Sooooo .... I'm getting a lot of people reading this as a defense of trans identities. (It's definitely not.) And they're pissed about it. Like super pissed. Which is fine, but also not what I expected.
If you had written this piece 2 years ago I am not sure anyone would have cared. They might not have even read it. Perhaps people are pissed as a reflection that this topic has suddenly (very suddenly?) boiled over the pot. People are facing several post-modern-neo-marxist absurdities in their daily lives and the trans absurdity is one of the most evil because it represents an Orwellian 2+2=5 scenario that most of us figured would always remain as fiction. Long story short, people being pissed (incorrectly, I might add, as they probably didn't actually read your post) is likely a response to feeling cornered with no way out. Everyone is on edge (and that's just how the post-modern-neo-marxists want it).
Hopefully those folks will read the whole post before jumping to a rash conclusion but I guess they have already done so. Personally I enjoy and appreciate your writing style. Good job.
I'm one that disagreed with some but it's just a atter of each being his won and not a clone of another. It was not meant to be mean spritied or hateful.
People do not read with any proficiency. They skim and conclude based on their preconceived notions and will choose "meaning" based on affirmation tendencies and personal conditioned bias.
It seems to be going over a lot of people's heads but its certainly making for interesting conversation.
The point being that "trans" only exists via validation and removal of validation - in a metaphysical sense - destroys any iterative "existence." (And too bad.)
Is that what you got?... because some of this feedback is really surprising me.
Agreed, and there is a conflict of rights in use of pronouns. The dispute:
A: I have the right to choose the pronouns that you will use in reference to me, and I can dictate that speech.
B: I have the right to speak freely and truthfully regarding reality. Your wide shoulders and deep voice show that you are biologically male, and I choose to use "she" and "her" to refer only to biological females, as is my right by freedom of speech. Also, part of the 1st Amendment protections determined by the Supreme Court is that "government cannot tell people what they must say," (Chief Justice John Roberts, 2006.)
I suppose a "they" compromise might work,
although that is also reality -denying: a pretense of plural where there is singular reality.
My compromise:
"This person" or "that person" for those whose demanded pronouns conflict with reality. Awkward but grudgingly satisfactory for all concerned.
The "singular they" can be grating. It sounds like a grammatical nod to multiple personality disorder.
I don't see what's wrong with using "it" since it is a gender-neutral, singular third-person pronoun. A person offended by "it" was already going to be offended by hearing pronouns other than those it decreed.
Use:
"The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it."
— Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
"Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble to get out of the carriage."
-- E. Nesbit, Five Children and It
"It's a boy/girl."
-- various OBs over the centuries
Per Wikipedia:
"Samuel Taylor Coleridge proposed using it in a wider sense in all the situations where a gender-neutral pronoun might be desired."
In the end, the equation may zero out if, by affirming their existence, I deny my own. Of what overarching value is there in this? If my identity, my cosmology, is based upon all I understand to be human history and the natural world, of what purpose is there in tearing down [my] rationality?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me." How much does one's identity rely upon the perceptions and affirmations of others? Does one individual have the power to destroy another person's "reality," as in identity? How much responsibility do we have to affirm ourselves and protect ourselves from the "names."
I guess the comments you are referencing have been deleted? I really enjoyed this article. You succinctly and logically explain the feelings that have been floating in my head but I couldn't tether.
I was doing some research on tadalafil and stumbled upon a reddit where trans-women(penis equipped men who are larping) who still enjoy penetration were discussing the drug.... that's it that's the whole comment.....
something about men talking about their dicks and drugs to make their dicks work better while posing as women was both dissonant and reaffirming my suspicions but i may be generalizing but i don't think so
Most of these "Emily Howard" types have a fetish called autogynephilia. However, they can't admit that they are a slave to a fetish, so they lie about having gender dysphoria.
On twitter, way before it became a place you got booted off of for supporting Trump and telling the truth about Mnra....there was a really funny. lovely woman, who did a quick video about "I want to be a bird...I can pretend my house is my nest and go out in my backyard and eat worms and its fine. But I don't have the right to leave my house and demand that you feed me worms because I am bird".
But she was much funnier and cleverer than I can remember here. Had me in tears laughing. So right.
I finally got around to reading this AJ. The currency analogy is easy to comprehend, as I've often thought that the further we push this mixing of gender identities, we're just watering down their meaning. What is a woman in the context of the trans-movement? Everything.. and nothing. Moving the target makes it really difficult to play.
Respectfully I believe you are conflating acknolwedgment/recognition of with suport/promotion of. One can recignize that someone suffers from belenmia without suporting that persons belief that they are over weight
What is so amazing is that it takes so many words to affirm what is commons sense. Common sense is no longer common. Alas, all this and so much more has largely been brought about by postmodernism & its war against standards and objective reality. While not entirely new it has gained momentum & a wider more accepting audience. The lure being that old mores can be thrown off and one now has the freedom to create one's own. How liberating! except history shows us this never ends well.
On a deeper level as you have stated AJ, they are not (totally) wrong. For if objective standards/reality/morality does not exist outside of our own (or societies own) creation then you or I have no basis on which to criticize their behavior. To what moral base can we appeal if an objective moral law does not exist? This is the elephant in the room that everyone dances around.
Heidi, if you're still there, I feel you. We're on the same team! I was just replying that I relate to your reactions. Sometimes I bury the lead to try to engage people a little more deeply and I may have overdone it this time. Thanks for reading regardless! :)
Sooooo .... I'm getting a lot of people reading this as a defense of trans identities. (It's definitely not.) And they're pissed about it. Like super pissed. Which is fine, but also not what I expected.
So talk to me, friends - what am I missing?
It made perfect sense to me
If you had written this piece 2 years ago I am not sure anyone would have cared. They might not have even read it. Perhaps people are pissed as a reflection that this topic has suddenly (very suddenly?) boiled over the pot. People are facing several post-modern-neo-marxist absurdities in their daily lives and the trans absurdity is one of the most evil because it represents an Orwellian 2+2=5 scenario that most of us figured would always remain as fiction. Long story short, people being pissed (incorrectly, I might add, as they probably didn't actually read your post) is likely a response to feeling cornered with no way out. Everyone is on edge (and that's just how the post-modern-neo-marxists want it).
I knew you were not writing in defense of trans identities, A.J., and find the essay quite thought-provoking.
Hopefully those folks will read the whole post before jumping to a rash conclusion but I guess they have already done so. Personally I enjoy and appreciate your writing style. Good job.
Exactly. They didn't READ the article, which I think is brilliant.
Brilliant! I finally understand the "cease to exist" hysteria. Gonna fire up my inkjet as soon as I finish reading the comments.
That's not how I interpreted your post at all. I think it was very well written and I plan to use your analogy about the money often!
I'm one that disagreed with some but it's just a atter of each being his won and not a clone of another. It was not meant to be mean spritied or hateful.
You not missing anything. You explained this so clearly I’m bookmarking this. Bravo!
People do not read with any proficiency. They skim and conclude based on their preconceived notions and will choose "meaning" based on affirmation tendencies and personal conditioned bias.
Well reasoned, I appreciate the insight into the trans mindset. Thanks!
Interesting article, thanks for your perspective!
It seems to be going over a lot of people's heads but its certainly making for interesting conversation.
The point being that "trans" only exists via validation and removal of validation - in a metaphysical sense - destroys any iterative "existence." (And too bad.)
Is that what you got?... because some of this feedback is really surprising me.
Agreed, and there is a conflict of rights in use of pronouns. The dispute:
A: I have the right to choose the pronouns that you will use in reference to me, and I can dictate that speech.
B: I have the right to speak freely and truthfully regarding reality. Your wide shoulders and deep voice show that you are biologically male, and I choose to use "she" and "her" to refer only to biological females, as is my right by freedom of speech. Also, part of the 1st Amendment protections determined by the Supreme Court is that "government cannot tell people what they must say," (Chief Justice John Roberts, 2006.)
I suppose a "they" compromise might work,
although that is also reality -denying: a pretense of plural where there is singular reality.
My compromise:
"This person" or "that person" for those whose demanded pronouns conflict with reality. Awkward but grudgingly satisfactory for all concerned.
The "singular they" can be grating. It sounds like a grammatical nod to multiple personality disorder.
I don't see what's wrong with using "it" since it is a gender-neutral, singular third-person pronoun. A person offended by "it" was already going to be offended by hearing pronouns other than those it decreed.
Use:
"The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it."
— Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
"Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble to get out of the carriage."
-- E. Nesbit, Five Children and It
"It's a boy/girl."
-- various OBs over the centuries
Per Wikipedia:
"Samuel Taylor Coleridge proposed using it in a wider sense in all the situations where a gender-neutral pronoun might be desired."
Very helpful piece! We all need to start saying "no!" to this crazy and destructive fad.
You might find my post on questions for people who identify as trans.
https://yourunclepedro.substack.com/p/a-few-questions-for-the-non-binarygender
In the end, the equation may zero out if, by affirming their existence, I deny my own. Of what overarching value is there in this? If my identity, my cosmology, is based upon all I understand to be human history and the natural world, of what purpose is there in tearing down [my] rationality?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me." How much does one's identity rely upon the perceptions and affirmations of others? Does one individual have the power to destroy another person's "reality," as in identity? How much responsibility do we have to affirm ourselves and protect ourselves from the "names."
I guess the comments you are referencing have been deleted? I really enjoyed this article. You succinctly and logically explain the feelings that have been floating in my head but I couldn't tether.
I was doing some research on tadalafil and stumbled upon a reddit where trans-women(penis equipped men who are larping) who still enjoy penetration were discussing the drug.... that's it that's the whole comment.....
Cool, cool.
something about men talking about their dicks and drugs to make their dicks work better while posing as women was both dissonant and reaffirming my suspicions but i may be generalizing but i don't think so
the definition of fraud seems to apply
This is Emily Howard, in case you don't know the character.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ykpBEy95I
Most of these "Emily Howard" types have a fetish called autogynephilia. However, they can't admit that they are a slave to a fetish, so they lie about having gender dysphoria.
It's downright creepy.
On twitter, way before it became a place you got booted off of for supporting Trump and telling the truth about Mnra....there was a really funny. lovely woman, who did a quick video about "I want to be a bird...I can pretend my house is my nest and go out in my backyard and eat worms and its fine. But I don't have the right to leave my house and demand that you feed me worms because I am bird".
But she was much funnier and cleverer than I can remember here. Had me in tears laughing. So right.
I finally got around to reading this AJ. The currency analogy is easy to comprehend, as I've often thought that the further we push this mixing of gender identities, we're just watering down their meaning. What is a woman in the context of the trans-movement? Everything.. and nothing. Moving the target makes it really difficult to play.
Well written as always, AJ! Grateful for your perspective and the even-handed intelligence you bring to a divisive topic.
Respectfully I believe you are conflating acknolwedgment/recognition of with suport/promotion of. One can recignize that someone suffers from belenmia without suporting that persons belief that they are over weight
Failing to validate the preferred gender of trans-identifying people constitutes ignoring psychotics.
What is so amazing is that it takes so many words to affirm what is commons sense. Common sense is no longer common. Alas, all this and so much more has largely been brought about by postmodernism & its war against standards and objective reality. While not entirely new it has gained momentum & a wider more accepting audience. The lure being that old mores can be thrown off and one now has the freedom to create one's own. How liberating! except history shows us this never ends well.
On a deeper level as you have stated AJ, they are not (totally) wrong. For if objective standards/reality/morality does not exist outside of our own (or societies own) creation then you or I have no basis on which to criticize their behavior. To what moral base can we appeal if an objective moral law does not exist? This is the elephant in the room that everyone dances around.
Yes. We agree. The point is that we are denying that their fantasies are real - which is true.
Heidi, if you're still there, I feel you. We're on the same team! I was just replying that I relate to your reactions. Sometimes I bury the lead to try to engage people a little more deeply and I may have overdone it this time. Thanks for reading regardless! :)