Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural

[natina]

Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman
Facts are not subject to our feelings.

The world is abuzz with news that actor Laverne Cox has become the first transgender person to appear on the cover of Time magazine. If I understand the current state of the ever-shifting ethic and rhetoric of transgenderism, that is not quite true: Bradley Manning, whom we are expected now to call Chelsea, beat Cox to the punch by some time. Manning’s announcement of his intention to begin living his life as a woman and to undergo so-called sex-reassignment surgery came after Time’s story, but, given that we are expected to defer to all subjective experience in the matter of gender identity, it could not possibly be the case that Manning is a transgendered person today but was not at the time of the Time cover simply because Time was unaware of the fact, unless the issuance of a press release is now a critical step in the evolutionary process.

As I wrote at the time of the Manning announcement, Bradley Manning is not a woman. Neither is Laverne Cox.
Cox, a fine actor, has become a spokesman — no doubt he would object to the term — for trans people, whose characteristics may include a wide variety of self-conceptions and physical traits. Katie Couric famously asked him about whether he had undergone surgical alteration, and he rejected the question as invasive, though what counts as invasive when you are being interviewed by Katie Couric about features of your sexual identity is open to interpretation. Couric was roundly denounced for the question and for using “transgenders” as a noun, and God help her if she had misdeployed a pronoun, which is now considered practically a hate crime.

The phenomenon of the transgendered person is a thoroughly modern one, not in the sense that such conditions did not exist in the past — Cassius Dio relates a horrifying tale of an attempted sex-change operation — but because we in the 21st century have regressed to a very primitive understanding of reality, namely the sympathetic magic described by James George Frazer in The Golden Bough. The obsession with policing language on the theory that language mystically shapes reality is itself ancient — see the Old Testament — and sympathetic magic proceeds along similar lines, using imitation and related techniques as a means of controlling reality. The most famous example of this is the voodoo doll. If an effigy can be made sufficiently like the reality it is intended to represent, then it becomes, for the mystical purposes at hand, a reality in its own right. The infinite malleability of the postmodern idea of “gender,” as opposed to the stubborn concreteness of sex, is precisely the reason the concept was invented. For all of the high-academic theory attached to the question, it is simply a mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality. Facebook now has a few score options for describing one’s gender or sex, and no doubt they will soon match the number of names for the Almighty in one of the old mystery cults.

Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman. Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.
Genital amputation and mutilation is the extreme expression of the phenomenon, but it is hardly outside the mainstream of contemporary medical practice. The trans self-conception, if the autobiographical literature is any guide, is partly a feeling that one should be living one’s life as a member of the opposite sex and partly a delusion that one is in fact a member of the opposite sex at some level of reality that transcends the biological facts in question. There are many possible therapeutic responses to that condition, but the offer to amputate healthy organs in the service of a delusional tendency is the moral equivalent of meeting a man who believes he is Jesus and inquiring as to whether his insurance plan covers crucifixion.
This seems to me a very different sort of phenomenon from simple homosexuality (though, for the record, I believe that our neat little categories of sexual orientation are yet another substitution of the conceptual for the actual, human sexual behavior being more complex and varied than the rhetoric of sexual orientation can accommodate). The question of the status of gay people interacts with politics to the extent that it in some cases challenges existing family law, but homosexual acts as such seem to me a matter that is obviously, and almost by definition, private. The mass delusion that we are inculcating on the question of transgendered people is a different sort of matter, to the extent that it would impose on society at large an obligation — possibly a legal obligation under civil-rights law, one that already is emerging — to treat delusion as fact, or at the very least to agree to make subjective impressions superordinate to biological fact in matters both public and private.
As a matter of government, I have little or no desire to police how Cox or any other man or woman conducts his or her personal life. But having a culture organized around the elevation of unreality over reality in the service of Eros, who is a sometimes savage god, is not only irrational but antirational. Cox’s situation gave him an intensely unhappy childhood and led to an eventual suicide attempt, and his story demands our sympathy; times being what they are, we might even offer our indulgence. But neither of those should be allowed to overwhelm the facts, which are not subject to our feelings, however sincere or well intended.
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent of National Review.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson
Sun-Times Apologizes for Carrying Antitrans Op-ed; National Review Still Defiant

The piece calls trans people delusional and refers to gender-confirmation surgery as 'mutilation'; the Chicago Sun-Times has apologized for republishing it.


http://www.advocate.com/politics/med...irring-outrage

To National Review Online, The Transgender Community Is "Delusional"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05...r-commu/199525

Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural

http://thoughtcatalog.com/gavin-mcin...ectly-natural/


Wait—you’re transphobic?
You have a problem with a guy having his penis removed? He’s a chick, you asshole. God fucked up and made him a dude, but luckily we have the technology to fix that mistake. Why couldn’t he just be a drag queen? Well, for one, he needs to feel a penis inside him. No, his butt doesn’t count. He needs to feel a penis go in and out of his vagina—you know, like all women crave. That feeling of having your vagina fucked. It’s a primal urge, and to deny some woman this feeling just because she’s a dude is downright barbaric.

Haven’t you seen all the totally functional, happily married, normal trannies walking around? They aren’t all dead, you know. They sell flowers at the local village and bake pies for their scores of adopted children. They’re non-heteronormative. In fact, the only thing more normal than castrating yourself and taking tons of hormones to grow tits is chopping them off. Women who get double mastectomies and then have their cunts turned inside out are just righting a wrong. They need to have a weird cheese blintz-looking thing sticking out of their previous cooch because it feels way better than wearing a strap-on. Sure, the nerve endings aren’t the same as a real dick, but standing up to go pee pee is something these women were born to do. How dare you have a problem with that?
You will be totally comfortable when your daughter marries a post-op dude and you should have no problems with her smoking his blintz. When your dad tells you he is going to have his penis removed and thrown into a biowaste container at the hospital, your soul will become a placid lake of calm. “That’s totally normal, dad” you’ll say and begin to call him Mom2 from that day forward.
When Janet Mock appears on MSNBC and talks about growing up as a black chick, nobody’s going to bat an eye. We’ll all be totally comfortable with him retroactively rewriting history and putting a skirt on all his boyhood memories.
I kid. I kid. Of course it’s fucking unusual. We’re all transphobic. We aren’t blind. We see there are no old trannies. They die of drug overdoses and suicide way before they’re 40 and nobody notices because nobody knows them. They are mentally ill gays who need help, and that help doesn’t include being maimed by physicians. These aren’t women trapped in a man’s body. They are nuts trapped in a crazy person’s body. I see them on the streets of New York. They are guys with tits and a sweatshirt. They wear jeans and New Balance. “What’s the matter with simply being a fag who wears makeup?” I think when I see them. You’re not a woman. You’re a tomboy at best. Get fucked in the ass. And ladies, if you’re a butch lesbian, you’re a lady with a lot of testosterone. Put a dick on a belt and fuck your girlfriend. You don’t need to turn your vagina inside out. You’re not a man. You don’t even know what Turf Builder is.
By pretending this is all perfectly sane, you are enabling these poor bastards to mutilate themselves. This insane war on pronouns is about telling people what to do. It may empower you to shut down a school’s computer system because they phrased your gender wrong, but that’s just a game to you. To them, it’s a life-changing event that fucks them up. To fight against transphobia is to justify trannies. To justify trannies is to allow mentally ill people to mutilate themselves. When your actions are getting people mutilated, you’re at war with them.
It’s not great for women, either. Buying woman parts from a hospital and calling yourself a broad trivializes what it is to be a woman. Womanhood is not on a shelf next to wigs and makeup. Similarly, being a dude is quite involved. Ripping your vaginal canal out of your fly doesn’t mean you are going to start inventing shit and knowing how cement works. Being a man is awesome. So is being a woman. We should revere these creations, not revel in their bastardization. Being gay is a weird quirk that happens at birth. It’s like being an albino. If you’re born that way, you shouldn’t fight it. You don’t need to change who you are. In fact, doing so is sexist, misandrist, homophobic, and further damages the lives of the mentally ill.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/gavin-mcin...ectly-natural/

[TO Cnd Gurl]

Natina is hoping for a past that never really existed. In many ways the negativity of the post speaks volumes about the writer. I am a woman ... legally and in every way yet I was not born one.

Surprise, I also have a penis and yet I am a women. This truth will he upsetting for Natina and we have to feel for her upset. It must be increafibly hard trying to propose a theory that science and medicine throughout so long ago.

Why does me being a woman upset her? What is it about Trans women that Natina finds challenging to her existence? Why would she bother presenting her divisive and outdated feelings, at the risk of being labelled hateful?

We should feel pitty for her limited view of the world and be grateful that her views are those of a few who dream of a past that never really existed.

[TO Cnd Gurl]

Please forgive the few typos .... I'm travelling and using a smartphone, not a full keyboard.

[natina]

both of these articles are not mine

THEY WERE WRITTEN BY
Gavin McInnes

Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman
Facts are not subject to our feelings
http://thoughtcatalog.com/gavin-mcin...ectly-natural/

AND THE OTHER ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY

Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent of National Review.
Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman
Facts are not subject to our feelings.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson


---- ----- ----- ---- ---- --- --- ---------------------- ----- --

Natina is hoping for a past that never really existed. In many ways the negativity of the post speaks volumes about the writer. I am a woman ... legally and in every way yet I was not born one.

Surprise, I also have a penis and yet I am a women. This truth will he upsetting for Natina and we have to feel for her upset. It must be increafibly hard trying to propose a theory that science and medicine throughout so long ago.

Why does me being a woman upset her? What is it about Trans women that Natina finds challenging to her existence? Why would she bother presenting her divisive and outdated feelings, at the risk of being labelled hateful?

We should feel pitty for her limited view of the world and be grateful that her views are those of a few who dream of a past that never really existed.