upon one’s self but upon the agility of Adolf Hitler whether he merely passes through the person’s inner world or establishes a nest there.”

The incoherence of an illustrated periodical is in comparison to the radio almost old-fashioned, still nearly artisanal. The radio has taken over the automatic operation of incoherence. 6 A.M.: Morning exercises, 6:10 A.M.: Record Concert, 7 A.M.: News, 8 A.M.: How to do Morse Code, 9 A.M.: Morning Sermon, 9:30 A.M.: Live from Pfahlbauendorf!, 10 A.M.: Beethoven’s sonata for flute and piano, 10:30 A.M.: Lecture on Agronomics, 10:45 A.M.: World Chronicle, 11 A.M.: Overture to Rienzi,—and so on and so forth until evening 10:10 P.M.: Spanish Course, 10:30 P.M. For the Jazz Lover.

The world of radio is not only incoherent, it produces the incoherence as well, it produces things such that at the outset they do not cohere and therefore will be forgotten one after another, even before they vanish. They appear a priori in a cloud of forgetting. This external world pre-supposes that the inner world of the person is incapable of apprehending the world in a coherent narrative—i.e. as they are, as they remain, and as they relate to each other according to their nature. The discontinuity constitutes the basis of its operation, which in turn assumes the incoherence of the human being. This is how the radio works.

There is no longer any external world which can be recognized. It is a confusion. There is no longer an inner life which can be clearly acknowledged because the inner world is a confusion as well. Therefore, the human being no longer approaches objects by an act of the will. He no longer chooses the objects. He no longer examines them. The world is dissolved. The objects float incoherently on by past incoherent human beings. What comes along does not matter. What matters is that something comes along. In this succession of things everything can smuggle itself in, even Adolf Hitler, and one would rather have Adolf Hitler appear at least than nothing at all. “Heil” to him, who not only floats by but also ensures that the floating jumble does not cease—Hitler, who knows better that anybody how to operate the assembly line of events!

The big city is the expression for the incoherence in itself. Here incoherence has become stone, nay, cement. The lines of houses are constantly broken up by automobiles, trolleys, and trains, which function like machines that hack everything up. The form of man is dissolved into black dots, thrown back and forth between the houses and the streets like tokens in an evil game. Here the sky appears farther from the earth than normal, and even the sky no longer coheres with itself. It’s cut in two by the abrasive airplanes.


In this exterior jumble it was easy for Hitler to sneak into the interior jumble. He could in this incoherence show himself next to everything. He seemed to complement everything. As thus he was, he complemented every incoherence.

And because he kept popping up again and again in this incoherence, he was more visible than the other incoherences. You got used to him and accepted him as you accept a brand of toothpaste that keeps popping up in the newspaper ads. Soon he appeared as the only thing that’s real in a world in which every thing else appears only for the sake of immediately disappearing again.

Sorel is of the opinion that it is possible today for a handful of men to usurp the mechanisms of power in a democracy and set up a dictatorship. He’s right. But that’s possible only because everything slides into everything else. And so someone slides even into the power mechanisms of the state. Sometime he lands there without even noticing that he has, much less that other people notice. He need not put himself out that much. He need not fight for the mechanisms of power. They will be seized as everything else is seized in the jumble, upon which everyone slides. That plays itself out only by chance in the matter of politics. In this world of the ephemeral and the unconnected something else instead of politics and dictatorship could be seized. There is thus no history of the seizing of power, no theory and doctrine thereof. There is only the theory and doctrine of the jumble.

Hitler did not need to conquer. Everything had already been conquered by the structure of discontinuity and the general incoherence. This had the effect of a dictator’s doing an unnecessary “struggle” for power after he seized power. He struggles now that he has power to scream himself silly with all the gestures of power to demonstrate by violence and murder that he achieved the dictatorship by his own action and not by the happenstance of the jumble.

Only in a world of total discontinuity could such a nothing as Hitler become Führer for in a society where everything lacks coherence, no one is used to making comparisons anymore. You simply had the nothing Hitler before you. In this world where everything changes in a blink of an eye, you were happy that at least it was certain that the nothing Hitler stood before you. In a hierarchically ordered world the nothing Hitler would have automatically been placed into nothingness. Utterly nothing could have been seen. Hitler was the excretion of a demonic world and would have been shoved aside by the order of the real world.

In this world of incoherence it’s already happened long before Hitler that a nothing, a low-life, or a mediocrity has been elevated to the level of an absolute, and this absolutizing was talked about, written about, photographed as if this were the center of society, around which everyone had to orbit. A movie star would be inflated to the lofty center, then the inventor of a wind-fueled motor, then a university president, then an aviator of the stratosphere, or a bestselling author. And sooner or later, Adolf Hitler.

Of course, the low and the negligible have in all ages been declared to be great and authoritative. But previously, in the world of continuity, one always had the sense that behind the negligible and the low, the great and the meaningful were still there but merely hidden. In the Age of Hitler and its preceding era there seemed to be nothing more there other than the negligible. Above all, it was the negligible that was primarily there. You did not even have the sense that it was an empty spot, from which the great and the meaningful had been banished.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Punching Nazis

Yeah, I used to think that punching Nazis was all to the good, but then I got called a Nazi for opposing the absurdity of legally recognizing same-sex "marriage". Now I preach tolerance for those who sincerely believe their personal identities require the invasion of Poland and the extermination of all those who would contaminate Aryan Blood.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Friendly Reminder

Friendly reminder: The concept of 'gender identity' makes complete nonsense out the concept of sexual orientation, and sexual orientation assumes biological sex as the basis of man- and womanhood and is, therefore, transphobic. Ergo, if you are a homophile, you are necessarily transphobic, and if you are a transphile, you are necessarily homophobic. It is logically impossible to avoid bigotry.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Debate etiquette is not enough to avoid aporia

Dr. Corvino says that if we can just avoid these "conversation stoppers", then our dialectics will avoid aporia and yield fruit, justice, and harmony, but this assumes the wholly dubious providential claim that the natural telos of our conversations, exchanges, and debates is a rational resolution. Yet another professed atheist too cowardly or too dishonest to accept the necessary corollary of atheism, which is nihilism. Yawn.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Why is America divided?

The answer is obvious.

We're divided because some of us think that abortion is murder while others think that it is a fundamental right. We're divided because some think that only boys have penises while others denounce such a view as vile transphobic bigotry. We're divided because some think that police officers are a threat to the commonweal while others think police officers are the only thing between us and anarchy in the streets. We're divided because some think we need a bigger welfare state while others insist that any welfare state is a road to serfdom. We're divided because some think America is an imperialistic bully while others think that it is America's divine duty to be the World's Police Man. We're divided because some think President Trump is a dangerous psychopath while others look to him as America's Saviour. And on and on and on and on and on.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Rabid and Dangerous Lunacy

One more time, folks, and, perhaps, this time I shall be clear enough that even idiots will understand, but I would not hold my breath.

Okay, the transgenderist's underlying claim is that there is no normal body for a man and a woman.  This must be the claim, otherwise the transgenderist cannot claim that some 'women' have penises and some 'men' vaginas.  And, so, the transgenderist argues that the existence of intersex people, even though they constitute an extremely tiny percentage of the general population, shows that male and female physiological normality is a fiction, a superstition, a Right-Wing Christian belief, which only inbred Bible-Thumpers confess.

Implicit in this argument is the notion that an exception to a stated norm proves that it is not the norm, and this notion is just complete and utter madness. For if the existence of intersex people prohibits us from talking about the normality of male and female bodies, then by that very same logic we can't say that it's normal to have legs because congenitally legless people exist. We can't say that it is normal to be free from cancer because people with cancer exist, and so on and so forth.

If the concept of normality must apply in each and every instance without any exception, then that concept is doomed. There can't be any normality at all, and without any normality, there cannot be any medical science at all for the very simple reason that the very purpose of medical science is to restore normal health to those who are abnormally sick and thus cannot exist if there is no such thing as normal health.

But it gets worse. Without any concept of normality, there cannot be any laws because laws exist to safeguard what is normal. But if there is no normality, there is nothing to safeguard and, thus, no need for laws. At all.

The arguments of transgenderism are very rabid and very dangerous lunacy.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Intersectional Feminism

Me: Transgenderism denies that women's bodies matter, but if the hundreds of thousands of pussy caps defiantly worn at the Women's March this past weekend show anything at all, they show that feminism is all about women's bodies. Therefore, intersectional feminism is a logical contradiction.

Intersectional Feminist: No, that's the wrong conclusion. The proper conclusion is that basic logic is just another oppressive mechanism of the heteropatriarchy. Keep your logic off my ovaries!

Me: That isn't even an off-rhyme

Intersectional Feminist: That's what a Straight White Male like you would say.  It's a transrhyme, bigot.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Hollywood, here I come!

I got a great idea for a movie:  a re-make of The Testament of Dr. Mabuse but this time with the speeches of Donald J. Trump.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Burn the Flag!

Six hours ago Ryan T. Anderson tweeted this about Madonna's recently professed thoughts of blowing up the White House: "I'm old enough to remember when rhetoric like this was irresponsible and inappropriate."

This is one big reason why I don't like being described as a "conservative". Conservatives demand respect for the state and its symbols and get all high dudgeon when this demand is not met. Fuck that shit. When the state repeatedly lies us into war, when the state lets the rich steal and imprisons the poor, when the state is run by a pussy-grabbing confidence trickster and advocate of the Nazi Policy of Collective Punishment, the state and its symbols deserve nothing but contempt. BURN THE FLAG!

Maher interviews Jane Fonda

Yeah, I just have to spit this out yet again because I'm watching Maher interview Jane Fonda (or as Republicans who think they're clever and historically erudite know her, Hanoi Jane), and the interview is really a Bitch Session about our New Dear Leader, and, yeah, that's fine with me. I HATE TRUMP. Except the very first thing they bitch about is his "pussy grabbing" comment simply because it's salacious and icky, and I thought 'ickiness' was forever ruled out as a rational objection by the "marriage equality" debate.

But, yes, okay, the "pussy grabbing" comment does show Trump to be a creepy sexual predator. I get that.

But Trump's endorsement of Collective Punishment  shows him to have really dangerous Nazi-like tendencies, and as evil as "Pussy Grabbing" may be, surely it can be nowhere nearly as drenched in horrific blood as, say, the massacre of Lezáky. Can we get some perspective here?

Also, perhaps "Pussy Grabbing" should not alarm us as much as Trump's blunt identification of freedom with security. Just as Spinoza got rid of God by identifying Him with nature, so Trump and other authoritarians before him get rid of liberty by identifying it with the surveillance and carceral state. I am not denying that sexual predation is bad. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that, maybe, just maybe, totalitarianism is worse. Maybe, just maybe, Trump's predilection to cop feels should frighten us less than the prospect of him giving orders to SA-like goons nationwide per tweets?

And, one more thing, the same side that now is so alarmed about Trump's sordid history as a sexual predator also endorses the re-definition of 'sex' as 'gender identity', and--yes, I'll make this argument AGAIN--if 'sex' now has nothing to do with the body, how can any bodily assault be classified as 'sexual'? According to the doctrine of 'gender identity' which the anti-Trump SJWs swear by now, "Pussy Grabbing" now can be no more evil than "Arm Grabbing" or "Shoulder Tapping". Because if the pussy is something that both men and women have, it's now as asexual as an arm or a shoulder and, thus, grabbing it without consent of the owner can only constitute assault but not 'sexual' assault. Anti-Trump SJWs are idiots.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Why 'gender identity' is dangerous lunacy

'Gender identity' denies physiological normality, without which medical science is simply raving nonsense.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Friendly Reminder

Saying that the human is a biped constitutes genocide against the congenitally legless. Don't do it!

Monday, January 16, 2017

New Prayer

Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac absurditatis valle.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Why Lana Rhoades Left Porn

"I don't think I left knowing what I was going to do. I just relised [sic] how sad and depressed I was. I would go home and cry everyday, I was sick every week, I had tricamonis, yeast, and BV I've been treated three times since leaving and it's finally starting to go away. This is not good for me and no amount of money or fame is worth. It hurt me so bad, my heart, my soul, and my body. I don't want to do it anymore. being a porstar [sic] meant choosing money and fame over everything else and I'm sorry but those things really don't make you happy they just leave you chasing for more, I want a real life, waking up day after day to be driven to a porn set to have sex with a stranger is no life. I can't do it anymore.....i don't want the money, I don't want anything from anyone. I just want to be happy Lana was a very sad and depressed girl who would just smile when the camera came on. Let it be."

Moral relativism

"Oh sure, right and wrong are just oppressive social constructs when all you wanna do is get weird with someone else's wife and smoke hash all day, but when I wanna strap on a broadsword and hunt post-modernists for sport, suddenly everyone's all about moral absolutes."

--Laura Camp

A Logical Consequence of "gender identity"

In the not so distant future Singles Bars will all be thought experiments.


Is this article poorly written, or do I need to take a remedial reading class? Check out this paragraph:

"One week after seeking an abortion, study participants who were turned away from getting the procedure had higher levels of anxiety, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction than those who got the wanted abortion. Yet, their levels of depression were similar to those who actually had the procedure. Foster noted that the similarities may stem from the depressive feelings linked with finding out you’re (unwantedly) pregnant."

The first sentence says, I think, that the women who were refused an abortion were more depressed than those who were not. But then the second sentence seems to say the opposite, that those who were refused abortions and those that got them had similar levels of depression. What am I missing here? I must be missing something. I'm an irrational bigot who still holds to the thoroughly debunked Christian tenet that only women can get pregnant.

Addendum: After reading this paragraph a few more times, it occurs to me that "depression", as used in this article linked above, must comprise more than just anxiety, low self-esteem, and low life satisfaction. These are just individual symptoms of depression, not depression itself. Thus, while those that were refused abortions and those that had abortions had similar levels of OVERALL depressions, the levels for the individual categories of anxiety, low self-esteem, and low satisfaction were higher for the former group. Fine, but for both groups to have had similar levels of OVERALL depression, then those who had abortions must have scored higher in other categories that go unmentioned in this article. Or am I missing something once again?

Friday, January 13, 2017

Another joke I'll be telling ad nauseam for the next four years

The Trump presidency confirms P. T. Barnum's status as history's only unrefuted philosopher.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Kids today

Person: So, yeah, let's see the new Star Wars.

Person 2: Great, but we should leave now. It's Friday, there'll be a big line.

Person: Oh, right. Okay, just let me get changed, and then we can go.

Person 2: Great.

Person: Er, yeah. Just let me get changed, and I'll be ready in about two minutes.

Person 2: No problem.

Person: Um, I said that I'm going to change. That means I'm going to change clothes.

Person 2: Yeah, no problem. I understood.

Person: Well, I thought it was understood that you should wait outside while I, you know, change.

Person 2: Why should I wait outside? It's cold outside.

Person: Um, did your parents vaccinate you too early? Because you seem a bit autistic.

Person 2: No, no. I just don't want to be in the cold tonight longer than I have to.

Person: It's only the hallway!

Person 2: They don't heat the hallway. University has a bigger endowment than most developing countries, and they don't heat the hallway.

Person: You have your fucking pea coat on.

Person 2: Why so testy? And, wow, we gotta go. Are you gonna change or not?

Person: Yes, after you step outside, close the door behind you, so I can have my, you know, privacy while I, you know, UNDRESS.

Person 2: Oh, is that what this is about?

Person: Ding, ding, ding!

Person 2: Oh, my apologies. I am so very sorry. I'll wait outside. I had no idea you were such a devout Christian.

Person: Excuse me?

Person 2: You believe nudity is something shameful or that it will cause me to look at you with uncontrollable lust. That's the Supernatural Christian belief in Original Sin, committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. I would have never known, especially since I only got a B in our evolutionary biology class. You got an A. Geez, you think you know people.

Person: I'm an atheist!

Person 2: Yeah, that's what I thought.

Person: Don't you see the big poster of Sam Harris right above my bed?

Person 2: Well, yes, maybe you're just a right-wing Christian double agent sent here to spy on our safe spaces.

Person: Seriously?!

Person 2: Yeah, seriously. I really resent that you would profile me as someone who would go all psychopathically horny at the sight of you undressing merely based upon my perceived gender. You're all in favor of racial profiling, too, right?

Person: What the fuck?

Person 2: Stop and frisk?

Person: You gotta be--

Person 2: Black lives matter, you know.

Person: What does that have to do--

Person 2: Intersectionality. Everything goes together. Gender profiling is racial profiling, and racial profiling is racism. You voted for Trump, right?


Person 2: I don't believe you.

Person: Oh Mother of, er…

Person 2: Mother of God? Come on, just say it. The closet is a lonely, stifling place. Even for a bigoted Trumpkin like you.

Person: You know what? Fine. I’ll just go like this. Okay, let’s just forget this surreal—

Person 2: You think I want to be seen now with a Trump Voter out in public?

Person: You can’t be serious.

Person 2: You’ve got be prepared to pay the price for your beliefs. Didn’t they teach you that in Sunday School?


Person 2: Then prove it. Get naked in front of me now!


Person 2: (in a mocking sing song voice) You voted for Trump!

Person: GET OUT! NOW!

Person 2: (still sing song) Putin is your secret boyfriend!


Person 2: Well, we wouldn't get tickets anyway. See ya. (exits)

Person: Oh, Jesus Christ.

Person 2: (offstage) I heard that!

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Things tenured philosophers of philosophy say

"I think it's understandable for a woman to be uncomfortable in a locker room with Alex Drummond. I also think it's understandable for a woman to be uncomfortable in an alley with a large young black man."

Monday, January 9, 2017

Bigotry Update

No one has yet been able to resolve what I claim to be a blatant contradiction at the very heart of the LGBT Alliance: The identities of the L, the G, and the B rests upon the concept of sexual orientation which assumes that biological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood. It is precisely this assumption of biological sex that the premise of the trans identities, the concept of 'gender identity', denies. Thus, to affirm the identities of the LGB, one must pull the rug out from under the identities of the T, and vice versa. Thus, one is either transphobic or homophobic.

There have been attempts to resolve this contradiction, but all have, I contend, failed. But what do I know? I am an irrational bigot. You decide how successful these attempts are.

The first attempt is a tired LGBT talking point: 'Gender identity' says what gender you are, and sexual orientation says to whom you are attracted. The concepts are separate, and if you keep them separate, you unenlightened putz who never bothered to take Gender 101, there can be no logical contradiction between the two. But this response, in my benighted eyes, fails to recognize that the concept of sexual orientation assumes precisely the very anthropology that 'gender identity' denies and thereby begs the question.

Another attempt is to say that everyone should be classified as 'pansexual'. But doesn't this just blot out the identities of the L,G, B altogether?

Yet another attempt seems to have become a talking point among the transactivists: You're attracted to whom you are attracted. Attraction becomes a cryptic, opaque tautology, rendering any generalizations about orientation impossible. This, too, blots out the identities of the Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals (not to mention the Heterosexuals as well).

The only other attempt I know of is to call the person who points out this logical contradiction a pathetic bigot who is probably a repressed, self-loathing homosexual and then threaten to beat him up. Basic logic is supposed to cower into negligibility before such intimidation, I suppose.

Basic logic needs to be queered.