Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Apple Talk => Topic started by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 04:52:34 pm

Title: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 04:52:34 pm
There was some more super-entitled shitneckery on Facebook last night. Over an article in which some pipsqueak decided to take the drag community to task over their embracing the word "tranny", because people who don't know better use it as a slur when addressing transgendered people. And of course, transgendered people, specifically the ones under 30 who are apparently TOTALLY disconnected from the historical reasons drag queens and kings use the word "tranny" in the first place, are all that really matters.

 :horrormirth:

I wonder if they're next going to inform the gay community that they aren't allowed to call each other fags? And tell all the lesbians how insulting it is when they refer to themselves proudly as dykes? Perhaps they will post flyers informing black people that they are horrible people for reclaiming the word nigger.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 04:53:23 pm
It's like Stonewall never fucking happened. Fucking idiots.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 04:55:47 pm
Linky?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 04:56:31 pm
This is the conversation I blocked Garbo over.  I had replied first, asking about which slurs were okay and by whom, and then I get this bullshit PM about how my post could have gotten her thrown out of her living arrangements or something, so she erased it.  Because it was so totally unlike the rest of the thread.

 :lulz:

Fuck that shit.  This is just the latest crusade to tell people what they can and cannot do. 

ALSO, Garbo believes that female trans folks can use "tranny", but male trans folks cannot.  For reasons that are apparently obvious.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 05:02:19 pm
My favorite part about it is that it's not "Let's shout at ignorant people who are using it as a term to demean transgendered and transvestite people", but "Let's shit all over people who have worked hard to further the rights of gay and trans people for using a term they were brave enough to reclaim for themselves" or, in the case of Dan Savage, used in a column once ten years ago.

Complete and utter privileged brattiness.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 05:03:51 pm
This is the conversation I blocked Garbo over.  I had replied first, asking about which slurs were okay and by whom, and then I get this bullshit PM about how my post could have gotten her thrown out of her living arrangements or something, so she erased it.  Because it was so totally unlike the rest of the thread.

 :lulz:

Fuck that shit.  This is just the latest crusade to tell people what they can and cannot do. 

ALSO, Garbo believes that female trans folks can use "tranny", but male trans folks cannot.  For reasons that are apparently obvious.

Garbo is fucked in the head. I mean, I think she's actually mentally ill and in need of services, because a lot of what she does/says doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 05:06:50 pm
My favorite part about it is that it's not "Let's shout at ignorant people who are using it as a term to demean transgendered and transvestite people", but "Let's shit all over people who have worked hard to further the rights of gay and trans people for using a term they were brave enough to reclaim for themselves" or, in the case of Dan Savage, used in a column once ten years ago.

Complete and utter privileged brattiness.

It's about the heirarchy, and the BASTARDS who won't submit to its authority.

169% perfect for Garbo.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2013, 05:08:22 pm
Whatever happened to "asking the person in question what THEY prefer to be called"?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Faust on November 27, 2013, 05:13:37 pm
Silly LMNO Gender labelling isn't about "a person", or "peoples feelings". It's about being right.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 05:26:06 pm
Linky?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 05:36:15 pm
Linky?

Kit McGrumpyperson's FB page... I don't have a link.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 05:40:23 pm
Whatever happened to "asking the person in question what THEY prefer to be called"?

Apparently that's not OK anymore; it doesn't matter what they prefer. Drag queens who embrace the word tranny are horrible oppressors who are perpetuating violence and hatred against transgender people.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 05:44:07 pm
As far as I can tell, it's all about furthering the "us" vs. "them" mentality.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Salty on November 27, 2013, 05:46:14 pm
Lololol.

Things I learned today:
 :notnice:

'Cause of the Nigels.

So, let me get this straight, the people who used to get raped, murdered, beaten, robbed in our culture while anyone who could passs one way or another are NOT supposed to use words?

But people who, through the physically hard won battles, are allowed to tell the entire world about how they THINK they have a diffferent brain than what other people THINK they have....

OK. All right.

Lololol.

At what point will People Who Know Best begin carrying out queer detection procedures, just to make sure you're the right kind?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2013, 05:50:43 pm
Nigel, I was about to post the same as you, that "tranny" far and away refers to men who dress as women, not a human who identifies as a woman, biology notwithstanding. The motivations behind the two are VASTLY different. And the fact the thread could only find two examples of calling trans* "tranny", means that's the exception, not the rule.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 05:55:37 pm
This article is an interesting discussion. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/28/the-anger-over-tranny-from-neil-patrick-harris-to-rupaul-to-dan-savage.html

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 05:55:57 pm
Linky?

Kit McGrumpyperson's FB page... I don't have a link.

Ohhhhh ok. Sorry.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:00:03 pm
Nigel, I was about to post the same as you, that "tranny" far and away refers to men who dress as women, not a human who identifies as a woman, biology notwithstanding. The motivations behind the two are VASTLY different. And the fact the thread could only find two examples of calling trans* "tranny", means that's the exception, not the rule.

Yeah, that's the funniest thing... it's NEVER EVEN OCCURRED TO ME to refer to a transgendered person as a tranny, NOR have I heard anyone else do it within recent memory. That's a term reserved specifically for "transvestites", which used to be considered a mental illness ffs and people ARE STILL, STILL getting beaten to death for cross-dressing.

And then some privileged little shitheads who don't think they're getting their fair share of oppression-outrage come along and are all "You HORRIBLE drag queens have NO RIGHT to call yourselves trannies, it OPPRESSES US"

REALLY??? JUST, REALLY????!
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:02:46 pm
My "favorite" was the intimation that RuPaul is somehow inherently, personally insensitive and possibly even partially responsible for going around blatantly being a drag queen while a trans couple were murdered.

Just, whoa.

If I see any bigotry in this, it's against the drag community.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2013, 06:06:48 pm
Quote from: Dan Savage
“The whole idea is that the word ‘tranny’ is on par with the ‘N’ word; it’s the ‘T’ word, and ‘faggot’ is the F word—that’s a new development,” Savage said. “The word ‘tranny’ wasn’t discussed as this hate term until very recently, when the top-secret memo went out, but it didn’t go out to everyone all at once. There’s this learning curve that everyone’s on. I’ve stopped using the word except when I’m constantly forced to talk about the fact that I don’t use the word, which forces me to use the word, and, literally, that has been held as evidence of my transphobia.”

Interesting.

Well, I suppose that language may be shifting again. If so, I'll watch my usage. But I normally go with "Queen", personally.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 06:13:40 pm
This article is an interesting discussion. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/28/the-anger-over-tranny-from-neil-patrick-harris-to-rupaul-to-dan-savage.html

Wow, even Chaz Bono is a bigot according to some of them, including Justin Bond, who I formerly liked.  It's bordering on absurd. So, how can we fuck with it?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:19:15 pm
Quote from: Dan Savage
“The whole idea is that the word ‘tranny’ is on par with the ‘N’ word; it’s the ‘T’ word, and ‘faggot’ is the F word—that’s a new development,” Savage said. “The word ‘tranny’ wasn’t discussed as this hate term until very recently, when the top-secret memo went out, but it didn’t go out to everyone all at once. There’s this learning curve that everyone’s on. I’ve stopped using the word except when I’m constantly forced to talk about the fact that I don’t use the word, which forces me to use the word, and, literally, that has been held as evidence of my transphobia.”

Interesting.

Well, I suppose that language may be shifting again. If so, I'll watch my usage. But I normally go with "Queen", personally.

Not being a drag queen, I don't use the word tranny. I don't feel like I have a right to it. But I sure as shit am not going to crap on any drag queens who do.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2013, 06:20:43 pm
This feels very similar to Discordians who troll each other.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: popeluvicasksc on November 27, 2013, 06:25:55 pm
It seems like people just want a reason to be offended. Nobody gives a shit about INTENT any more. Substance no longer matters, only image. As a bisexual man I don't give a fuck what you call me. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing the difference between speech that is intended to be inflammatory or hateful and that which is not. I would hope that the average thinking person could see the distinction as well. Also, it seems to me that by giving any word that sort of power you're just providing the hateful with more ammunition. I thought the point was to take words that were intended to be hurtful and embrace them to show that there's nothing wrong with how we live, that we are proud to be who we are.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 06:28:34 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:29:44 pm
It seems like people just want a reason to be offended. Nobody gives a shit about INTENT any more. Substance no longer matters, only image. As a bisexual man I don't give a fuck what you call me. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing the difference between speech that is intended to be inflammatory or hateful and that which is not. I would hope that the average thinking person could see the distinction as well. Also, it seems to me that by giving any word that sort of power you're just providing the hateful with more ammunition. I thought the point was to take words that were intended to be hurtful and embrace them to show that there's nothing wrong with how we live, that we are proud to be who we are.

Actually, in this specific case, it's a bunch of asshats trying to impose the heirarchy of the OFFICIAL LGBT community on those LGBT folks who don't care.  It's worth noting that these same assholes were the ones claiming that "allies are bad"...And, coupled with this new orthodoxy, means they are basically acting like would-be cult leaders.

1.  Language controlled.
2.  Access to outsiders controlled (no allies, they're all "cookie seekers").
3.  Rigid forms of behavior enforced.
4.  Us vs them mentality.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:30:01 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:31:03 pm
It seems like people just want a reason to be offended. Nobody gives a shit about INTENT any more. Substance no longer matters, only image. As a bisexual man I don't give a fuck what you call me. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing the difference between speech that is intended to be inflammatory or hateful and that which is not. I would hope that the average thinking person could see the distinction as well. Also, it seems to me that by giving any word that sort of power you're just providing the hateful with more ammunition. I thought the point was to take words that were intended to be hurtful and embrace them to show that there's nothing wrong with how we live, that we are proud to be who we are.

I thought that was the point as well... but apparently there is a contingent who has decided otherwise.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:31:33 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

Yep.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: popeluvicasksc on November 27, 2013, 06:31:56 pm
If there's one thing I hate more than reactionary fuckbags it's reactionary fuckbags who want to control others. I reject. Proud to be a FAG.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 06:33:20 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

I'm not sure I agree just yet, but I can see where one would formulate that viewpoint.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on November 27, 2013, 06:35:48 pm
I think it's because people take an intense (and, in my opinion, almost perverse) pleasure in passing judgement and denouncing each other.

The Soviet Union may have been defeated, but the Soviet mentality - judge, denounce, purge - seems to speak to something dark in the human psyche.  Throw in the relative anonymity and group think the internet creates, and you have the perfect conditions for endless schisms, power plays and ridiculous purity tests.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2013, 06:36:23 pm
It seems like people just want a reason to be offended. Nobody gives a shit about INTENT any more. Substance no longer matters, only image.

Unfortunately, this runs headfirst into the signal vs carrier; or rather, "if you're communicating a message, it's up to you to make sure the message gets across correctly."

"But I meant to say" vs "what people heard".


We've had some pretty long discussions about that, here.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:36:36 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

I'm not sure I agree just yet, but I can see where one would formulate that viewpoint.

It's a pattern.

Allies are "cookie seekers"
Anyone who can be painted as the opposition are "CISHET man-tear" fountains.
The video posted with the hipster explaining why hating cis/hetero people is okay and even righteous.
This new attempt to control the language of the subculture.

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:37:11 pm
I think it's because people take an intense (and, in my opinion, almost perverse) pleasure in passing judgement and denouncing each other.

The Soviet Union may have been defeated, but the Soviet mentality - judge, denounce, purge - seems to speak to something dark in the human psyche.  Throw in the relative anonymity and group think the internet creates, and you have the perfect conditions for endless schisms, power plays and ridiculous purity tests.

Oh, there's DEFINITELY that, as well.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:37:33 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

I'm not sure I agree just yet, but I can see where one would formulate that viewpoint.

I'm pretty sure he's spot-on.

The reason? The outrage isn't centered around what other people are calling group A. The outrage is about what group B is calling themselves. Group A is trying to tell group B that they don't have a right to the word they use to identify themselves.

Hence, it's about control.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 06:39:45 pm
I think it's because people take an intense (and, in my opinion, almost perverse) pleasure in passing judgement and denouncing each other.

The Soviet Union may have been defeated, but the Soviet mentality - judge, denounce, purge - seems to speak to something dark in the human psyche.  Throw in the relative anonymity and group think the internet creates, and you have the perfect conditions for endless schisms, power plays and ridiculous purity tests.

Bingo.

Throw in a whole lot of privilege and white guilt, and a state of being that is as easy to achieve as simply rejecting binary gender, and you get a shit ton of white college students with a cause, looking for people to take it out on.

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:40:36 pm
Add to the pattern "division of the subculture along mutually antagonistic lines".

Garbo and her pals have stated that biologically-female trans people can use the term.  Biologically-male trans people cannot.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2013, 06:43:54 pm
Wha?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: popeluvicasksc on November 27, 2013, 06:44:28 pm
It seems like people just want a reason to be offended. Nobody gives a shit about INTENT any more. Substance no longer matters, only image.

Unfortunately, this runs headfirst into the signal vs carrier; or rather, "if you're communicating a message, it's up to you to make sure the message gets across correctly."

"But I meant to say" vs "what people heard".


We've had some pretty long discussions about that, here.

This is true, however there are many out there who won't even see a message. All they'll see are words that they find ugly and so regardless of how concise or well thought out the message is, it will be lost on them. Of course in a way that serves as a filtration process to weed out controlling, reactionary douche bags.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 06:44:53 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

I'm not sure I agree just yet, but I can see where one would formulate that viewpoint.

I'm pretty sure he's spot-on.

The reason? The outrage isn't centered around what other people are calling group A. The outrage is about what group B is calling themselves. Group A is trying to tell group B that they don't have a right to the word they use to identify themselves.

Hence, it's about control.

You both make excellent points. I guess it goes back to Roger's "Traitor" post.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:46:02 pm
Wha?

Yep.  She and her pals have divvied up the rights and responsibilities of everyone, everywhere, and those DAMN HERETICS JUST WON'T LISTEN.  They run around all UNREGULATED at the GAY BAR, while Garbo and her friends are trying to ORGANIZE STUFF to FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY with a competing structure that's shaping up to be JUST AS REPRESSIVE.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2013, 06:46:45 pm

This is true, however there are many out there who won't even see a message.

We must hunt Those People down and make a fucking example of them.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on November 27, 2013, 09:13:33 pm
This is the conversation I blocked Garbo over.  I had replied first, asking about which slurs were okay and by whom, and then I get this bullshit PM about how my post could have gotten her thrown out of her living arrangements or something, so she erased it.  Because it was so totally unlike the rest of the thread.

 :lulz:

Fuck that shit.  This is just the latest crusade to tell people what they can and cannot do. 

ALSO, Garbo believes that female trans folks can use "tranny", but male trans folks cannot.  For reasons that are apparently obvious.

Where the fuck is she living, Jonestown?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 09:19:34 pm
This is the conversation I blocked Garbo over.  I had replied first, asking about which slurs were okay and by whom, and then I get this bullshit PM about how my post could have gotten her thrown out of her living arrangements or something, so she erased it.  Because it was so totally unlike the rest of the thread.

 :lulz:

Fuck that shit.  This is just the latest crusade to tell people what they can and cannot do. 

ALSO, Garbo believes that female trans folks can use "tranny", but male trans folks cannot.  For reasons that are apparently obvious.

Where the fuck is she living, Jonestown?

Worse. California.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 09:20:13 pm
I'm going to qualify that by saying I still like Garbo but haven't seen the crazy that you guys have apparently seen.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on November 27, 2013, 09:22:30 pm
A lot of it's here in the old threads.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 09:25:09 pm
Mainly because, even though I am LGBTACGKEJWOIYHDVNMKDVFP:LJ myself, I really don't care about The CauseTM beyond don't be a dick to other people. So anything about The CauseTM I just ignore by default.

Like the whole cis thing. I had no idea what cis meant. Apparently I'm cisgendered. I have a new label to put on the tin.

Wait, does that make me a cisvestite and therefore a cissy? Can I start calling myself a cissy and get all offended when... wait, what exactly is going on again? Jesus.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 09:25:32 pm
A lot of it's here in the old threads.

Point addressed in my previous post.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 09:32:39 pm
Also if we're going to define it as LGBTWDKNVFUIOHGWEJKBADMV:PODJVUOIGESHF VKJVOPIDJVIUOSGDFJHSDOVIHSDU, why not call it the "Everyone Except The Heterosexual and Closet Case Assholes Club"?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 09:44:06 pm
Or you know, I could just refer to myself as bisexual rather than alphabet soup and define myself along supergroup terms. I take it back. Since I'm not L, G, T, A, Q, or anything else implied here but B, then I'll go with B, since my solidarity with the rest should be implied.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 10:03:09 pm
I thought this was pretty amusing, from the article which started the whole kerfuffle:

Quote
And second, what gives him the right to appropriate that term?

The author is referring to drag queen "Payless", who's catch phrase is "hot tranny mess"... so, a drag queen is 'appropriating' the word 'tranny'.  Uh huh.  The word appropriate has now lost all meaning.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 10:04:36 pm
And Rupaul, is apparently "the king of transphobic comments."

Surely not Fred Phelps, or Rush Limbaugh... nope... Rupaul.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 10:11:11 pm
And is that Phox arguing in that thread?  When did she go nuts?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Pćs on November 27, 2013, 10:18:15 pm
SOMEONE TELL ME WHEN IDENTITY POLITICIANS AGREE SO I CAN DO WHATEVER THEY SAY THE RIGHT THING IS.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 10:27:29 pm
And is that Phox arguing in that thread?  When did she go nuts?

:sigh:

I'm going to have to read this thread now, aren't I?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 10:43:46 pm
And is that Phox arguing in that thread?  When did she go nuts?

:sigh:

I'm going to have to read this thread now, aren't I?

I now suspect I may have been wrong about one of the participants being Phox.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Salty on November 27, 2013, 10:46:27 pm
No, it was.

Sadly, Phox does not approve of the tone used by all us Nigels.

This is a trend, it seems.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 10:49:35 pm
No, it was.

Sadly, Phox does not approve of the tone used by all us Nigels.

This is a trend, it seems.

Perhaps we should all change our names to numbered variations of Nigel.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 10:58:51 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

I'm not sure I agree just yet, but I can see where one would formulate that viewpoint.

I'm pretty sure he's spot-on.

The reason? The outrage isn't centered around what other people are calling group A. The outrage is about what group B is calling themselves. Group A is trying to tell group B that they don't have a right to the word they use to identify themselves.

Hence, it's about control.

You both make excellent points. I guess it goes back to Roger's "Traitor" post.

I would have an entirely different reaction to it if the argument was "STOP CALLING US TRANNIES". That's completely valid; everyone should have a right to be addressed as they feel comfortable. But it isn't; it's "THOSE PEOPLE NEED TO STOP CALLING THEMSELVES TRANNIES".
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 11:02:13 pm
Mainly because, even though I am LGBTACGKEJWOIYHDVNMKDVFP:LJ myself, I really don't care about The CauseTM beyond don't be a dick to other people. So anything about The CauseTM I just ignore by default.

Like the whole cis thing. I had no idea what cis meant. Apparently I'm cisgendered. I have a new label to put on the tin.

Wait, does that make me a cisvestite and therefore a cissy? Can I start calling myself a cissy and get all offended when... wait, what exactly is going on again? Jesus.

Brilliant!  :lulz:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 11:03:41 pm
People know they are angry, but they don't know what to be angry about.

This ain't about anger, it's about control.

I'm not sure I agree just yet, but I can see where one would formulate that viewpoint.

I'm pretty sure he's spot-on.

The reason? The outrage isn't centered around what other people are calling group A. The outrage is about what group B is calling themselves. Group A is trying to tell group B that they don't have a right to the word they use to identify themselves.

Hence, it's about control.

You both make excellent points. I guess it goes back to Roger's "Traitor" post.

I would have an entirely different reaction to it if the argument was "STOP CALLING US TRANNIES". That's completely valid; everyone should have a right to be addressed as they feel comfortable. But it isn't; it's "THOSE PEOPLE NEED TO STOP CALLING THEMSELVES TRANNIES".

Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 11:11:41 pm
The original article is just THICK with homophobia, too.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 11:16:27 pm
The original article is just THICK with homophobia, too.

Yeah I just read it about an hour ago.  I was astounded.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 11:18:30 pm
"THOSE AWFUL GAYS, USING THE WORD TRANNY WHILE TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE GET BEATEN TO DEATH."

Seriously, what the fuck.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 11:19:06 pm
Hoops, would you mind reposting the article here? I've lost track of it.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 11:19:48 pm
Mainly because, even though I am LGBTACGKEJWOIYHDVNMKDVFP:LJ myself, I really don't care about The CauseTM beyond don't be a dick to other people. So anything about The CauseTM I just ignore by default.

Like the whole cis thing. I had no idea what cis meant. Apparently I'm cisgendered. I have a new label to put on the tin.

Wait, does that make me a cisvestite and therefore a cissy? Can I start calling myself a cissy and get all offended when... wait, what exactly is going on again? Jesus.

Brilliant!  :lulz:

I have moments of inspiration.  :)
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 27, 2013, 11:21:04 pm
Hoops, would you mind reposting the article here? I've lost track of it.

Sure thing:

Quote
Dear gay dudes,

James Nichols at HuffPost Gay Voices has been doing a series of pieces covering Brooklyn drag culture. As someone who frequently blogs on HuffPost, I tend to read what is going on here. For the latest installment Nichols interviewed a drag queen by the name of -- sigh -- Amber Alert. As certainly as the sun will rise, an interview with a drag queen will invoke one of the more hateful trans-specific slurs: "tranny." This interview proved to be no exception.

"I felt immediately at home there among the irreverent trannies," the drag queen told Nichols. Sigh.

I've found that one of the more common misconceptions that people have about transgender people is that we're the same thing as drag queens. Trans friends of mine have had people ask them what their "stage name" is, and people have been surprised by my somewhat mainstream and conservative appearance.

As I've written about in the past, a quick way to see why "tranny" is a slur is to perform a few quick Google Image searches. First, search "transgender woman." Next, search "tranny." Notice the difference? Yeah, that's why I'm not thrilled when someone calls a trans woman a "tranny." Nor am I thrilled that this term, which has been thrown at me on several occasions, is legitimized in the public eye through use by drag queens and cisgender gay men (which most drag queens are).

Cristian Siriano, Project Runway winner and designer of shoes for Payless (when I think "super fashionable," I think "Payless"), even decided to fold this hateful term into his catchphrase: "hot tranny mess." Now, this catchphrase certainly raised a few questions. First, why does a fashion designer need a catchphrase? And second, what gives him the right to appropriate that term?

Oh, it's just a joke! But wait, why is it a joke? What makes it funny? Are "trannies" just inherently hilarious as a concept? Here's a fun fact that might take some air out of the sails of the pro-saying-"tranny" crowd: During the airing of fourth season of Project Runway (the season that Siriano appeared on), three trans women were brutally murdered in the United States. Ha, ha! Siriano is just so sassy and hilarious!

Neil Patrick Harris got himself in a little hot water a while back for saying "tranny" on TV. (And this isn't even counting the dozen or so times that he and his How I Met Your Mother co-stars have said it on their show.) The same goes for Lance Bass. At least these two apologized after they realized that saying this in public isn't exactly in their best interests. (They can go back to saying it in private, I suppose.) RuPaul, king of transphobic comments, throws that word around like it's going out of style (which is something I wish would actually happen).

But it's OK, folks, because they're gay dudes and are therefore untouchable by the LGB-centric media.

A common argument in favor of using "tranny" is, "But that word is just part of drag culture!" Here's my rebuttal: I don't care. "Drag culture" or not, that's not a word that's appropriate to throw around. It's a hateful slur that is often the last thing that trans women hear before being beaten or murdered. Just as it wouldn't be acceptable for me to go around using the word "f*ggot," as I'm not a gay man, it's inappropriate for gay men and male-identified drag queens to use "tranny."

Ryan Murphy, creator of Glee, is seen as someone who can do no wrong. You may ask what problem I could possibly have with him, right? Take, for example, this scene in another one of his shows, Nip/Tuck, where a character violently beats a trans woman, without any real repercussions (trigger warning: transmisogynistic violence).

With Glee, Murphy supposedly made an effort to be less awful to trans folks, but then he had characters throwing around "tranny" at random. Unlike the instances on the show where a character used a homophobic slur and was immediately called out for it, insults against the trans character are often left without resolution. On top of all that, a cisgender boy was hired to play the role of a transgender girl. Really, Murphy? Finally, there are the various plot lines that made my skin crawl: The trans character takes birth control pills as hormone replacement therapy (this is super dangerous; do not do this!), and recently, one of the plot lines had the trans character fighting for the right to use the girls' bathroom, only to eventually be given the "separate but equal" treatment: access to a private bathroom. (This was treated as a victory, which it is not.)

Also on The Huffington Post, Joe Hutcheson blogged about his evolution toward accepting the use of female pronouns and terminology -- "she," "her," and "girl" -- for male-identified gay people. That's cute and all, but some folks actually care about pronouns. If someone is going to call me "she," "her," or "girl," I want it to be because that person, you know, sees me as a woman, not because they're just so super-sassy that they say, "Pronouns and identification be damned. I'm calling you 'girl' because, um, fierce!"

Do whatever you want, gay dudes, just stop doing things that harm trans people in the process. Can you manage that? It's bad enough that while trans people still struggle to use the restroom without legal repercussions, we're expected to sit quietly as marriage rights take the bulk of money donated to LGBT (more like GLb...[t]) organizations. We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not you're going to stab us in the back with words too.

In conclusion, don't say "tranny." Just don't. It doesn't matter if you do drag, or if "it's not meant as a slur." If you are a cisgender gay man, that is not your word to use.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html)
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 11:21:37 pm
The original article is just THICK with homophobia, too.

God, man, does it? I didn't read it.

How... is that even logical?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 11:47:18 pm
I read the article and the thread. I'm even more confused now.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 11:51:15 pm
Apparently a sizable chunk of people have never heard the word "transvestite", and think that "tranny" refers to transgender.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2013, 11:52:29 pm
Which actually just dawned on me after re-reading the article. The author actually DOESN'T KNOW that "tranny" comes from "transvestite". Possibly because it's an old word that has fallen out of popular use and now only lingers in the term "tranny".
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 27, 2013, 11:55:31 pm
That sounds accurate.

It also sounds accurate that the transgendered youth are also confusing transvestite and transgendered, and then separating it again, but getting it mismatched.

There's this place in Boston where the upstairs is a drag bar, and the basement is a punk venue, called Jacques. People call it a trannie bar. It's where gay men dress as women and lip synch. There's no confusion as to what you're going to see there.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 28, 2013, 12:00:27 am
I mean, I don't get it. I don't get the appeal of dressing up as a woman and pretending to be a diva. I also don't get transgenderedness. You know, just like I don't get either strict heterosexuality or strict homosexuality. Much in the same way that I don't understand what it's like to be female. I'm none of those things so I don't get it, but, like, trannies are dudes who are dressed as chicks putting on a show for dudes who have sex with dudes and their hags. That definition seems pretty clear to me, and it seems like a bit of appropriation for the trans community to adopt the terminology of the TVs.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on November 28, 2013, 12:04:51 am
it seems like a bit of appropriation for the trans community to adopt the terminology of the TVs.

EXACTLY!  And yet they aren't even aware of it.

If it wasn't so hateful, it would be hilarious.  Well, actually it is hilarious, but the hate largely outweighs it.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2013, 12:16:50 am
"THOSE AWFUL GAYS, USING THE WORD TRANNY WHILE TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE GET BEATEN TO DEATH."

Seriously, what the fuck.

There was one of the Subgenii (Fraumensch) who decided a year or so ago that anyone who didn't put transgendered rights above EVERY OTHER CONCERN THEY HAVE are not her kind of people; this would mean that if you said "I am equally concerned with the rights of ALL HUMANS", she blocked you.

I think she's pretty lonely these days.  The few people she didn't block don't take her seriously anymore.

LOL, Fanaticism as attention whoring.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2013, 12:32:04 am
I'm glad that a couple of my cross-dressing friends liked my status update. I hope it will get shared far and wide and put a stop to this "drag queens appropriated the word tranny!" idiocy.

Seriously.

:facepalm:

there are no words.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2013, 12:34:08 am
I'm glad that a couple of my cross-dressing friends liked my status update. I hope it will get shared far and wide and put a stop to this "drag queens appropriated the word tranny!" idiocy.

Seriously.

:facepalm:

there are no words.

You are insufficiently committed to Sparkle Motion.  Oceana has always been at war with Tranny.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2013, 12:36:24 am
I'm glad that a couple of my cross-dressing friends liked my status update. I hope it will get shared far and wide and put a stop to this "drag queens appropriated the word tranny!" idiocy.

Seriously.

:facepalm:

there are no words.

You are insufficiently committed to Sparkle Motion.  Oceana has always been at war with Tranny.

 :lulz: :horrormirth:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 28, 2013, 01:34:50 am
Twid, it's not just gay dudes who like drag shows.

You really have to trust me on this one.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on November 28, 2013, 01:53:21 am
Twid, it's not just gay dudes who like drag shows.

You really have to trust me on this one.

Ok, I'm generalizing.

Twid,
Has put dollars down a drag queen's bra.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LuciferX on November 28, 2013, 03:55:45 am
I'm glad that a couple of my cross-dressing friends liked my status update. I hope it will get shared far and wide and put a stop to this "drag queens appropriated the word tranny!" idiocy.

Seriously.

:facepalm:

there are no words.
[quote malfunction]
So, calling trannys drag queens would be inappropriate, like how the custom is to refer to said person's gender with the desired post-, rather than -pre, OP designation...
What about "real" [insert, Ed.] trannys that don't want to be associated with drag queens, ? :horrormirth:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on November 28, 2013, 05:02:16 am
Which actually just dawned on me after re-reading the article. The author actually DOESN'T KNOW that "tranny" comes from "transvestite". Possibly because it's an old word that has fallen out of popular use and now only lingers in the term "tranny".

Old, granted, but I thought everybody knew this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc80tFJpTuo)?

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LuciferX on November 28, 2013, 05:27:01 am
Which actually just dawned on me after re-reading the article. The author actually DOESN'T KNOW that "tranny" comes from "transvestite". Possibly because it's an old word that has fallen out of popular use and now only lingers in the term "tranny".

Old, granted, but I thought everybody knew this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc80tFJpTuo)?

Transylvanians technically got there first, and where they go is really all the same  :lulz:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on November 28, 2013, 11:16:48 am
And Rupaul, is apparently "the king of transphobic comments."

Surely not Fred Phelps, or Rush Limbaugh... nope... Rupaul.

Surely the queen of transphobic statements?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on November 28, 2013, 11:18:48 am
"THOSE AWFUL GAYS, USING THE WORD TRANNY WHILE TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE GET BEATEN TO DEATH."

Seriously, what the fuck.

I know I have often gone out to beat a transsexual to death, only to have to stop and apologise when I find out they are merely a convincing drag queen.  Boy is that embarrassing.

Those gays are so privileged, and even worse for flaunting it by appropriating transgender terms.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on November 28, 2013, 12:39:52 pm
Thanks to Cain, this thread is far superior to the FB thread.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2013, 05:17:13 pm
"THOSE AWFUL GAYS, USING THE WORD TRANNY WHILE TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE GET BEATEN TO DEATH."

Seriously, what the fuck.

I know I have often gone out to beat a transsexual to death, only to have to stop and apologise when I find out they are merely a convincing drag queen.  Boy is that embarrassing.

Those gays are so privileged, and even worse for flaunting it by appropriating transgender terms.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on November 28, 2013, 06:00:03 pm
:thanks:

Seriously, though.  This is pretty much what they are claiming, when you extend the logical consequences of their worldview.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2013, 08:49:37 pm
"THOSE AWFUL GAYS, USING THE WORD TRANNY WHILE TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE GET BEATEN TO DEATH."

Seriously, what the fuck.

I know I have often gone out to beat a transsexual to death, only to have to stop and apologise when I find out they are merely a convincing drag queen.  Boy is that embarrassing.

Those gays are so privileged, and even worse for flaunting it by appropriating transgender terms.

 :lulz: Cain wins thread.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Ben Shapiro on November 28, 2013, 08:59:37 pm
Twid, it's not just gay dudes who like drag shows.

You really have to trust me on this one.

He's right! My wife loves Ru Pauls drag race, and one of best friends likes to do drag for fun he feels alive on stage. Sometimes I watch it since I admire the endless technique on make-up alone.  Drag really is a art.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Ben Shapiro on November 28, 2013, 09:07:27 pm
And Rupaul, is apparently "the king of transphobic comments."

Surely not Fred Phelps, or Rush Limbaugh... nope... Rupaul.

Surely the queen of transphobic statements?

 :golfclap:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on March 24, 2014, 10:23:47 am
I found an argument even dumber than this one on (where else) tumblr:

http://chaotically-neutral.tumblr.com/post/80227762955/plansfornigel-pro-choice-or-no-voice

Transgender women are just "men in dresses" trying to infiltrate and control the TROO feminist movement, as part of a sinister MRA conspiracy.

I know this an old complaint among the fringe radical feminist movement, but it's worth highlighting that this nonsense is STILL out there.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Faust on March 24, 2014, 11:19:24 am
Look they haven't marginalised or excluded every supporter yet so they have to raise the entry requirements. "Feminism"* is an elite organisation that cant have any old riff raff wandering in the door.









*"Feminism" as opposed to feminism is what is practised by people who rather then being interested in empowerment of women, are more interested in telling everyone within their circle of influence on the internet how they are doing it wrong. Like slactivism, but toxic.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 02:22:37 pm
I found an argument even dumber than this one on (where else) tumblr:

http://chaotically-neutral.tumblr.com/post/80227762955/plansfornigel-pro-choice-or-no-voice

Transgender women are just "men in dresses" trying to infiltrate and control the TROO feminist movement, as part of a sinister MRA conspiracy.

I know this an old complaint among the fringe radical feminist movement, but it's worth highlighting that this nonsense is STILL out there.

I love this.  But I'm weird.

I seem to remember RAW making fun of this very idea in Schroedinger's Cat.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 24, 2014, 05:46:05 pm
The organisation for equal rights does not endorse equal rights membership

Do as I say? :kingmeh:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 05:48:45 pm
The organisation for equal rights does not endorse equal rights membership

I told you bastards that time broke in 2009...I fail to see how ANY of this is a surprise.  It's wormholes all the way down.

 
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 05:51:11 pm
I mean, back in the future, marginalized people wanted as many allies as they could get.  Now it's running backwards, and it's all a question of who is worthy of helping.

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 06:02:46 pm
You have assholes like THIS affecting the way the real world works, to some degree or another:

http://issuehawk.com/tamar/2014/03/20/republican-supporter-men-should-not-have-to-wait-until-women-are-in-mood-to-have-sex.html

So the fucking OBVIOUS thing to do is IGNORE THAT and FUCK WITH ANYONE WHO DEVIATES FROM THE MOST EXTREME PARTY LINE IN QUESTION.

Frankly, it's getting REALLY HARD to TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

This is what happens when a movement becomes trendy.  You get the nuts and the flakes and the zealots, all shouting down the people who want to make things BETTER, and the entire movement suffers for it.

Is LGBT activism bad?  Of course not.  But people using LGBT activism to show that they're the baboon with the biggest, reddest ass in the pack IS.

Is feminism bad?  Of course not.  See above.

Same thing goes for damn near anything.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on March 24, 2014, 06:11:35 pm
Hold on.


Back up.



http://issuehawk.com/tamar/2014/03/20/republican-supporter-men-should-not-have-to-wait-until-women-are-in-mood-to-have-sex.html




WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 06:13:56 pm
Hold on.


Back up.



http://issuehawk.com/tamar/2014/03/20/republican-supporter-men-should-not-have-to-wait-until-women-are-in-mood-to-have-sex.html




WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET
WHEN YOU FUCK WITH US.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on March 24, 2014, 06:16:13 pm
It's like some kind of horrible trainwreck, I can't stop looking at it.

On the one hand, we have assholes like Mitch McRap-,uh, McConnell.  And on the other hand...we have assholes like "plansfornigel" and Parker Marie Molloy and even though I'm pretty sure neither represents a majority opinion, let alone a moral one, both seem to have a lot of time and dedication to being complete assholes and potential for altering the terms of debate for the worse.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 24, 2014, 06:19:03 pm

This is what happens when a movement becomes trendy.  You get the nuts and the flakes and the zealots, all shouting down the people who want to make things BETTER, and the entire movement suffers for it.

Is LGBT activism bad?  Of course not.  But people using LGBT activism to show that they're the baboon with the biggest, reddest ass in the pack IS.

Is feminism bad?  Of course not.  See above.

Same thing goes for damn near anything.

Totally. This is my whole thing with "isms" It all sounds great at the start but, by the time the movement reaches the inevitable "dumbfuck" phase of it's lifecycle, you're left wearing an "I AM FUCKING RETARD" teeshirt.

I believe women deserve to be treated the same way as men. I strive to treat women the same way I treat men, although, to my shame, I still can't bring myself to punch them unconscious when they piss me off.

However, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a feminist.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 06:23:42 pm

This is what happens when a movement becomes trendy.  You get the nuts and the flakes and the zealots, all shouting down the people who want to make things BETTER, and the entire movement suffers for it.

Is LGBT activism bad?  Of course not.  But people using LGBT activism to show that they're the baboon with the biggest, reddest ass in the pack IS.

Is feminism bad?  Of course not.  See above.

Same thing goes for damn near anything.

Totally. This is my whole thing with "isms" It all sounds great at the start but, by the time the movement reaches the inevitable "dumbfuck" phase of it's lifecycle, you're left wearing an "I AM FUCKING RETARD" teeshirt.

I believe women deserve to be treated the same way as men. I strive to treat women the same way I treat men, although, to my shame, I still can't bring myself to punch them unconscious when they piss me off.

However, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a feminist.

If by "feminist", you mean people like Nigel or Gloria Steinem, then call me a feminist, though "egilitarian" is more accurate.  I believe that if you can demand equal rights, you have them.  The problem then is making the moral reality a social reality.

If, on the other hand, you mean people like Garbo or tumblr nation, then I guess I'm a grunting caveman who isn't listening.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on March 24, 2014, 06:25:00 pm
However, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a feminist.


I believe women deserve to be treated the same way as men. I strive to treat women the same way I treat men, although, to my shame, I still can't bring myself to punch them unconscious when they piss me off.


Too late!
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 24, 2014, 06:36:15 pm

This is what happens when a movement becomes trendy.  You get the nuts and the flakes and the zealots, all shouting down the people who want to make things BETTER, and the entire movement suffers for it.

Is LGBT activism bad?  Of course not.  But people using LGBT activism to show that they're the baboon with the biggest, reddest ass in the pack IS.

Is feminism bad?  Of course not.  See above.

Same thing goes for damn near anything.

Totally. This is my whole thing with "isms" It all sounds great at the start but, by the time the movement reaches the inevitable "dumbfuck" phase of it's lifecycle, you're left wearing an "I AM FUCKING RETARD" teeshirt.

I believe women deserve to be treated the same way as men. I strive to treat women the same way I treat men, although, to my shame, I still can't bring myself to punch them unconscious when they piss me off.

However, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a feminist.

If by "feminist", you mean people like Nigel or Gloria Steinem, then call me a feminist, though "egilitarian" is more accurate.  I believe that if you can demand equal rights, you have them.  The problem then is making the moral reality a social reality.

If, on the other hand, you mean people like Garbo or tumblr nation, then I guess I'm a grunting caveman who isn't listening.

I should probably clarify that I don't necessarily think feminism is retarded. It's a matter of signal to noise. A point is reached where the noise is louder than the signal. When people who identify as feminists have to waste buckets of their time explaining that feminism doesn't mean all that retarded shit that everyone else thinks feminism is.

It's a two pronged attack - you have the baboon feminists messing up the ism from the inside, like a cancer, then you have the detractors who badmouth it, both dickwads, caught in a feedback loop. There comes a point where identifying with the ism is self defeating.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 06:37:55 pm
When people who identify as feminists have to waste buckets of their time explaining that feminism doesn't mean all that retarded shit that everyone else thinks feminism is.

Problem isolated.

And, as you imply, it would be a lot harder for Rush Limbaugh to pull his shit if he wasn't getting help from the extremists.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 24, 2014, 07:34:33 pm
The organisation for equal rights does not endorse equal rights membership

Do as I say? :kingmeh:

What organization? Tumblr?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on March 24, 2014, 07:51:17 pm
tumblr is the worst organisation ever.

They don't even serve tea at the general assembly meetings.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:05:24 pm
However, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a feminist.


I believe women deserve to be treated the same way as men. I strive to treat women the same way I treat men, although, to my shame, I still can't bring myself to punch them unconscious when they piss me off.


Too late!

 :lulz:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:06:34 pm
When people who identify as feminists have to waste buckets of their time explaining that feminism doesn't mean all that retarded shit that everyone else thinks feminism is.

Yeah, I spend soooo much time doing this. 

Oh wait.

:lol:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:07:35 pm
tumblr is the worst organisation ever.

They don't even serve tea at the general assembly meetings.

Last time I tried to vote for policy changes they just ignored me.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LuciferX on March 24, 2014, 08:28:23 pm

...

It's a two pronged attack - you have the baboon feminists messing up the ism from the inside, like a cancer, then you have the detractors who badmouth it, both dickwads, caught in a feedback loop. There comes a point where identifying with the ism is self defeating.

To be fair, I was once lead to believe that a female baboon is good to have around the temple for traditional time-keeping and synchronization with lunar calendars. 
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on April 04, 2014, 10:00:45 pm
I know, I'm unheathily addicted to this topic:

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

It seems Ms Malloy has a real problem with Ru Paul.  And objectivity.  And drag queens.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 05, 2014, 01:15:40 am
I know, I'm unheathily addicted to this topic:

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

It seems Ms Malloy has a real problem with Ru Paul.  And objectivity.  And drag queens.

I'm glad Andrea wrote that, and it breaks my heart to see narrow-minded cishet men who have transformed themselves into narrow-minded translesbians targeting the old guard who have worked hardest, faced the most danger from society, and done the most to promote social acceptance, for their hatred and bigotry.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Salty on April 05, 2014, 01:31:11 am
I know, I'm unheathily addicted to this topic:

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

It seems Ms Malloy has a real problem with Ru Paul.  And objectivity.  And drag queens.

That was really well said.

This is all sort of new to me, what in the fuck is wrong with these people? You have to look into your own reflection in the mirror and ask yourself, "Do I hate Ru Paul?" If the answer is yes you may want to question what you're doing with your life.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 05, 2014, 01:41:09 am
Anyone who hates RuPaul would want to eviscerate me, so I can't agree with the pury out of self-defense.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on April 05, 2014, 02:31:10 am
I may even have to start reading Boing Boing again now.  I sorta gave up on that place when it became the Xeni Jardin and Cory Doctorow Show.  I mean, Cory's great and all, but not all day every day.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2014, 03:53:34 pm
I know, I'm unheathily addicted to this topic:

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

It seems Ms Malloy has a real problem with Ru Paul.  And objectivity.  And drag queens.

I'm glad Andrea wrote that, and it breaks my heart to see narrow-minded cishet men who have transformed themselves into narrow-minded translesbians targeting the old guard who have worked hardest, faced the most danger from society, and done the most to promote social acceptance, for their hatred and bigotry.

 :lulz:

Well, you know, there's only so much status to go around.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Golden Applesauce on April 05, 2014, 10:00:06 pm
I know, I'm unheathily addicted to this topic:

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

It seems Ms Malloy has a real problem with Ru Paul.  And objectivity.  And drag queens.

I'm glad Andrea wrote that, and it breaks my heart to see narrow-minded cishet men who have transformed themselves into narrow-minded translesbians targeting the old guard who have worked hardest, faced the most danger from society, and done the most to promote social acceptance, for their hatred and bigotry.

I woke up this morning to my twitter feed containing a mixture of rants and discussion about that article, from the other perspective. (I didn't know Andrea or Mallory existed yesterday.) Apparently the "young guard" (??) bears a lot of resentment to the old guard, and claim the old guard is/was gender policing young trans people, e.g., that you must be attracted to men to be a real trans woman (b/c all women are attracted to men or something?)
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 06, 2014, 02:55:40 am
I know, I'm unheathily addicted to this topic:

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html

It seems Ms Malloy has a real problem with Ru Paul.  And objectivity.  And drag queens.

I'm glad Andrea wrote that, and it breaks my heart to see narrow-minded cishet men who have transformed themselves into narrow-minded translesbians targeting the old guard who have worked hardest, faced the most danger from society, and done the most to promote social acceptance, for their hatred and bigotry.

I woke up this morning to my twitter feed containing a mixture of rants and discussion about that article, from the other perspective. (I didn't know Andrea or Mallory existed yesterday.) Apparently the "young guard" (??) bears a lot of resentment to the old guard, and claim the old guard is/was gender policing young trans people, e.g., that you must be attracted to men to be a real trans woman (b/c all women are attracted to men or something?)

I wonder how much of that is actual pressure they're receiving from oldschool transexuals and crossdressers, and how much is their own personal insecurity?

I also think that there is a small (minority, yet vocal) subset of the trans community which consists of the same mindset of young XY as enters the PUA and MRA communities, who need an external enemy to use as a scapegoat for their internal conflicts, who carry a deeply-embedded sense of entitlement, and have come to believe that all their problems will be solved if they just do this one thing hard enough, and can "defeat" the "enemy". So, they rail against the people who, rather than seeking to be entirely one or the other, straddle the line between man and women; the people who are comfortable being identified as chicks with dicks. They're the most threatening, because they reside in the gray area these particular young newly-minted transwomen want to see eradicated; the area they think is the source of their personal pain.

The reason I specify XY person is a particular one; they are, and have historically been, the most highly susceptible to cults and extremist movements, as well as the most combative. I have met some, but far fewer, transmen who espouse that level of extremist thinking.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 06, 2014, 02:58:53 am
I think the entitlement aspect is pretty crucial, as it's pervasive through the mindset, whether we're talking about people who feel entitled to a woman's time and attention, people who feel entitled to walk away from supporting their children, or people who feel entitled to call the shots for all trans* people, including those who were fighting for equality before the entitled ones were born.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 07, 2014, 12:25:48 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.
















1No pun intended.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on April 07, 2014, 12:29:49 pm
I think there's something to that.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 04:05:32 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.

No.  What is happening is that a certain subset of people want to stake their claim, as you say, to their fair share of the oppression, so they can holler and hate.  The people who actively hate them will not be shocked or conciliatory, so they aren't even on the radar.  The people who will react and give validation to the ME ME ME screeching of the Social Justice Warrior™ are those that wanted to help, or are otherwise peripherally involved.  Those, mind you, whom Garbo referred to sneeringly as "cookie seekers".

They are like horrible children, playing dress up in the clothing of giants; donning the mantles of Martin Luther King Jr and Mohammed Ali and Gloria Steinem and countless others, as preparation for rolling around in pig shit, to show each other which one is the stinkiest hero in the sty.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 04:06:44 pm
I think the entitlement aspect is pretty crucial, as it's pervasive through the mindset, whether we're talking about people who feel entitled to a woman's time and attention, people who feel entitled to walk away from supporting their children, or people who feel entitled to call the shots for all trans* people, including those who were fighting for equality before the entitled ones were born.

Well, it's HARD for them to be the HERO, when they are standing in the shadows of titans.

So the titans have to be removed.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on April 07, 2014, 04:10:09 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.

No.  What is happening is that a certain subset of people want to stake their claim, as you say, to their fair share of the oppression, so they can holler and hate.  The people who actively hate them will not be shocked or conciliatory, so they aren't even on the radar.  The people who will react and give validation to the ME ME ME screeching of the Social Justice Warrior™ are those that wanted to help, or are otherwise peripherally involved.  Those, mind you, whom Garbo referred to sneeringly as "cookie seekers".

They are like horrible children, playing dress up in the clothing of giants; donning the mantles of Martin Luther King Jr and Mohammed Ali and Gloria Steinem and countless others, as preparation for rolling around in pig shit, to show each other which one is the stinkiest hero in the sty.

You're basically saying the same thing LMNO did, though.  To paraphrase both: "the homophobes who deserve derision simply don't give a shit, so they turn on whoever is at least paying attention"
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 04:10:54 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.

No.  What is happening is that a certain subset of people want to stake their claim, as you say, to their fair share of the oppression, so they can holler and hate.  The people who actively hate them will not be shocked or conciliatory, so they aren't even on the radar.  The people who will react and give validation to the ME ME ME screeching of the Social Justice Warrior™ are those that wanted to help, or are otherwise peripherally involved.  Those, mind you, whom Garbo referred to sneeringly as "cookie seekers".

They are like horrible children, playing dress up in the clothing of giants; donning the mantles of Martin Luther King Jr and Mohammed Ali and Gloria Steinem and countless others, as preparation for rolling around in pig shit, to show each other which one is the stinkiest hero in the sty.

You're basically saying the same thing LMNO did, though.  The homophobes who deserve derision simply don't give a shit, so they turn on whoever is at least paying attention.

Sorry, lack of sleep on my end.   :oops:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 04:17:10 pm
Having read it again, I'm sticking to my end.

The homophobes are not in a group which can be controlled by the SJWs, regardless of whether or not they understand what is being said.  The allie are, in many cases.

It has nothing to do with communication or understanding.  It has to do with Jim Jones and David Koresh and L R Hubbard.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on April 07, 2014, 04:19:45 pm
Having read it again, I'm sticking to my end.

The homophobes are not in a group which can be controlled by the SJWs, regardless of whether or not they understand what is being said.  The allie are, in many cases.

It has nothing to do with communication or understanding.  It has to do with Jim Jones and David Koresh and L R Hubbard.

It still seems like basically the same idea to me, so I will say I agree with both of you. :wink:   But, maybe I'm missing some crucial aspect.  It wouldn't be the first time.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 04:22:49 pm
Having read it again, I'm sticking to my end.

The homophobes are not in a group which can be controlled by the SJWs, regardless of whether or not they understand what is being said.  The allies are, in many cases.

It has nothing to do with communication or understanding.  It has to do with Jim Jones and David Koresh and L R Hubbard.

It still seems like basically the same idea to me, so I will say I agree with both of you. :wink:   But, maybe I'm missing some crucial aspect.  It wouldn't be the first time.

The end result is the same, the motive is slightly different.  They do not ignore the yahoos because the yahoos cannot understand them.  They ignore the yahoos because the allies are already in the tent, already understand, and just need to be flogged into obedience to the SJW guru in question

Half the work, far better results.  For a given goal, anyway.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on April 07, 2014, 04:25:32 pm
Having read it again, I'm sticking to my end.

The homophobes are not in a group which can be controlled by the SJWs, regardless of whether or not they understand what is being said.  The allies are, in many cases.

It has nothing to do with communication or understanding.  It has to do with Jim Jones and David Koresh and L R Hubbard.

It still seems like basically the same idea to me, so I will say I agree with both of you. :wink:   But, maybe I'm missing some crucial aspect.  It wouldn't be the first time.

The end result is the same, the motive is slightly different.  They do not ignore the yahoos because the yahoos cannot understand them.  They ignore the yahoos because the allies are already in the tent, already understand, and just need to be flogged into obedience to the SJW guru in question

Half the work, far better results.  For a given goal, anyway.

Ah, I see.

Well then:

I think there's something to that.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on April 07, 2014, 05:24:14 pm
Having read it again, I'm sticking to my end.

The homophobes are not in a group which can be controlled by the SJWs, regardless of whether or not they understand what is being said.  The allie are, in many cases.

It has nothing to do with communication or understanding.  It has to do with Jim Jones and David Koresh and L R Hubbard.

Status games. Much more important instantly gratifying than some complex problem with no simple solution.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 07, 2014, 06:02:11 pm
Oh look, a Dead Kennedys song.

Ever notice hard line radicals
Can go on start trips too
Where no one's pure and right
Except themselves "I'm cleansed of the system."
('Cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or-"The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets."
You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat
What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg5ZcxBbYJY)
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 06:03:12 pm
Oh look, a Dead Kennedys song.

Ever notice hard line radicals
Can go on start trips too
Where no one's pure and right
Except themselves "I'm cleansed of the system."
('Cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or-"The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets."
You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat
What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg5ZcxBbYJY)

:mittens:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 07, 2014, 06:08:01 pm
That's from 1986.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 06:18:25 pm
That's from 1986.

I was wondering why it started raining in my office.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 08:04:50 pm
I'm working on clarifying the difference between a legitimate activist and an SJW.

So far, an activist wants to make things better.  An SJW wants to trumpet butthurt at the expense of making things better.

An activist is interested in advancing their cause.  An SJW *IS* The Cause.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 07, 2014, 08:15:33 pm
I like it.

An activist sees a problem in society and works to fix it.

A SJW wants you to know how it affects them personally, and alienates everyone around them not ideologically pure enough.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on April 07, 2014, 08:17:54 pm
The most basic difference is activists do things.  SJWs and similar, as far as I can see, whine on the internet a lot.

If someone believes hashtag activism is a replacement for people on the streets, in debates and working with others, chances are they're lifestylists looking for a cause to bolster their sense of identity.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 08:22:47 pm
The most basic difference is activists do things.  SJWs and similar, as far as I can see, whine on the internet a lot.

If someone believes hashtag activism is a replacement for people on the streets, in debates and working with others, chances are they're lifestylists looking for a cause to bolster their sense of identity.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 08:23:24 pm
I like it.

An activist sees a problem in society and works to fix it.

A SJW wants you to know how it affects them personally, and alienates everyone around them not ideologically pure enough.

This also.

It's hard to explain why I hate SJWs so much.  I think it's partially the phoniness.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 08:52:37 pm
Also the fact that they make other peoples' lives worse for the sake of self-aggrandizement.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Hoopla! on April 07, 2014, 09:08:29 pm
Also the fact that they make other peoples' lives worse for the sake of self-aggrandizement.

This is more it, for me.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 07, 2014, 09:29:51 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.

I think there is also a subset of people who are acting out of entitlement to appropriate a set of terminology that has historically belonged to another group, and at the same time seek to ingratiate themselves with the mainstream by distancing themselves from the very people whose language they are appropriating. They are the trans version of mansplainers; transplainers, I suppose you might call them. They are essentially walking into the queer community and saying "your experience is irrelevant; let me tell you what your experience is and should be".
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 09:33:24 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.

I think there is also a subset of people who are acting out of entitlement to appropriate a set of terminology that has historically belonged to another group, and at the same time seek to ingratiate themselves with the mainstream by distancing themselves from the very people whose language they are appropriating. They are the trans version of mansplainers; transplainers, I suppose you might call them. They are essentially walking into the queer community and saying "your experience is irrelevant; let me tell you what your experience is and should be".

Yeah, I can see that.  A whole bunch.

Funny thing is, I have to smack myself around the head and neck a bunch to not do the same thing myself.  Not with respect to trans folks, but just in general.

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 07, 2014, 09:34:48 pm
Oh look, a Dead Kennedys song.

Ever notice hard line radicals
Can go on start trips too
Where no one's pure and right
Except themselves "I'm cleansed of the system."
('Cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or-"The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets."
You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat
What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg5ZcxBbYJY)

That pretty much nails it.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 07, 2014, 09:35:58 pm
The most basic difference is activists do things.  SJWs and similar, as far as I can see, whine on the internet a lot.

If someone believes hashtag activism is a replacement for people on the streets, in debates and working with others, chances are they're lifestylists looking for a cause to bolster their sense of identity.

Boom. Dead on.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 07, 2014, 09:38:41 pm
I’ve been thinking about it in a different way; more as, “Why does a minority group so often lash out at other minority groups that could easily be considered allies?”

What I noticed is that the antagonistic group can often be seen as a subset of the group on the receiving end1.  And I realized that they’re pretty much the only ones who would have a chance of recognizing that subset even exists.

For example, while much of the gay/drag queen community knows the myriad forms trans* can take, the people who tangibly make life worse for them only see “a buncha fuckin’ queers.”  There’s no distinction, so it’s much harder for a trans* activist to stake out their own personal claim. 

So, while Joe McAsshole is stomping the ever-living fuck out of both of their rights, the trans* activist is going after RuPaul and Dan Savage, because at least they know what the trans* activist is talking about.

I think there is also a subset of people who are acting out of entitlement to appropriate a set of terminology that has historically belonged to another group, and at the same time seek to ingratiate themselves with the mainstream by distancing themselves from the very people whose language they are appropriating. They are the trans version of mansplainers; transplainers, I suppose you might call them. They are essentially walking into the queer community and saying "your experience is irrelevant; let me tell you what your experience is and should be".

Yeah, I can see that.  A whole bunch.

Funny thing is, I have to smack myself around the head and neck a bunch to not do the same thing myself.  Not with respect to trans folks, but just in general.

I think a lot of smart people do, and that's part of why I'm here; to remind myself that I am NOT the smartest guy in the room.

The good news for all of us is that when we find ourselves educating someone on their own field of experience or expertise, it's never too late to just stop talking.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2014, 09:45:30 pm
The good news for all of us is that when we find ourselves educating someone on their own field of experience or expertise, it's never too late to just stop talking.

I make one exception, not joking or trying to be funny:  Mike the Engineer.  You have to keep talking.  You have to get him so mad he goes home for the day.  It's your only hope.

With that exception in mind, you are otherwise 169% correct.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: President Television on April 07, 2014, 10:57:52 pm
I'm working on clarifying the difference between a legitimate activist and an SJW.

So far, an activist wants to make things better.  An SJW wants to trumpet butthurt at the expense of making things better.

An activist is interested in advancing their cause.  An SJW *IS* The Cause.

Nailed it. Improving the world is great, but there's a point where you become nothing more than an opinion in human skin.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 07, 2014, 11:17:00 pm
The good news for all of us is that when we find ourselves educating someone on their own field of experience or expertise, it's never too late to just stop talking.

I make one exception, not joking or trying to be funny:  Mike the Engineer.  You have to keep talking.  You have to get him so mad he goes home for the day.  It's your only hope.

With that exception in mind, you are otherwise 169% correct.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2014, 12:27:02 am
The good news for all of us is that when we find ourselves educating someone on their own field of experience or expertise, it's never too late to just stop talking.

I make one exception, not joking or trying to be funny:  Mike the Engineer.  You have to keep talking.  You have to get him so mad he goes home for the day.  It's your only hope.

With that exception in mind, you are otherwise 169% correct.

 :lulz:

Roger's Rules of Industrial Survival #6:  All engineers are dangerously incompetent until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Ben Shapiro on April 08, 2014, 12:36:26 am
The good news for all of us is that when we find ourselves educating someone on their own field of experience or expertise, it's never too late to just stop talking.

I make one exception, not joking or trying to be funny:  Mike the Engineer.  You have to keep talking.  You have to get him so mad he goes home for the day.  It's your only hope.

With that exception in mind, you are otherwise 169% correct.

 :lulz:

Roger's Rules of Industrial Survival #6:  All engineers are dangerously incompetent until proven otherwise.

Pfft wear gloves.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2014, 12:40:34 am
The good news for all of us is that when we find ourselves educating someone on their own field of experience or expertise, it's never too late to just stop talking.

I make one exception, not joking or trying to be funny:  Mike the Engineer.  You have to keep talking.  You have to get him so mad he goes home for the day.  It's your only hope.

With that exception in mind, you are otherwise 169% correct.

 :lulz:

Roger's Rules of Industrial Survival #6:  All engineers are dangerously incompetent until proven otherwise.

Pfft wear gloves.

See, in my experience, about 10% of engineers are capable of feeding themselves.

What's amazing is that 10% of engineers have carried us from the dark ages to space travel.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Ben Shapiro on April 08, 2014, 12:41:39 am
90% of those engineers don't wear pants.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on April 08, 2014, 08:01:36 am
I just had a terrible mental image of Mike the Engineer as a drag queen.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Junkenstein on April 08, 2014, 08:48:42 am
For you, it's an image. For Mike, it's Saturday Night.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 08, 2014, 02:01:29 pm
"Transplainers".

I love that.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Cain on April 08, 2014, 02:24:21 pm
Transplainers are what you fly with to go to Spain on your transholiday, right?
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Golden Applesauce on April 14, 2014, 04:23:18 pm
100+ young queer trans women sign a very bullet pointed open letter back!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/

Meanwhile, in Maricopa County, a black transwoman activist/protestor has been sent to a men's jail for "manifesting prostitution", which is some combination of being black, wearing women's clothes, protesting the local police department, being transgender, and being outdoors in public. https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights-criminal-law-reform-hiv-aids-reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/arrested-walking.

Some people have managed to sign both the open letter and to agitate for Monica Lewis, but it appears there is some tension between cable-TV-affording-transwomen and people who go outdoors in Maricopa County. There are accusations of mainstream white (trans???) feminism ignoring the Monica Lewis story on account of racism, respectability politics, etc.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2014, 06:18:31 pm
100+ young queer trans women sign a very bullet pointed open letter back!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/

Meanwhile, in Maricopa County, a black transwoman activist/protestor has been sent to a men's jail for "manifesting prostitution", which is some combination of being black, wearing women's clothes, protesting the local police department, being transgender, and being outdoors in public. https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights-criminal-law-reform-hiv-aids-reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/arrested-walking.

Some people have managed to sign both the open letter and to agitate for Monica Lewis, but it appears there is some tension between cable-TV-affording-transwomen and people who go outdoors in Maricopa County. There are accusations of mainstream white (trans???) feminism ignoring the Monica Lewis story on account of racism, respectability politics, etc.

"Manifesting prostitution"?  What about ME, you bastards ?  WHAT ABOUT ME?  I've been "manifesting" your horrible fucking deaths for MORE THAN A DECADE, why aren't you pulling "Mystic Wicks Legalism" on me?

Oh, yeah, because I'm white and straight.  I guess I'll just have to try harder
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Junkenstein on April 15, 2014, 09:32:25 am
Relevant:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27031180

Quote
ndia's Supreme Court has recognised transgender people as a third gender, in a landmark ruling.

"It is the right of every human being to choose their gender," it said in granting rights to those who identify themselves as neither male nor female.

It ordered the government to provide transgender people with quotas in jobs and education in line with other minorities, as well as key amenities.

According to one estimate, India has about two million transgender people.

In India, a common term used to describe transgender people, transsexuals and cross-dressers is hijra (eunuch).

Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 15, 2014, 03:14:54 pm
Relevant:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27031180

Quote
ndia's Supreme Court has recognised transgender people as a third gender, in a landmark ruling.

"It is the right of every human being to choose their gender," it said in granting rights to those who identify themselves as neither male nor female.

It ordered the government to provide transgender people with quotas in jobs and education in line with other minorities, as well as key amenities.

According to one estimate, India has about two million transgender people.

In India, a common term used to describe transgender people, transsexuals and cross-dressers is hijra (eunuch).

I don't understand why there are 3 genders, if you can choose between 2.

OH, WAIT.  The 3rd gender is, to law, what the OKM board used to be here.  A ghetto.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 15, 2014, 03:28:05 pm
Hm.  I'm supposing you won't accept "neither male nor female" as a valid answer.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 15, 2014, 03:29:20 pm
Hm.  I'm supposing you won't accept "neither male nor female" as a valid answer.

Well, it's not ME saying it.  The court said you get to choose one or the other.  A choice between two options is not itself an option.

Unless you're setting people up for something.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: LMNO on April 15, 2014, 03:31:16 pm
Oh, I see what you're saying.  The judge's ruling is phrased awkwardly.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 15, 2014, 03:34:30 pm
Oh, I see what you're saying.  The judge's ruling is phrased awkwardly.

The only problem I have is that the ackwardness is precedent.  The "3rd gender" part is the problem.

If you're gonna establish case law, I'd think "gender is not an acceptable standard" is the only way to go.  In other words, no distinction between genders - born or chosen - is permitted in the eyes of the law.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2014, 12:11:25 am
India has a very, very different historical relationship with its 3rd gender population than the US or the UK does, so it's not going to be very revealing to look at this ruling through a Western filter.
Title: Re: "Tranny"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 18, 2014, 12:14:21 am
Hm.  I'm supposing you won't accept "neither male nor female" as a valid answer.

Well, it's not ME saying it.  The court said you get to choose one or the other.  A choice between two options is not itself an option.

Unless you're setting people up for something.

The ruling recognizes the already-existing third gender and mandates protections for a class of people who has historically been forced to the fringe, often unable to obtain housing or employment.