I don’t know how anybody can consider themselves anti-civ and pro-transgenderism at the same time. It’s completely insane. Transgender philosophy is all about access to high-tech medical procedures. That is the mask that covers what is really going on, which is flat-out boundary transgression. If you want to be anti-civ and pro-transgender, what you are saying is any man who says he is a woman must be accepted as such by women, as-is, and vice versa.
I am becoming quite scorched earth about this bullshit. I was talking to another blogger this evening, and she was writing about another blogger’s post, a person who reads the reddit transgender subreddits and critiques them. This was about a woman who basically presented as a “butch” lesbian and was promptly told she was likely transgender. I wrote, in so many words: “Leaving aside the debate over whether the butch/femme dichotomy is just more genderism, or something of lesbianism that is beyond gender; I wonder whether anyone has ever asked trans activists what the difference is between a butch lesbian and a transman.”
We were talking about women, but obviously the same can be applied to men. Have any of these people ever even attempted to make the distinction between a transgender person and a gender-defying homosexual? And if one brings this up, is it ever possible to have a conversation about it, without being censored?
We were also discussing how it’s a popular trope to accuse people who are critical of transgenderism as being right-wing, and you can see where this discussion went, because anybody with half a brain can see where it goes. Trans activists simultaneously accuse critics of being right wing and censor discussion of gender-defying homosexuals, even though the right wing is homophobic, so we are all, according to them, right wing for suggesting “transgenders” might actually be homosexuals. A kindergartner could see what’s wrong with this. It is, as is all transgender philosophy, an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
Half the time when I comment online about transgenderism (and I do this quite a bit) I make a point of referencing yourlogicalfallacyis.com and pointing out how one of the fallacies they list is commonly used in defending transgenderism. It’s easier to find one that *isn’t*.
Texas sharpshooter, bandwagon, several involving shifting goal posts, begging the question, tu quoque. You could teach a fucking course about logical fallacies just using material from transgenderists.
I am tired of apologizing. I am tired of soothing feelings. Transgenderism is a bullshit philosophy. Gender identity is not a physiological medical condition. It’s a narrative that has become a trend. It’s closer to a religion than it is anything else, and the law has no business whatsoever codifying it to the point where protections of women are eliminated.
Instead, presentation should be protected by law, for both sexes. This would make sense, this would be a win for everybody except the assholes who want to force men and women into gendered roles. And protecting presentation would work just fine with anti-civ stances. You don’t need civilization to decorate yourself or have a personality. But you do need civilization to create hierarchies that enforce sex roles to the point where people actually accept the idea that it’s okay to encourage children, small children, to believe themselves doomed to a life of hormone treatment, dodgy surgeries, sterilization, and unknown long term side effects.