Tumgik
#the useful function that transgenderism performs
spankymerve · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
I posted 671 times in 2022
That's 5 more posts than 2021!
260 posts created (39%)
411 posts reblogged (61%)
Blogs I reblogged the most:
@nostalgebraist-autoresponder
@argumate
@cthulhubert
@spankymerve
@transgenderer
I tagged 643 of my posts in 2022
Only 4% of my posts had no tags
#shitposting - 113 posts
#botposting - 86 posts
#[tumblr] - 39 posts
#laugh rule - 17 posts
#mathematical shitposting - 12 posts
#brain noise - 11 posts
#morbius - 9 posts
#twitter - 9 posts
#gender shit - 8 posts
#endorsed - 7 posts
Longest Tag: 93 characters
#i get away with using r's default plotting methods and don't even have to bother with ggplot2
My Top Posts in 2022:
#5
134 notes - Posted February 18, 2022
#4
I would like to live in the timeline without deranged takes, please.
230 notes - Posted February 24, 2022
#3
I think Rick Astley has handled his meme status better than pretty much any other celebrity. He didn't run away from it or become resentful of it. He also didn't over-exploit it or run it into the ground. Instead he happily embraced it, still references it from time to time, and just continued performing and making music.
302 notes - Posted April 2, 2022
#2
Guys.
Guys guys guys.
Jurassic Fart.
347 notes - Posted June 6, 2022
My #1 post of 2022
JavaScript coders be like, “I used Grungle and Upshark to connect to the Beefwax server and access the Shooploop library, which gave me a secure token to redownload a custom Hepperneff codebase from 2002 and use a function that allowed me to add two integers together.”
942 notes - Posted July 10, 2022
Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →
0 notes
medusanevertalks · 3 years
Text
“Another force in the construction of transgenderism, according to David Valentine, is the conservatism of a gay male politics concerned to reject and sideline effeminacy. Whatever the balance of forces that constructed transgenderism in the late twentieth century, one puzzling element is the lack of criticism by male gay scholars, particularly since hatred of homosexuality so clearly played a role, and one group of those who aspire to transgender are men who love men. [...]
The absence of any critique of transgenderism from within the male gay community is sufficiently conspicuous as to need explanation, and David Valentine seeks to offer one (Valentine, 2007). He argues that the lack of protest by gay men points to the useful function that transgenderism performs for a new breed of conservative gay men post gay liberation. These conservative gay men assert their concordance with normative masculinity and seek to deny and exclude effeminate gay men by casting them into the category of ‘transgender’. This ploy protected the normality of the gay men and helped in his campaign to be accepted legislatively and socially as just another jock.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts; 2014
3 notes · View notes
transverseapp · 3 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Photo by Just Jack on Unsplash  
(ID: A picture of the inclusive pride flag, an arrow with blue and pink stripes for the trans community and black and brown stripes for POC, pointing down toward the rest of the rainbow flag. End ID)
As Pride Month comes to a close, we all have much to consider.
There is certainly something to say about brands’ performative allyship for profit this month every year, but it’s more complex than that, with both the good and bad.
Corporations are not made up of a hivemind of evil capitalists - they are businesses run by networks of real people. Real people who have their own thoughts and feelings and opinions on how their corporate entity functions. Do you agree with everything that everyone in your job has ever done? Do you really think, the same person who wrote discriminatory practices into the hiring manuals, is the same person tweeting about gay pride this month? Maybe the social media manager is a tech-savvy millennial glad they can spread a little queer positivity in a corporate job they hope is a stepping stone to a better future. You can never know. 
Many companies are happy to tout allyship during pride month, without actually dedicating themselves to any real change for LGBTQ+ employees in their workplace. This deserves a critical eye. 
But it is not the end of the story.
Something that gives me hope is actually in the commercialism we are seeing here in America. For the most part, corporations will not back a social movement that they don’t confidently believe they will profit from. This has led to the commercialization of pride month - but in the oddest way, it’s a mirror of the change in our society. The tide is turning, in progress’s slow but unyielding march. Thirty years, twenty years, even ten years ago, corporations did not believe homosexuality and transgenderism was accepted enough in this country to be profitable to support. Expressing support for the LGBTQ+ community would bring about negative reactions, and tanking profits as a result. 
As the cultural milieu shifts, it is not a coherent or linear process. Progress waltzes a few steps forward, a few steps back - occasionally staggering in sprints one direction or another. But somehow, we’ve gotten here - where being gay is not secreted in whispers, but plastered on shirts and memorabilia, front and center on display in many big-name stores across America. This is a sign of the changing attitude toward LGBTQ+ acceptance in society. It’s not the same in every corner of every town, but the fact that corporations feel it is safe - and even profitable - to support LGBTQ+ acceptance, is actually a promising sign of the cultural shift. 
Corporations don’t just act according to cultural shifts though - they also contribute to it. From the politicians they back behind the scenes, to the commercials they play on every media, they impact society in their own way. Their pride month marketing, however performative, still sends a clear message in normalizing and supporting queer and trans people across the globe. Those who support it feel uplifted, and those opposed see it as a monumental foe against their bigotry. Every rainbow logo and cheesy tee shirt slogan still shows a change, a voice, an impact. 
There have been countless efforts through the history of humanity to ban, punish, and hide those who do not conform to gender and sexuality norms. Yet, without fail, we continue to exist, and grow, and build from the ashes once more. The love of our people is a natural thing, and eternal - we carry it forth as a billion ancestors before us did, no matter their circumstances. We are not one political movement, one type of person, one single mind. We have always been here, and we always will be. Every attempt against our people has, and will, fail in the ways that matter most. We are not a fire to be put out, or a movement to be stopped. We are a billion hearts and minds across every plain the Earth holds. We cannot be extinguished.
And that is certainly something to be proud of. 
9 notes · View notes
arcticdementor · 3 years
Link
When the idea that a woman could have a penis was no longer a privileged insight of the academic elite but had gone mainstream, I remarked to my friend, “How long before we have to affirm the furries?” At the time I was joking, but after reading Kathy Rudy’s article “LGBTQ…Z?” in Hypatia in which she claims to “draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory” I’m starting to wonder if my joke isn’t that far off. After all, there was a time when the idea of a man becoming a woman was a joke—as in this clip from Monty Python’s comedy The Life of Brian.
What Duke University professor Kathy Rudy seems to realize by arguing we should add “Z” (zoophilia) to the queer alphabet soup is that a great way to have a successful career in academia is to bring postmodern gobbledygook into absurd combinations with anything and everything.
I will hand it to Rudy, her article is at least comprehensible, even if it’s just as insane. Rudy begins by noting that humans who “kill animals, force them to breed with each other, eat them, surround them, train them, hunt them, nail them down and cut them open for science” are considered “normal, functioning members of society. Yet having sex with animals remains an almost unspeakable anathema.”
While some might conclude that, since we wouldn’t shag a pig, we also shouldn’t confine one to a gestation crate, Rudy’s reasoning seems to be that if we already force terrible things on animals, then why not also screw them? If you’re a cow, having a human copulate with you can’t be as bad as going to the slaughterhouse, right? Besides, Fido already humps my leg so why don’t I hump him?
Technically, Rudy claims “my argument is not for or against humans having sex with animals, but is a meditation on both the elusive nature of sex itself and the subjectivities of human versus nonhuman animals.” She never explicitly promotes sex with animals, but considering that the entire point of the article is to call into question the taboo against having sex with animals, well…
It’s as if I said I’m not advocating for pedophilia but then proceed to undermine all the reasons for being against pedophilia. “Why not?” might not be as strong as “you must” but it leads to the same outcome, namely, radical permission.
As is often the case with academic postmodernism, the claims being made become less clear the more the author writes:
“Put differently, queer theory teaches us that it's not really a question of whether we have ‘sex’ with animals; rather it's about recognizing and honoring the affective bonds many of us share with other creatures. Those intense connections between humans and animals could be seen as revolutionary, in a queer frame. But instead, pet love is sanitized and rendered harmless by the presence of the interdict against bestiality. The discourses of bestiality and zoophilia form the identity boundary that we cannot pass through if we want our love of animals to be seen as acceptable.”
Rudy’s elusive, wishy-washy prose is a common rhetorical tactic. The goal is to avoid clearly committing to an argument so that one can simultaneously promote radical nuttiness while removing oneself from the burden of defending it. After all, if the claim really were as basic as “we love our pets but not in a sexual way” then the article wouldn’t be, as Rudy puts it, “revolutionary.”
The only way the article can be truly “transgressive” is for her to argue that our love for animals is already sexual or should become sexual. After all, Rudy seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs:
“I know I love my dogs with all my heart, but I can’t figure out if that love is sexually motivated.”
For some reason, I’ve never grappled with this problem, but then again, I’m not versed in Queer theory.
Indeed, what is the difference between inserting a piece of bread into a toaster and penetrative sex? According to postmodernism, nothing at all! As Rudy explains:
“The widespread social ban on bestiality rests on a solid notion of what sex is, and queer theory persuasively argues we simply don't have such a thing. The interdict against bestiality can only be maintained if we think we always/already know what sex is. And, according to queer theory, we don’t.”
Despite earlier claiming that she is not advocating for sex with animals, Rudy has just provided us with an indirect argument for it. She states that we can only maintain a ban on sex with animals if we know what sex is. She next states that queer theory has proven that we don’t know what sex is. Therefore, we cannot ban sex with animals. She suggests her indirect argument again at the end of the article by masking it in the form of a question:
“But without a coherent and agreed upon definition of sex (which queer theory persuasively argues is impossible), the line between ‘animal lover’ and zoophile is not only thin, it is nonexistent. How do we know beforehand whether loving them constitutes ‘sex,’ and how can such sex be so dangerous if it so nebulous and undefined?”
Not only is it false that we have no idea what sex is, but it is also false to say that we require a taxonomy of every kind of sexual feeling before we can forbid certain acts (such as coitus) with animals (or children and the cognitively disabled, such as Chris Chan’s mother with dementia).
I may not be able to verbally capture the feeling of sexual desire or pleasure any more than I can define pain or joy or sadness. It’s something I know from experience. What I can say for sure is that what I felt kissing my grandma’s cheek is definitely not in the same category as what I felt kissing my boyfriend. Rudy may be unclear as to whether she is turned on by a slurp from her dog, but I personally have never felt confusion on the matter.
Yet, the true perversion, according to Rudy, is not to lust after camels, dogs, parakeets or naked mole rats but to set up the sexual boundary between humans and animals in the first place:
“Put differently, both animal rights (3) and psychosocial perspectives [which view desire for animals as mental illness] (4) do not believe that borders can be crossed. Queer theory, on the other hand, tells us that few of us have stable identities anymore, that borders are always crossed. We're all changing, shifting, splitting ourselves up this way and that. It labels these processes ‘hailing,’ ‘suturing,’ and ‘interpolation’; where once we saw ourselves affiliated in one way, a new interpretive community emerges to capture our passions and move us differently. I am asking the reader to entertain the possibility that the same kinds of shifts and disruptions happen with categories like ‘human,’ ‘rabbit,’ ‘ape,’ or ‘dog.’”
And no woke paper would be complete without the accusation of violence:
“Both positions [animal rights activists and bestialists] oppose sex with animals, and in doing so they perform a kind of violence on animals by lumping them all together into one seamless identity.”
That’s right. Physically violating an animal does not constitute violence. Words do. Especially when those words reject postmodern queer theory.
Unlike the many women who have been cancelled for claiming that males aren’t women, Rudy’s August 2012 article (republished March 2020) for Hypatia did not result in her being fired, censored, or otherwise deplatformed.
It’s not as if no one came across her article either. According to Altmetric, Rudy’s article is in the “top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric” and is “One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 704)” and has an Altmetrics attention score in the 99th percentile.
When Rebecca Tuvel wrote a paper for Hypatia suggesting that the same assumptions that ground transgenderism could be used to support transracialism, scholars demanded Hypatia retract the article and the journal's Facebook page posted an apology on behalf of the associate editors. Rudy, on the other hand, was invited to deliver the commencement speech for North Carolina Service Dogs in December 2012.
We must remember that the word “transgressive” has relative, not absolute, meaning. What is considered “normal” defines what is considered “transgressive.” If queer theory articles on bestiality result in publication and validation, then is Rudy truly, in her words, “transgressive”? Or is Hypatia, rather, representative of a new establishment norm that is just as desirous of punishing transgressors—now in the form of TERFs and other enemies of the postmodern left—as the old establishment was eager to fire and ostracize homosexuals? As The Who sang, “Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss.”
4 notes · View notes
comrade-meow · 3 years
Link
The Marxist left finds itself confronted by three insidious big lies that threaten the revolutionary and emancipatory foundation of the Marxist project, all related to undermining women’s liberation; they are:
1. Transwomen are women.
2. Sex work is work.
3. Feminism is bourgeois.
Misogyny in its many forms has long been a challenge for the left; not just the misogyny of the reactionary right, but misogyny coming from within the left itself. But it has not been until recently that this leftist misogyny has sought to portray itself as being inherently progressive. By engaging in revisionism of the most blatant kind, reactionary elements within the left have managed to posit themselves as the agents of progress. Much has already been written about the harms caused by these three lies, but no attempt has yet to be made to debunk them from a solidly Marxist standpoint. That is what we are out to accomplish here; to demonstrate definitively that these big lies are not just regressive, but inherently revisionist and anti-Marxist to the core.
The first of these three big lies, “Transwomen are women”, might well be the most damaging, because it directly contradicts the heart of the Marxist method: dialectical materialism. There are two main definitions used by proponents of transgenderism to explain their narrative. The first is that gender is an identity; the state of being a man or a woman (or any one of the other numerous “gender identities”) stems not from biological sex (to the extent that transactivists acknowledge the existence of biological sex), but from an internal identity, i.e. personal feelings, personal consciousness. The second definition says that transpeople are not really the sex they physically are, but the sex they say they are, because they really have “male” or “female” brains. Both of these definitions are rooted in the personal, not the material. One of the patron saints of queer theory, Judith Butler, says:
“It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”[1]
Though queer theory is a postmodernist philosophy, its roots go far deeper than just postmodernism; rather, this statement of Butler’s is an example of the dialectics of idealism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was formed in reaction to the idealist dialectics of the Young Hegelians. The dialects of idealism posit that reality flows from consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, argued “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[2] That is, it is not our thoughts that shape material reality, but material reality that shapes our thoughts. In fact, Marx’s first major work, The German Ideology, is exclusively dedicated to explaining this.
So what is the materialist definition of gender? And how does the embrace of the idealist definition under the guise of Marxism harm the Marxist aim of women’s liberation? The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”[3] Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.
But we have not yet dealt with the concept of gender. In the current queer theory dominated discourse, sex and gender are increasingly become conflated to the point that they are being used as synonyms for one another. Engels analysis of patriarchy is in many ways incomplete, but it forms the basis of future materialist explorations of sex and gender. The second-wave feminists who developed much of the thought around gender did not revise these fundamentals, but expanded on them, the opposite of what today’s revisionists are doing. Gender, according to the radical feminist Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, is “the value system that prescribes and proscribes forms of behaviour and appearance for members of the different sex classes, and that assigns superior value to one sex class at the expense of the other.”[4] Gender is therefore not the same thing as biological sex, but a kind of parasite grafted on top of biological sex to maintain the current sexual hierarchy, and ensure continued male control over reproductive labor. Gender non-conforming, as well as homosexual, men and women are therefore “exiled” from their gender community not because of some abstract identity, but because they do not fulfill their proscribed functions as members of their sex class; they are essentially class traitors. Intersex people, which form a distinct material category, are also lumped into this community of “exiles” because they too are unable to fulfill the goals of the patriarchal sexual hierarchy. Such communities of exiles have existed throughout history, and continue to exist to this day in all parts of the world, from the hijra in India to the two-spirited people of the Native Americans to the contemporary shunning and violence directed at gender non-conforming individuals. But to reiterate, none of this has to do with identity, but with the material structuring of class society.
While transactivists have started to turn against the biomedical explanation for transgenderism, it is very much alive and well in the medical and psychological community. Victorian-era theories about “brain sex” that would have earned the ire of Marx and Engels are now making a comeback. At best, these theories are chimerical pseudoscience which have not even come close to being conclusively proven in any legitimate scientific study. The standards by which gender dysphoria is diagnosed falls back on the constructed tropes of masculinity and femininity already discussed. Such theories risk misconstruing gender roles as being rooted in nature as opposed to constructions that reinforce ruling class control. Rather than being seen as the disease, dysphoria should be seen as the symptom of the sexual hierarchy. The pressures of gendered socialization are ubiquitous, and begin at birth. Very often we are not aware of the subtle forms socialization exerts upon us. For those who reject this socialization, it follows that they would experience levels of extreme discomfort and anguish. Gendered socialization is not just some abstract phenomena, but is, again, literally grafted onto us. Under this system of socialization, the penis becomes more than just the male sex organ, but the symbol of male aggression and supremacy, in the same way the vagina becomes the symbol of female inferiority and subjugation. Sensitive individuals who struggle against this socialization often hate their bodies, but not because their bodies are somehow “wrong”, but because of what they are drilled into believing their bodies are. What they suffer from is the inability to tear away the curtain that has been placed in front of material reality and to see reality in an objective manner. The fields of medical and psychological science are not immune from the influence of the ruling class. This is especially the case in the world of psychology, where a method of analysis is employed that isolates the individual from the wider society around them, preferring to view internal struggle as the result of some defect as opposed to the result of material and social forces exerted on the individual.
While capitalism has broken down certain elements of patriarchy, and allowed for women to make some gains, it has not dismantled patriarchy completely. Capitalism, being a class system, still needs to retain control of the means of reproduction. For example, laws that restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, while having negative repercussions for all women, have the most negative impact on poor, working-class women. These laws may be cloaked in the terminology of moralism, but have a far more base logic; they ensure the continued production of future proletarians for the benefit of the capitalist machine.
By shifting the definition of “woman” away from a materialist one to an idealistic one, we lose the ability to define and fight the causes of women’s oppression. In its most extreme form it erases women as a class, and makes it impossible to talk about patriarchy as an existing force. Why, then, are Marxists, who are supposed to be dialectical materialists embracing a set of ideas the very opposite of dialectical materialism? To answer this, we need to look at the nature of patriarchy; it is a system that predates capitalism. As already stated above, patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another. The one cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the other. Overthrowing capitalism is not the same as overthrowing class. As Mao pointed out, class dynamics still exist in the socialist society, and require continuous vigilance and combat on the part of revolutionaries. This is why many socialist states still restricted women’s rights to certain degrees, such as the draconian anti-abortion laws of Ceausescu’s Romania. All males benefit in some way from patriarchy, even males in a socialist society. It therefore follows that socialist males fighting capitalism also benefit from patriarchy. While men and women may be in solidarity with one another as workers, working class men also belong to the male sex class, a class that predates the existence of the modern working class. Class allegiances run deep. This is why so many socialist and “feminist” men are quick to defend and even endorse the violent language and actions perpetrated by some gender non-conforming men against the female sex class, regardless of how these gender non-conforming men identify themselves. This is not to deny that gender non-conforming men are discriminated against, and face harassment and violence themselves, but even as exiles from the male sex-class, they still benefit from some of the privileges awarded to this sex class. Note that I do not use privilege in the manner it’s currently used by the regressive left, i.e. as some abstract notion that needs to be “checked”. Rather, it is an actually existing force that must be combated, just as white revolutionaries must actively combat white supremacy, and first world revolutionaries must actively combat “their” state’s imperialism.
Opportunism and the “fear” of being on the “wrong side of history” are also driving forces behind this embrace of revisionism. The Anglophone left, especially in the United States, given its weakness in the overall political arena, has long sought to be seen as “acceptable” and “polite”, and is often eager to jump on any bandwagon it believes can advance it. This desire to be accepted also drives the fear. It is true that communists have made serious errors in judgment in the past, but that is not an excuse to rebel against core philosophies and hastily embrace ideas and movements without fully analyzing their beliefs and goals. This is not to say that communists should not be on the forefront in defending gender non-conforming individuals. A thoroughgoing socialist revolution requires that these existing oppressive structures be cast aside. But it is possible to defend gender non-conforming people without embracing misogynistic pseudoscience and revisionism.
Women are not just oppressed, but thoroughly exploited. Working class women make up what is possibly the most thoroughly exploited section of human society. By embracing philosophies that not only erase their ability to define and explain their exploitation, but also deny them the agency to organize as a revolutionary class, these “Marxists” have proven that they are in direct contradiction to Marxist philosophy and ideas. They are engaging in revisionism.
In the next part, we will examine the second big lie plaguing the left today, the notion that “sex work is work”.
18 notes · View notes
rabidmisandrist · 4 years
Text
some onions to get this blog started
the word queer is a slur. you can reclaim it if you are LGBT, but you cannot use it on others who do not consent to its use. it cannot be used as an umbrella term. it is not inclusive. straight people should never use it.
being asexual/aromantic does not make you inherently LGBT if you’re otherwise straight and cis. you cannot call yourselves queer either, or gay.
if you feel attraction to men, you are not a lesbian, nor can you call yourself one.
lesbians are not transphobic for refusing to sleep with amab bodies. asking us to ‘examine our genital preference’ is the same rape culture rhetoric as conversion therapy.
sex is a biological fact. it can be modified to the point of functionality, but it cannot be overwritten in its entirety.
gender is a social construct, as are gender roles. you cannot agree with the first clause and ignore the second. wearing makeup or a certain type of clothing, liking certain things, pronouns, honorifics, etc. are not inherently exclusive to any one gender. gender performance, the performance of a fabricated social role, does not dictate or negate sex.
queer culture is a regurgitation of homophobic stereotypes and projections of the heterosexual gaze.
a patriarchal society is an inherently pedophilic one. “trans puberty” is an extension of this fetishization.
trans women were socialized as boys/men. this means that they grew up with male privilege and entitlement. they did not grow up experiencing the sexism inherent to navigating this world as a female.
cis women have every right to share our experiences with sexism, with our bodies, with the confines and consequences of our gender role, without being silenced for lack of inclusion of trans experience.
threatening to rape, kill, or enact violence on cis women is misogyny.
trans women are capable of misogyny. cis women are also capable of misogyny, as are trans men. it is not gender or sex exclusive.
some men are using the rise of transgenderism to gain access to women’s bodies and spaces.
not all radical feminists are trans exclusionary. not all trans exclusionists are transphobic. having exclusively female spaces and conversations does not infringe on trans rights, personhood, or identity simply by virtue of existing.
men,,,,,,,,,suck
11 notes · View notes
helshades · 4 years
Note
I'm saying that transgenderism is a product of social constructionism, a post-modern theory. EvoPsy is bs, but evolutionary biology and neuroscience are serious fields opposed to the blank slate position. Why write about Marxism, then dismiss differences between the sexes as EvoPsy? Did Marx claim that women and men are identical in behavior and personality types? TransGENDERism should make sense to you if you don't believe that gendered behavior is innate.
Er, if you recall, I didn’t randomly bring up good ol’ Charlie Marx but pointed out that the materialistic principles of Marxism were philosophically at odds with idealistic, individualistic ‘queer theory’.
You speak of ‘differences between the sexes’ then two sentences later, after mentioning ‘personality types’, you bring up ‘gendered behaviour’. So which are we dealing with here, exactly? Generally, in my world, ‘gender’ is either used as a euphemism for ‘sex’ in common conversation outside of medical studies, or a probably overrated sociological notion referring to social roles, more or less arbitrary, that discriminate between the sexes. In other words, sociologists thought themselves very clever by rebranding ‘sexism’. Over the last few years, ‘gender’ has also been used to refer to the mind in the old dualism between mind and body—we’re not wondering if human beings have souls anymore, we’re wondering how detachable consciousness is from material reality. It’s exactly the same thing, with this notable exception that the believers regard their faith as scientific...
Back in 2018, the British published the largest study ever of structural differences in the brains of men and women, looking at over 5,000 brains to map their structural differences. The researchers noted that men and women, that is to say, males and females, had extremely similar brains, with only a couple differences: males have larger brains (and noses. And livers. And hands—we still don’t know if brain size actually accounts for cognitive differences between the sexes), they also have bigger room in their orbito-frontal cortex and insula for decision-making; females, meanwhile, have a thicker cerebral cortex, which is related to general intelligence. Apart from that, the study found more differences between individuals of the same sex than there were on average between the two sexes.
You see, the problem is, for behavioural extrapolation of any purpose, that we still don’t know from that fascinating study whether these sexed cerebral particularities are innate or learned. Previous research had shown that brain differences between the sexes varied significantly along the years, and a very famous, not to mention rather amusing, 2011 study on London taxi drivers exemplifies how the brain’s structure can be altered for meeting the job’s requirements. Additionally, we know that many parents raise their children differently according to sex, beginning before they even can talk, mothers notably encouraging boys and girls in opposite directions. Add to that the fact that hormones can affect mood, behaviour and performance...
Marxism vs. Queer Theory, by Yola Kipcak (02/12/19). ‘Our ideasare functions of our brain, our senses are the connection of our material bodiesto the material world, our culture is an expression of humans in theirinteraction with nature, of which they are a part.’
No one has a female soul somehow trapped within a male body. No one innately knows what it feels like to be the other sex, because everyone has only one body and no one (observed by science) has ever voyaged into another’s body: the only inner perception any of us can get of the outside world is our own. At the same time, none of us exists outside of society; we are incapable to be humans without countless other humans teaching us, positively or negatively, directly or indirectly, how to be human. Exactly how may researchers prove what is the part of innateness in there is a fascinating question.
2 notes · View notes
lesbian-ed · 6 years
Note
I've always identified as lesbian since I am female and I like females. But lately I have started to wonder if there is something to the genderists idea of gender. I hate my female body and want to look as masculine as possible, and I have always only been attracted to women. I have started to wonder if I am a transman after all. I don't know and I'm confused!!!
Hi, there! 
Okay, so, first of all, I’d like to say that a lot of lesbians find that they do not experience gender the way they’re “supposed to”. In fact, gender-nonconformity in childhood is directly linked to homosexuality (in other words, gay people have been proved to be more gnc [x]). Society has created a unreachable mold for womanhood, and equated it to femininity. If you don’t match femininity, then it makes sense you wouldn’t feel like you have any claim to womanhood.
Society has equated womanhood to high heels, make up, dresses, long hair, for a really long time. It’s not even just accessories: society also equals womanhood to a certain body type (usually thin) and a certain behavior (quiet, submissive, caring, nurturing, etc).
All these ideas of womanhood are what create our concept of the feminine gender. If the genderists have it right, then that would mean that if you don’t match these stereotypes for femininity, then you are automatically not a woman. Well then, what about butch dykes? Are they not women at all? Does that mean that the moment that women stopped wearing dresses/skirts-only and started wearing pants we all transitioned into men?
Does that mean that every time a woman cuts off her hair, she instantly becomes trans?
The “genderist idea” is that gender performances (aka the way you present yourself) dictates your very core, and that every performance you do or do not put on makes you either woman or non-woman. 
Well here’s the thing that the genderist idea completely disregards: you have experiences which are unique to you as a woman. A lot of women hate their bodies, hate their breasts, their femaleness. I know I did, for a very long time. And I fell down the rabbit hole of “if you just try real hard, and believe really strong, then you’ll become whatever you want to become”. The genderist idea asserts that being a woman is not inherent, but made up, that it can be co-opted. 
Well, think about yourself. Think about periods, for example. Do you know any men who personally understand periods? Do you know any men who get what women go through when they have to go out of the house on their periods? Do you know any men who understand the experience of cramps, PMS? 
I wouldn’t think so. Those are womanly experiences, female experiences. No man can begin to understand what it is to be on one’s period, because that is a biological reality that only females go through.
So forget all the frills and lace, all the make up and hair care… Focus on your core functions. The way your body looks, the way it behaves… No man could ever understand that. Nothing about you is manly, because you were born female. In fact you are female since you before you were conceived, since you were but a sperm. (x) 
Female and therefore womanly experiences are not about how much make up you do or do not wear: it’s about the body you were born as. 
Genderism does a very disingenuous thing: it acts with the patriarchy to separate gender non conforming women from other women. It others us, tells us we’re wrong, weird. So of course you couldn’t be a woman when you don’t wanna wear pink and high heels, right? Because women are born wanting to wear pink and high heels, right? Women literally come out of the womb ready to throw on a barely there dress, 10 inch heels, and be consumed by the male gaze, right? 
But do you actually believe that? Look at the history of women, look at the women in your life, look at strong women. Do you actually believe that the main factor of all those overlapping experiences are clothing preferences? Do you sincerely think that looking masculine would completely separate you from us?
I’d argue not even transitioning would separate you from us.
I’m not saying this as a radical, forget all about that. I’m saying this as a person who has started “socially transitioning”. I’m saying this as someone who fell into transgenderism and regrets it daily… Transgender ideology harms gender-nonconforming women. It tells us that our bodies are commodities, that our bodies are up for grabs. It tells us that the experiences we have had as women are useless, and shouldn’t even be brought up or named.
Do you sincerely believe that hating your body + dressing masculine = you not being a woman?
Do you understand that female self hatred is just femaleness? 90% of women hate their own bodies (X) So why are you different from all those other women?
Because you dress “like a man”? Why are comfortable clothes considered “manly”? Why can’t women be comfortable AND stay women?
Why is short hair and plaid “a man’s thing”? 
Look, I don’t know you, but I assume you don’t actually believe that. 
The path to transitioning is one with endless consequences, you might not fully be able to grasp right now. Before you go down it, I please that you please reconsider. Your worth and value as a woman and as a human being is not defines by your clothing style. Your worth and value as a woman is not diminished by gender-nonconformity. 
I beg you please take care of yourself, please understand that your experiences as a female who does not conform to femininity are important. And they are not so othering. A bunch of other women feel the same way or have felt the same way. I recommend you search for us, because we are right there. The dykes, and the “are you a man or a woman”, and the detransitioned, and the pariahs of society. We’re here, we exist. 
You don’t need to turn your back on yourself as a woman and as female in order to be happy. That path does not lead to happiness. All it leads to is a deeper, more acute sense of self hatred, except then everything you hate about yourself is highlighted by the fact that all your friends agree with you and want to help you get rid of it. Your body is not something you own, it is something you are.
Being female is not an afterthought to you, it is everything. It has shaped all of your experiences since you were born. 
Wishing you were a man is part of your life as a woman. Most women will wish that, because being a man = power, safety, stability. Men have it better in so many social aspects, of fucking course we wouldn’t settle for being lesser than. 
But let me tell you, you don’t need to transition in order not to settle, all you need to do is understand your own worth as a woman and a person. Real feminism is a great help with that. Please stay questioning and critical, don’t let the gender trend ruin you. You deserve better.
[Here’s a very good talk about why it is that transgenderism is harmful to women/females.]
[And here’s another similar post I’ve written on this subject]
I hope I was able to at least get you questioning. 
TL,DR: Don’t go into this without kicking and screaming for yourself. Fight for who you are, there is life as a butch lesbian. Presenting masculine is not against yourself as a human being. It just is. Women can be masculine and still be women. Womanhood does not equal femininity. Feminine and masculine are genders not sex. Womanhood is defined by femaleness (aka XX chromosomes). You have always been a woman/girl. Don’t let genderists steal that away from you, there is strength in being a gnc woman. Also plz check these out [x][x][x].
/Mod A
59 notes · View notes
dd916 · 6 years
Text
How to Tap Into the Enhancing Unisex Jewelry Market
The improving acceptance of transgenderism and non-traditional sex roles has toss the emphasize on androgynous culture—including the growing unisex jewellery marketplace
Tumblr media
Gucci awesome house Alessandro Michele is a man who flirts with androgyny use more often system. His choice contains men’s awesome includes, operating sleek smooth smooth valentines jewelry for her soft silk neckerchiefs, and also embroidered—and often bedazzled—custom tuxes used by lovers like Oscar-winning performing expert Jared Leto. But one look at the fistfuls of jewelry on his personal Instagram feed—from gemstone-encrusted strategies to hand-carved residence treasures—makes apparent that he’s no complete complete stranger to gender-bending himself.
The style set is in thrall to Michele—and jewellery tastemakers should be as well. Why? Because he’s among another cohort of style-setters supporting the whole world to see that jewellery need not be assigned sex roles.
Jill Maurer, a Durham, N.C.–based designer, is aboard with the cause. “When I designed my first necklace, I indicated out that it would look outstanding on a men friend and it hit me that there really shouldn’t be men’s jewellery and women’s jewellery at all,” she says. “Why did we create that boundary in the first place? We definitely got up. It isn’t real. I recognized then and there to get rid of that barrier and allow anyone to be able to use what they really like.”
Maurer’s 18k gold, gold, and useful rock designs—inspired by traditional conventional factors such as weaponry, give images, and primary tools—are intended to attention to a mixed a sense of record rather than a gender-normative position codified by well-known group.
“I started out creating products for me,” Maurer explains. “While I use stylish clothing, I have always been enthusiastic about more masculine jewellery. I’m enthusiastic about jewellery that is impressive as well as with clean options, kinds, and texture—a look functions well for anyone.”
2 notes · View notes
megawingull · 7 years
Text
Why Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Actually Isn’t Terrible
Recently, Trump announced that he plans to ban transgender people from joining the military, which has (obviously) sparked a lot of controversies. There are a lot of liberals saying that it is unfair to ban someone simply for being transgender (often throwing around the word “bigot”), but I wanted to explain why banning transgender people from the military actually...kind of makes sense. To start off, I want to say that I support anyone’s desire to transition so long as they are adults that are capable of making life-changing decisions. I also have great respect for our military and honor anyone who has served to keep our country safe, transgender or not. (I do agree that our military is a little...big, but that’s a topic for another day).
The main argument that liberals (I am not using liberal in a ‘bad’ way by the way. I tend to lean liberal myself) claim is that anyone should be able to join the military if they want to serve. However, that’s just not the case. In order to join the military, one must be in good health. This means that people with mental illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, ADHD, etc. are not permitted to join the military. As a matter of fact, people with mental disorders who join the military by “don’t ask, don’t tell,” tend to have a harder time performing their duties. It’s also just common sense to not give someone with schizophrenia or depression a military-grade weapon. So how does this tie into transgender people? Well, whether you want to believe it or not, transgenderism is a mental disorder. If you want to sugar coat it, go ahead, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not going to. It’s called gender dysphoria. Does that make transgender people “bad” or “weird?” No. It just means they have a mental disorder, just like someone with ADHD or bipolar disorder. It’s not bad, but it also means they really shouldn’t be serving in the military. Gender dysphoria can cause extreme distress, anxiety, depression, restlessness, and “can be so intense it can interfere with the way you function in normal life.” Which is exactly why people with other mental illnesses, such as depression, eating disorders and alcoholism, cannot serve in the military. It affects the way you think and act, which is terrible in a high stress situation. Of course, there is a waiver that allows you to “prove” that you can handle being in the military despite a mental disorder, which I believe should be accessible for trans people.
Trump also stated that it is too expensive to provide for trans people...which is kind of true. Sex changes are extremely expensive, running at around $10,000 to $50,000 and can even go up to $130,000. Not to mention the price of medication. The military should be focused on keeping our country safe, and as harsh as it sounds, keeping up with the medication for transgender people, or anyone with a mental illness in the midst of battle, takes away from that focus. It’s hard to accept, but there are just some people that aren’t built for the military, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
BTW, erectile dysfunction is very common and has relations to heart disease and diabetes, which is why the military covers Viagra. Around 20% of men have ED, while less than 1% of people are transgender. Also, ED only costs the military about $75 annually per person, while transitioning can cost hundreds of thousands. You also do not need to be in therapy for ED. It is a simple “take a pill” solution, while gender dysphoria can be extremely complicated to treat. ALSO, many vets get ED due to PTSD from the military. The military should pay for the effects caused by being in it. You do not get gender dysphoria from being in the military.
1 note · View note
feministdragon · 7 years
Text
「I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.
Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high, and the benefits too unclear. Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are “safe.” Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence. They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children. The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education, and our legal system, and is now recommended by most national medical organizations. There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the LGBT-affirming Youth Gender Professionals. The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story. Here are some of those basic facts. 1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.” Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time. Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time. But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the identical twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime. The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of nonshared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology. 2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children. Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty. But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender—and their persistence over time—has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009. 3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe. The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development. With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern. For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline. 4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers. Most, if not all, children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for biological boys, testosterone for biological girls). The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones. This suggests that the medical protocol itself may lead children to identify as transgender. There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child. 5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks. From studies of adults we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers. 6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment. Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent. 7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children. In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative. Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria. 8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide. Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming —have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria. Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers. These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases. Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage. These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies. It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse/
1 note · View note
nightcoremoon · 3 years
Text
saw an excruciatingly stupid take on starcraft chat. which, no fucking durr, holmes. 10K people in the NA server, odds are at least 10 of them at any given moment are total dumbshits.
but this person claimed that transgenderism is just self inflicted lobotomies
...
buddy. you have the lobotomy.
if anything, circumcision is lobotomy. but not when jewish parents snip their baby's foreskin which thank god because uncircumcised dicks are really gross but I'm not gonna get into that, nor the fact that the anti penile circumcision crowd is a little antisemitic but whatever. you know what IS bad though? FGM, female genital mutilation, you know that barbaric savage thing that violent misogynists in North Africa, Middle East, parts of Asia and Latin America, and even still today in the US, UK, Canada, and Zealand/Australia, all do to female infants because they are ignorant disgusting men. it's not an ethnic issue it's a feminism issue and if I see any dumb white bitch saying we don't need feminism I'm just gonna show them botched surgeries of FGM to shut those privileged cunts the fuck up. they chop off the clitoris and sew it back up.
that's more akin to a lobotomy if anything at all. sexual reassignment gender affirming surgery is not the same because it's a) consensual b) done by actual licensed medical professionals and not some fucking religious nutjob with a knife c) done on adults NOT FUCKING INFANTS
d) not performed on the brain you complete idiot
e) leaves the genitals still functioning well, etc.
you know what else is a genital lobotomy? when the doctors perform a nonconsensual "corrective" genital surgery on an intersex infant to alter their AGAB and don't tell the parents. that shit is not only traumatizing to a fucking baby, it also leads to some ludicrous hormonal difficulties up to and beyond puberty that just generates more trauma, and it also serves to alter the public consciousness in regards to biology and gender for the worse.
some people are still at the kindergarten level of basic scientific knowledge as far as that's concerned. they think the gender binary, which has the same scientific backing as linnaean taxonomy, a heliocentric universal model, and fucking astrology, not to mention any creation model that isn't the big bang. these same guys who are proud atheists antagonistic towards all religion are totally okay with sucking the dicks of the christians who they claim to hate. you know, the same christians from the empires who colonized the world and killed everyone who didn't conform. yeah, those guys. oh, and who did they kill?
oh yeah that's right, every culture who had a completely different system of gender than the white europeans.
if you morons had even a basic understanding of world history, chromosomal biology, religion, medicine, psychology, and the general sense to research stuff before you say it, you wouldn't be so stupid and neither would the shit you spew unasked for in public forums for 3D space chess.
but no, y'all have as many brain cells as there are hellbats in the meta. which is FUCKING NONE, SILVER LEAGUE!
0 notes
republicstandard · 5 years
Text
IN LAMMY’S WORLD ONLY GAY AND ABORTION ACTIVISTS CAN BE WHITE SAVIORS
Once upon a time, in the days of Rule Britannia, white saviors went to Asia and Africa and saved women and children. Today, in the era of Cool Britannia, white saviors conspire to control our former colonies with the gospel of gay sex and abortion. Progressive white saviors seek to destroy, not save—to kill unborn babies and prevent procreation.
British colonial rulers in India banned female infanticide in 1870, after Jonathan Duncan, resident in Benares, drew attention to the bizarre Hindu custom. Instead of converting Hindus to Christianity, in 1791 Duncan founded the Sanskrit College for the study of Hindu Law and Philosophy.
(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");
After British colonial administrators prohibited child sacrifice at the Ganga Sagar festival, 19 Christian missionaries petitioned Lord Bentinck, Governor-General of India, to ban suttee—the custom forcing Hindu widows to immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre.
When lecturing at Liverpool Hope University, I would ask my students what they thought of such acts performed by the British in India. Chillingly, the snowflakes were silent. Even the feminists in my class would squirm when I asked them about the rights of Hindu widows. The idea of “white savior” Lord Bentinck banning this indigenous practice through the Bengal Sati Regulation Act (1829) was colonial, racist and white supremacist.
When Prof Allan Bloom’s posed the same question to his students at Harvard, he got a similar response. “They either remain silent or reply that the British should never have been there in the first place,” he writes in The Closing of the American Mind.
I’m sure this is how the Rt Hon David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, would respond. Lammy has had enough of “white saviors.” I mean, just look at all the harm they’ve done! As a Hindu Brahmin, my mother wouldn’t be alive today if Bentinck hadn’t banned suttee. I’d have to mutter a few Sanskrit shlokas and give her the heave-ho onto my dad’s barbecue.
But white people have no business monkeying around for Comic Relief in Uganda, Lammy would say to Stacey Dooley. This white Barbie doll should check her white privilege and upload pictures on Instagram of her holding only obese white children with snot running down their noses. It’s racist for her to get the optics wrong. In Lammy’s tribal world, you’re defined by the color of your skin, not by the content of your character.
“The world does not need any more white saviors. As I’ve said before, this just perpetuates tired and unhelpful stereotypes,” Lammy lamely tweeted. “It’s a kind of missionary idea, and it’s deeply problematic because what it does is it keeps the continent of Africa poor, it keeps people in their place,” explains the race hustler.
Lammy is the Al Sharpton of British politics. Twinned with Dianne Abbott, their race-baiting keeps them in the spotlight. In 2013, while debating gay marriage in Parliament, Lammy compared Christian MPs opposed to same-sex marriage to parliamentarians who defended the slave trade 200 years ago.
Lammy suffers from “racial paranoia,” which author Dinesh D’Souza defines as a “reflexive tendency to blame racism for every failure.” He pursues “the white whale of racism with Ahab-like determination.” As if he’s reading a Rorschach inkblot test, Lammy imagines colonialism and racism in the rather cute picture of eminent documentary filmmaker Stacey Dooley holding a Ugandan child.
As someone with a privileged education—The King’s School, School of Oriental and African Studies and Harvard Law School—Lammy needs to ask a few more questions about “white saviors” over the centuries. Why did the Judeo-Christian West produce these saviors? The answer lies in theology and technology.
Ancient civilizations were fiercely tribal: a person of one race would not cross ethnic boundaries to help someone of another race. The theology of the Hebrew Bible shattered this tribalism. Israel would be “a light to the nations.” From Israel came Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah—not to a tribe, but to the world.
Israel produced a brown-skinned Saviour. Hey! Lammy, did you know Jesus was not white? Jesus was “most likely dark brown and sun-tanned,” says Princeton biblical scholar James Charlesworth. This Saviour began an obscure movement on the margins of the Roman Empire that dislodged classical paganism and became the dominant faith of the West.
Breaking with Marxist assumptions (lower classes are more religious than the rich), sociologist Rodney Stark argues that people with a degree of privilege and sophistication were attracted to the Jesus movement. In Roman society, mercy and pity were considered pathological emotions. But Jesus’ followers behaved mercifully because they had received mercy from God. Tribalism was smashed as privileged people crossed forbidden boundaries of class, color, race, and nation to share the gospel of their brown Saviour and to help those in the most life-threatening exigencies—especially during epidemics and plagues.
Jesus’s parable of the Good Samaritan climaxes in the question: “Who is my neighbor?” My neighbor is someone who is not like me and is not part of my tribe! However skeptically one views the charitable work done by Stacey Dooley and Comic Relief or other charities providing relief to the Third World, they’re doing it because the idea of serving someone who is not like me, is part of our Western DNA. “Charity” derived from the Latin Caritas is a Christian innovation.
Christianity gave birth to science and technology. Without a theology committed to reason, the world today would be where non-European societies were in 1800 with many astrologers and alchemists, but no scientists, Stark comments. “Modernity arose only in Christian societies. Not in Asia. Not in Islam. Not in a ‘secular’ society—there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries,” he adds.
Our theology motivated “white saviors” to go to Asia and Africa; our technology gave us prosperity. Because we were technologically more advanced, we had something to offer to those who were technologically less advanced.
Postmodern progressives like Lammy are profoundly ashamed of our missionary heritage. They conflate Christian mission with racism, imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy. What they are proud of is the new mission civilisatrice where “white saviors” now seek to enlighten Asia and Africa (and immigrants of color to Britain) with the gospel of pansexual liberation.
Lammy should look at the picture in Monday’s Guardian—Andrew Moffat, head of Parkfield Community School in Birmingham is reading a book to five brown/black children. “White savior” Moffat is indoctrinating colored Muslim children with LGBT+ propaganda. Their families are outraged. Such sexual grooming goes against their culture and religion, but progressives don’t regard this as cultural or ideological imperialism!
In a previous column, I pointed out how Anglican LGBT activist Jayne Ozanne has set up her own foundation with ten white saviors to civilize sexual savages. “The new foundation has been set up to help educate and advocate on LGBTI and gender rights around the world, particularly within religious organizations that are opposed to non-heterosexual relationships,” said Ozanne’s website.
The government’s Wilton Park report urges engagement with the Global South to challenge the “heteropatriarchy of Christianity brought by western missionaries” and teach queer theology, feminist theology and a theology of inclusion in seminaries to promote homosexuality, transgenderism, and intersexuality.
In 2017, our so-called Conservative government announced it would spend over £1.1billion on overseas abortions. According to a 2015 Pew Report, 92 percent Ghanaians, 88 percent Ugandans and 82 percent Kenyans say they find abortion unacceptable. In Asia, the figures are as high as 93 percent for the Philippines, 89 percent for Indonesia and 85 percent for Pakistan.
“I don’t think that any Western country has a right to pay for abortions in an African country, especially when the majority of people don’t want abortion… that then becomes a form of ideological colonization,” Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of Culture of Life Africa told the BBC World Service (who were banging the global abortion drum).
(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");
The next time Lammy rails against “white saviors” and “poverty porn,” I’m sending him a copy of Keith Richburg’s Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa. Richburg, a black man, is correspondent for the leftwing Washington Post. He is “a descendant of slaves brought from Africa” and especially sensitive to the cynical and manipulative use of the race card by politicians like David Lammy.
“I’m tired of all the ignorance and hypocrisy and the double standards I hear and read about Africa, much of it from people who’ve never been there, let alone spent three years walking around amid corpses,” he writes. It’s not colonialism, or racism, or the white man; the real root of Africa’s problems, he stresses, lies in the boundless corruption of its leaders.
“Thank God that I am an American,” and “thank God my ancestor survived the voyage” which brought him to the United States as a slave, concludes Richburg.
from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2NKZHI3 via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
24 Hours to Improving Cam Whores
“One is just not born, but instead results in being, a lady.”
Simone de Beauvoir, The next Sex (1949)
In nature, male and woman are distinct. She-elephants are gregarious, he-elephants solitary. Male zebra finches are loquacious – the females mute. Woman inexperienced spoon worms are two hundred,000 moments more substantial than their male mates. These striking differences are biological – nevertheless they result in differentiation in social roles and talent acquisition.
youtube
Alan Pease, writer of a guide titled “Why Adult males Don’t Pay attention and girls Can’t Examine Maps”, believes that Women of all ages are spatially-challenged when compared with Adult men. The British organization, Admiral Insurance plan, done a examine of 50 % one million statements. They observed that “Ladies had been almost 2 times as very likely as Males to possess a collision in a vehicle park, 23 p.c far more likely to strike a stationary car, and fifteen percent more likely to reverse into One more automobile” (Reuters).
Nonetheless gender “distinctions” are frequently the results of bad scholarship. Contemplate Admiral insurance’s details. As Britain’s Automobile Affiliation (AA) properly pointed out – women motorists are likely to make extra small journeys all around towns and searching facilities and these contain Regular parking. As a result their ubiquity in specific styles of claims. Pertaining to Women of all ages’s alleged spatial deficiency, in Britain, women are outperforming boys in scholastic aptitude tests – which includes geometry and maths – considering that 1988.
Within an Op-Ed revealed because of the Ny Situations on January 23, 2005, Olivia Judson cited this example
“Beliefs that Guys are intrinsically much better at this or which have consistently brought about discrimination and prejudice, after which they’ve been proved to generally be nonsense. Women of all ages had been assumed to not be planet-course musicians. But when American symphony orchestras introduced blind auditions while in the 1970’s – the musician performs behind a display screen in order that his or her gender is invisible to Individuals listening – the amount of women supplied Careers in professional orchestras greater. Equally, in science, studies from the ways that grant programs are evaluated have demonstrated that Ladies are more likely to get funding when These reading through the programs don't know the sex from the applicant.”
On another wing of your divide, Anthony Clare, a British psychiatrist and author of “On Guys” wrote:
“In the beginning from the 21st century it can be hard to avoid the summary that Adult males are in really serious trouble. Throughout the globe, made and establishing, antisocial habits is basically male. Violence, sexual abuse of youngsters, illicit drug use, alcohol misuse, gambling, all are overwhelmingly male things to do. The courts and prisons bulge with men. In regards to aggression, delinquent habits, hazard having and social mayhem, Adult men earn gold.”
Males also mature later, die earlier, tend to be more susceptible to infections and many forms of most cancers, are more likely to be dyslexic, to have problems with a host of psychological well being Conditions, including Notice Deficit Hyperactivity Condition (ADHD), and to dedicate suicide.
In her e book, “Stiffed: The Betrayal from the American Male”, Susan Faludi describes a crisis of masculinity subsequent the breakdown of manhood models and work and household buildings in the last five decades. While in the movie “Boys don’t Cry”, a teenage Woman binds her breasts and functions the male in the caricatural relish of stereotypes of virility. Being a man is merely a state of intellect, the movie indicates.
But Exactly what does it really necessarily mean being a “male” or a “female”? Are gender id and sexual Choices genetically decided? Can they be decreased to 1’s sex? Or are they amalgams of biological, social, and psychological things in frequent interaction? Are they immutable lifelong features or dynamically evolving frames of self-reference?
In the aforementioned Big apple Occasions Op-Ed, Olivia Judson opines:
“Several sex distinctions are usually not, hence, the results of his owning a person gene although she has another. Instead, These are attributable to the way individual genes behave if they discover themselves in him rather than her. The magnificent difference between male and feminine eco-friendly spoon worms, as an example, has nothing at all to accomplish with their getting various genes: Every single inexperienced spoon worm larva could go In either case. Which sexual intercourse it results in being depends upon whether it satisfies a feminine throughout its 1st three months of life. If it meets a female, it gets to be male and prepares to regurgitate; if it doesn’t, it gets woman and settles right into a crack on the sea flooring.”
Yet, specific traits attributed to at least one’s intercourse are certainly superior accounted for via the requires of one’s setting, by cultural variables, the entire process of socialization, gender roles, and what George Devereux known as “ethnopsychiatry” in “Simple Difficulties of Ethnopsychiatry” (University of Chicago Push, 1980). He proposed to divide the unconscious in to the id (the element which was generally instinctual and unconscious) and the “ethnic unconscious” (repressed materials that was as soon as aware). The latter is mostly molded by prevailing cultural mores and features all our defense mechanisms and a lot of the superego.
So, how can we inform whether or not our sexual position is generally inside our blood or in our brains?
The scrutiny of borderline scenarios of human sexuality – notably the transgendered or intersexed – can generate clues as to the distribution and relative weights of biological, social, and psychological determinants of gender identification formation.
The outcomes of a review conducted by Uwe Hartmann, Hinnerk Becker, and Claudia Rueffer-Hesse in 1997 and titled “Self and Gender: Narcissistic Pathology and Individuality Components in Gender Dysphoric Sufferers”, published within the “Intercontinental Journal of Transgenderism”, “suggest important psychopathological features and narcissistic dysregulation in a considerable proportion of sufferers.” Are these “psychopathological elements” basically reactions to fundamental physiological realities and improvements? Could social ostracism and labeling have induced them in the “clients”?
The authors conclude:
“The cumulative evidence of our research … is consistent with the watch that gender dysphoria is actually a dysfunction of your sense of self as has actually been proposed by Beitel (1985) or Pffflin (1993). The central problem in our patients is about identity plus the self generally speaking along with the transsexual want is apparently an try at reassuring and stabilizing the self-coherence which in turn can cause a further destabilization In the event the self is currently much too fragile. Within this perspective your body is instrumentalized to make a perception of identification plus the splitting symbolized inside the hiatus involving the rejected system-self and also other elements of the self is more between very good and terrible objects than amongst masculine and feminine.”
Freud, Kraft-Ebbing, and Fliess instructed that we've been all bisexual to a particular Real Life Cam Sex degree. As early as 1910, Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld argued, in Berlin, that absolute genders are “abstractions, invented extremes”. The consensus nowadays is always that just one’s sexuality is, generally, a psychological construct which demonstrates gender function orientation.
Joanne Meyerowitz, a professor of history at Indiana College as well as editor with the Journal of American Heritage observes, in her not too long ago released tome, “How Sexual intercourse Transformed: A Background of Transsexuality in The usa”, the quite this means of masculinity and femininity is in regular flux.
Transgender activists, suggests Meyerowitz, insist that gender and sexuality depict “unique analytical types”. The The big apple Moments wrote in its critique in the e-book: “Some male-to-woman transsexuals have intercourse with Adult males and connect with themselves homosexuals. Some woman-to-male transsexuals have intercourse with Gals and get in touch with themselves lesbians. Some transsexuals connect with them selves asexual.”
So, it really is all from the thoughts, you see.
This would be getting it too significantly. A considerable body of scientific proof factors to your genetic and Organic underpinnings of sexual behavior and Tastes.
The German science journal, “Geo”, described just lately that the males in the fruit fly “drosophila melanogaster” switched from heterosexuality to homosexuality since the temperature while in the lab was elevated from 19 to 30 levels Celsius. They reverted to chasing girls as it absolutely was decreased.
The brain structures of homosexual sheep are distinct to Those people of straight sheep, a study carried out not long ago by the Oregon Overall health & Science College as well as U.S. Section of Agriculture Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, discovered. Related discrepancies ended up identified in between gay Guys and straight types in 1995 in Holland and in other places. The preoptic place of your hypothalamus was greater in heterosexual Adult men than in each homosexual men and straight Ladies.
According an short article, titled “When Sexual Advancement Goes Awry”, by Suzanne Miller, released inside the September 2000 difficulty with the “Environment and I”, several health-related conditions give rise to sexual ambiguity. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), involving abnormal androgen manufacturing by the adrenal cortex, ends in blended genitalia. Somebody with the whole androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) provides a vagina, exterior female genitalia and operating, androgen-creating, testes – but no uterus or fallopian tubes.
People with the rare 5-alpha reductase deficiency syndrome are born with ambiguous genitalia. They appear at first to become ladies. At puberty, this sort of someone develops testicles and his clitoris swells and becomes a penis. Hermaphrodites have both ovaries and testicles (each, in most cases, alternatively undeveloped). In some cases the ovaries and testicles are merged into a chimera named ovotestis.
These types of people have the chromosomal composition of a woman together with traces with the Y, male, chromosome. All hermaphrodites have a large penis, nevertheless hardly ever produce sperm. Some hermaphrodites build breasts for the duration of puberty and menstruate. Not many even get Expecting and give birth.
Anne Fausto-Sterling, a developmental geneticist, professor of clinical science at Brown University, and creator of “Sexing the Body”, postulated, in 1993, a continuum of 5 sexes to supplant The present dimorphism: males, merms (male pseudohermaphrodites), herms (genuine hermaphrodites), ferms (woman pseudohermaphrodites), and ladies.
Intersexuality (hermpahroditism) can be a purely natural human condition. We have been all conceived Along with the probable to develop into either intercourse. The embryonic developmental default is woman. A series of triggers in the to start with months of pregnancy areas the fetus on the path to maleness.
In uncommon circumstances, some Ladies Have got a male’s genetic make-up (XY chromosomes) and vice versa. But, in the vast majority of scenarios, on the list of sexes is clearly chosen. Relics of your stifled sex stay, though. Girls possess the clitoris being a style of symbolic penis. Adult men have breasts (mammary glands) and nipples.
The Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 edition describes the formation of ovaries and testes Consequently:
“Inside the younger embryo a pair of gonads create which have been indifferent or neutral, displaying no indication whether or not they are destined to acquire into testes or ovaries. There's also two different duct systems, certainly one of which might establish into the feminine program of oviducts and relevant equipment and the opposite in the male sperm duct program. As development of your embryo proceeds, either the male or the feminine reproductive tissue differentiates inside the at first neutral gonad in the mammal.”
Nonetheless, sexual Tastes, genitalia and in many cases secondary sex attributes, for instance facial and pubic hair are 1st order phenomena. Can genetics and biology account for male and woman conduct patterns and social interactions (“gender identification”)? Can the multi-tiered complexity and richness of human masculinity and femininity come up from less difficult, deterministic, constructing blocks?
Sociobiologists would have us think so.
For illustration: the fact that we're mammals is astonishingly typically disregarded. Most mammalian families are made up of mom and offspring. Males are peripatetic absentees. Arguably, high rates of divorce and beginning away from wedlock coupled with rising promiscuity simply reinstate this natural “default method”, observes Lionel Tiger, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University in New Jersey. That a few quarters of all divorces are initiated by Gals tends to aid this look at.
On top of that, gender identification is decided through gestation, claim some scholars.
Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii and Dr. Keith Sigmundson, a practising psychiatrist, analyzed the A great deal-celebrated John/Joan case. An unintentionally castrated regular male was surgically modified to search woman, and elevated as a lady but to no avail. He reverted to being a male at puberty.
His gender identification appears to are already inborn (assuming he was not subjected to conflicting cues from his human setting). The situation is extensively described in John Colapinto’s tome “As Nature Built Him: The Boy Who Was Lifted as a woman”.
HealthScoutNews cited a analyze published inside the November 2002 concern of “Boy or girl Progress”. The scientists, from City University of London, identified that the extent of maternal testosterone for the duration of pregnancy influences the habits of neonatal girls and renders it far more masculine. “Significant testosterone” ladies “get pleasure from routines usually considered male conduct, like twiddling with trucks or guns”. Boys’ behavior remains unaltered, according to the study.
However, other Students, like John Funds, insist that newborns undoubtedly are a “blank slate” in terms of their gender identity is anxious. This really is also the prevailing perspective. Gender and intercourse-role identities, we have been taught, are entirely fashioned in a means of socialization which ends because of the 3rd yr of daily life. The Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 edition sums it up Therefore:
“Like a person’s notion of her or his sexual intercourse purpose, gender identification develops by means of parental case in point, social reinforcement, and language. Dad and mom train sexual intercourse-correct habits to their small children from an early age, which habits is reinforced as the child grows more mature and enters a wider social planet. As the kid acquires language, he also learns incredibly early the distinction in between “he” and “she” and understands which pertains to him- or herself.”
So, which happens to be it – nature or nurture? There isn't any disputing The truth that our sexual physiology and, in all likelihood, our sexual Choices are identified from the womb. Men and women are different – physiologically and, Consequently, also psychologically.
Society, by its brokers – foremost among that happen to be family, friends, and teachers – represses or encourages these genetic propensities. It does so by propagating “gender roles” – gender-distinct lists of alleged attributes, permissible behavior styles, and prescriptive morals and norms. Our “gender identity” or “sex function” is shorthand to the way we use our purely natural genotypic-phenotypic endowments in conformity with social-cultural “gender roles”.
Inevitably as being the composition and bias of such lists adjust, so does the that means of staying “male” or “woman”. Gender roles are consistently redefined by tectonic shifts within the definition and performing of standard social units, including the nuclear family along with the office. The cross-fertilization of gender-connected cultural memes renders “masculinity” and “femininity” fluid concepts.
One particular’s sex equals just one’s bodily machines, an aim, finite, and, usually, immutable inventory. But our endowments is often put to many makes use of, in different cognitive and affective contexts, and matter to varying exegetic frameworks. Rather than “sexual intercourse” – “gender” is, therefore, a socio-cultural narrative. Equally heterosexual and homosexual Males ejaculate. Both equally straight and lesbian Girls climax. What distinguishes them from each other are subjective introjects of socio-cultural conventions, not aim, immutable “facts”.
In “The New Gender Wars”, published in the November/December 2000 issue of “Psychology Currently”, Sarah Blustain sums up the “bio-social” design proposed by Mice Eagly, a professor of psychology at Northwestern College along with a previous student of his, Wendy Wooden, now a professor on the Texas A&M University:
“Like (the evolutionary psychologists), Eagly and Wood reject social constructionist notions that every one gender discrepancies are developed by lifestyle. But on the problem of where they come from, they response in a different way: not our genes but our roles in Culture. This narrative concentrates on how societies respond to the basic biological variances – Gentlemen’s energy and women’s reproductive abilities – And the way they stimulate men and women to follow specific designs.
‘In the event you’re investing plenty of time nursing your child’, explains Wooden, ‘Then you really don’t have the chance to dedicate huge quantities of time for you to developing specialised abilities and fascinating jobs outside of the house’. And, provides Eagly, ‘if Females are billed with caring for infants, what occurs is women are more nurturing. Societies need to make the Grownup program get the job done [so] socialization of girls is organized to give them encounter in nurturing’.
In keeping with this interpretation, given that the environment alterations, so will the assortment and texture of gender dissimilarities. At a time in Western nations when female reproduction is amazingly low, nursing is totally optional, childcare solutions are many, and mechanization lessens the necessity of
0 notes