Umm, why?

“In proclaiming ‘Zeke is not the guy you think he is’ and that ‘there is deception on levels y’all don’t understand,’ Varner is saying that I’m not really a man,” Smith continues, “and that simply living as my authentic self is a nefarious trick. In reality, by being Zeke the dude, I am being my most honest self – as is every other transgender person going about their daily lives.”

OK.

“Zeke Smith, and transgender people like him, are not deceiving anyone by being their authentic selves,” said Nick Adams, director of Glaad’s transgender media program. “It is dangerous and unacceptable to out a transgender person.”

We must not speak the truth these days or what?

39 comments on “Umm, why?

  1. “We must not speak the truth these days or what”

    If doing so is dangerous to someone’s safety it’s a pretty shitty thing to do. Would you publish Salman Rushdie’s home address?

  2. Fucking hell, you’d publish Rushdie’s address for the crime of claiming to live somewhere else?!
    i) What fucking business is it of anyone else where the bearded dickhead lives (or claims to live)?
    ii) Of course he claims to live somewhere else, there are people who want to kill him. Do you want to facilitate that?

  3. “Zeke Smith, and transgender people like him, are not deceiving anyone”.

    That is about right as the vast majority of trans m to f are Desperate-Dan-in-Drag lookalikes.

    “We must not speak the truth these days or what?”

    That is precisely the point Tim. The scum of cultural Marxism couldn’t give a rat’s arse about the mental troubles of the mentally troubled but want to use them to promote Marxian subjectivist evil . Which is to say that the “truth” is whatever the left tells you it is. Never mind facts, logic or your own judgement. All white patriarchal wickedness.

  4. “If doing so is dangerous to someone’s safety it’s a pretty shitty thing to do. ”

    How is it dangerous?

  5. Matthew L – “Would you publish Salman Rushdie’s home address?”

    On a scale of one to ten, the unhappiness that Islamists finding out Rushdie’s address would cause me is so small it could not be measured by modern science. Even an electron microscope would not be able to see the sh!t I would not give.

    In the meantime, these people are mentally ill. Reinforcing their delusion does them no good at all.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/11/boys-will-keep-winning-girls-sports-trophies-willing-re-assert-sex-distinctions/

  6. “Zeke Smith, and transgender people like him, are not deceiving anyone by being their authentic selves”

    Dick-in-a-dress is not deceiving?

    There was a tranny in my community in the early ’90s. He absolutely LOVED to deceive people.

    Glaad can say WTF and the Lefty press will leave them alone. Journalism is dead.

  7. Mmmm… Post’s been up several hours & no comments.
    Maybe we’ve reached peak yawn on transgender shrilling.

  8. Outing people subject to widespread persecution, up to and including being tortured and murdered, is OK, because “we were just telling the truth”? Get a grip.

  9. Fucking hell, you’d publish Rushdie’s address for the crime of claiming to live somewhere else?!

    Well, he’s just put whoever lives at that address at whatever risk he is at. Minus the fact that he will have some degree of personal protection and whoever lives or works at the other address is unlikely to have any.

  10. “Not even wikipedia could list the full list of unlawfully killed cis-gender people”

    How about those killed for being cis-gender?

  11. I assume that equating a list on Wikipedia – rather a short list, given its scope, and compiled with Wikipedia’s usual rigour – with the murderous activities of the Nazis is a joke. A tasteless joke, obviously, and not remotely funny, but still…

    Surely it is; it must be.

  12. That wikipedia list is not (and does not claim to be) a list of people killed for being trans-gender. Some of them are claimed to have been: for others, there is no evidence presented.

  13. “I assume that equating a list on Wikipedia – rather a short list, given its scope, and compiled with Wikipedia’s usual rigour”

    From the first line: “This is a list of notable instances of transgender people murdered, mostly due to their transgender status/gender identity.”

    They’re basically the ones that hit the news. Not all do. (And of course, with a rather smaller population to select from.)

    “with the murderous activities of the Nazis is a joke. A tasteless joke, obviously, and not remotely funny, but still…”

    No, it’s not a fucking joke. The sort of people who persecute the transgender are every bit as evil as the people who persecute Jews. Or those who persecute apostates in Muslim countries. Or dissidents in Communist countries.

    The urge to persecute minorities is universal, and the only way to avoid becoming victims ourselves is to oppose is *whenever* it happens, *whoever* it is applied to. Or nobody will have any sympathy when it’s *your* turn.

    The hypocritical “Liberals of Convenience” who are only liberal when they and their friends are being persecuted, but revert to being as authoritarian as their opponents when it comes to groups they don’t like, sabotage their own efforts and arguments at the root – by handing their enemies such potent ammunition against themselves.

    Humans are still the same species we were when the Nazis rose. That capacity for evil is within all of us. The Nazis didn’t think they were doing anything wrong – in fact, they thought *they* were the ones being persecuted, by the allied powers who limited their ability to expand. Everybody always thinks it doesn’t apply to them.

    “It can’t be evil because it’s *us* doing it, and we’re the *good* ones.” Oh, really?

  14. “Of course, stating “Zac is transgender” and killing Zac are entirely equivalent.”

    Nobody said it was.

    Stating “X is Jewish” is not the same as killing Jews. Saying “X is an apostate from Islam” is not the same as killing apostates. Saying “X is anti-Soviet” is not the same as shipping dissidents to the Gulag to die.

    The bigger problem, of course, is the people who don’t like TGs. But it’s always been the case in totalitarian states that persecute cultural outsiders that you always get informers and sneaks who will make accusations of ‘social deviation’ as a way of settling scores and gaining advantages over their opponents, and then sit back and watch while the rest of society rips their enemy apart for them. Their hands are clean. They can dispose of people they dislike at no legal or personal risk to themselves.

    When people accuse their opponents of holding ‘politically incorrect’ opinions, like transphobia or sexism, as a way of stirring up the twitter mob to hound them from their job, their business, or their ambitions, you’re seeing the same phenomenon.

    If you got fired from your job because somebody truthfully revealed your ‘transphobic’ opinions that you expressed anonymously / in private, would you have no hard feeling against them? They only told the truth, after all. Merely snitching on you is not as bad as the person actually firing you, right?

  15. No, it’s not a fucking joke. The sort of people who persecute the transgender are every bit as evil as the people who persecute Jews. Or those who persecute apostates in Muslim countries. Or dissidents in Communist countries.

    Don’t try to switch target. You explicitly equated the risk of violence to an outed transexual with the risk faced by Anne Frank. In NiVworld, the risk of something nasty happening maybe is the same as the absolute certainty of being murdered by the state.

  16. @SE – I was assuming a plausible real world possibility, where Rushdie says ‘I live in Birmingham’ (when he doesn’t), not an entirely fucking lunatic imaginary world where he says ‘I live at 1, Acacia Ave, Birmingham’ (when he doesn’t). There is not one chance in a billion of Salman Rushdie announcing that he lives at an actual address that he doesn’t live at, unless he’s gone senile in which case he also doesn’t deserve to be outed to the beheading scum, so why argue for how you might behave if he did?!

  17. @Fen Tiger

    What’s your point? If you have 10% of Ann Frank’s chance of being killed it’s ok to reveal your address? Or 1%? 0.001%? I find these men in dresses as irritating as anyone (or rather I find their humourless, pinch faced policemen irritating) but fucking hell, who reveals where *anyone* lives if they (the someone) is just a blameless member of the public who wants some privacy?

  18. “Don’t try to switch target. You explicitly equated the risk of violence to an outed transexual with the risk faced by Anne Frank.”

    It’s a moral analogy. Analogies are rarely exact, and trying to pick holes in your own particular interpretation as a way of dodging the implications of its content is a classic dodge. The analogy I was drawing in this case is not to the *scale* of the event, but to the particular *type* of evil.

    And don’t *you* try to switch target. The argument is over whether “If doing so is dangerous to someone’s safety it’s a pretty shitty thing to do.”

    It is dangerous to someone’s safety. It is a pretty shitty thing to do. And to try to defend, as well.

  19. I’m with NIV on this one.
    Early onset dementia, wet liberal blood transfusion? Can’t remember.

    The point is that people can and shoud be free to identify and live their lives as they wish. A bit like, you know, free speech.

    So long as they do their surgery on their own dollar, I’m cool with it.

  20. “No, it’s not a fucking joke. The sort of people who persecute the transgender are every bit as evil as the people who persecute Jews. Or those who persecute apostates in Muslim countries. Or dissidents in Communist countries.”

    No- communism is wrong, and actions taken by Communists in pursuit of communist ideals are thus evil. So is the false religion of Islam.

    Given that your definition of persecution of the ‘transgender’ would include attempting to counsel and treat them for their mental illness, that’s a pretty strange analogy to those of us who live in reality.

  21. The point is that people can and shoud be free to identify and live their lives as they wish.

    So you’re fine with women never being able to win another sports trophy because men-who-identify-as-women are now winning all the womens’ sports?

    You don’t think that women-who-identity-as-women might get a bit upset about that after a while?

  22. Ed Grant
    “So you’re fine with women never being able to win another sports trophy because men-who-identify-as-women are now winning all the womens’ sports?

    You don’t think that women-who-identity-as-women might get a bit upset about that after a while?

    Perfectly happy with that.
    They started it.

    Actually I’m not, but logic…

  23. ‘It’ was a contestant on US reality TV show. Not in a Muslim country. No one in the U.S. is stalking trannies. Get a grip.

  24. “Given that your definition of persecution of the ‘transgender’ would include attempting to counsel and treat them for their mental illness, that’s a pretty strange analogy to those of us who live in reality.”

    It’s not a mental illness. Unless you count things like homosexuality and introversion as mental illnesses. People have different personalities and mental characteristics – some of these characteristics are sex-linked, and most people have at least some characteristics that are sex-linked to the opposite sex. (Like women who can read maps, or men who are good at language.)

    Most of these sex-linked modules are socially neutral. You would no more regard a woman who was geeky and good at maths as “mentally ill” than a man who was – although it was not always so. Others conflict with social taboos – homosexuals have the brain module for sexual attraction from the opposite sex, which society has problems with. But it’s not a mental illness – in a society where homosexuality is accepted, homosexuals can live happy and fulfilled lives, with no particular distress or difficulty. Their historic problems are totally and completely due to society’s reaction to and treatment of them. Certain authoritarians decided that homosexuality was a “mental illness” (or earlier, a “sin”) and tried to treat it – using electric shock torture, drugs, beatings, prison, and general bullying. Gays had to hide what they were, and would often commit suicide if exposed rather than face society’s treatment of them. Today, they’ll talk openly about being gay on national TV on the ‘Graham Norton Show’ and nobody cares. They’re quite happy as they are.

    The brain modules that define what gender you are ‘mentally’ are much the same. Biologically, they’re no different to any other sex-linked brain module – there’s always a low level of cross-over. And in a society that accepts it the vast majority would have little problem. For some, the body dysphoria is extreme enough to cause significant distress, but surgery and hormones can reduce that considerably. But it shouldn’t be any more of a problem than the few unfortunates born with hare lips or similar disfigurements. It’s a matter for sympathy – but they’re not sick.

    My argument would be that while the majority of TGs are not mentally ill, there’s more of a case for claiming that the Authoritarian Personality Disorder – where people feel compelled to dictate to others how they are allowed to live – ought to be, in much the same way that psychopathy is. They cause a lot of conflict in society, and when they gain power they can cause a huge amount of damage and suffering. Like psychopaths, they are a danger to the people around them.

    Such people caused the horrors of Communism, and they’re a problem today in the form of Islam, but the mentality underlying both extends far wider than that. ‘Political correctness’ and ‘health Nazism’ are the latest instantiations of that, but it’s only the reaction to the previous ‘Mary Whitehouse’ / ‘Alf Garnett’ tendency of sexual and racial repression from the conservative side. It’s caused by the same underlying mental characteristic that made Nazism or Stalinism what they were – just not quite as extreme in the penalties it meted out for social non-conformity.

    Counseling and treating the transgender is not a problem. Psychiatrists counsel doing the minimum needed to allow a person to live a life free of distress. What I suspect you’re talking about, though, is counseling and treatment aimed at persuading people they’re not really transgender, or in some way ‘curing’ it. You can’t do that – it would require understanding and re-wiring the brain at the level of individual neurones. Maybe in a hundred years time we’ll be able to do that sort of thing, but we’re not even close to having that sort of medical technology today.

    Mostly, that sort of thing is advocated by deluded people who cannot accept that their own traditional picture of reality could possibly be incorrect, and are desperately trying to force reality into the mold of their own expectations. It’s ironic.

    “‘It’ was a contestant on US reality TV show. Not in a Muslim country. No one in the U.S. is stalking trannies. Get a grip.”

    The US is a deeply Christian country full of Biblical literalists who revere Moses and his admonitions against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, (someone else with Authoritarian Personality Disorder gaining power, who through it ended up invading multiple nations and ordering the slaughter of thousands of innocent women and children in the name of his psychopathic version of ‘God’).

    And yes, there are are people in the US stalking “trannies”. (Also there are plenty of Muslims in the US, too.)

  25. ‘The US is a deeply Christian country full of Biblical literalists who revere Moses and his admonitions against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah’

    Bullshit.

    ‘there are are people in the US stalking “trannies”.’

    More bullshit.

    Seek professional help, NiV.

  26. “It’s not a mental illness. Unless you count things like homosexuality and introversion as mental illnesses.”

    Homosexuality is a mental illness- at least male homosexuality, which is fitness reducing in the evolutionary environment. Female homosexuality is a nice idea, but it the evolutionary environment, simply a preference that doesn’t matter much. Introversion/extraversion is a dimension of personality, and particular ranges of such are adaptive in particular environments.

    “Most of these sex-linked modules are socially neutral. You would no more regard a woman who was geeky and good at maths as “mentally ill” than a man who was”

    Not if she’s in the kitchen cooking for at least three kids, no.

  27. Homosexuality is a mental illness- at least male homosexuality, which is fitness reducing in the evolutionary environment.

    That’s not necessarily true. If a (presumably recessive) gene that frees up some men from the time required to bring up and provide for a family provides enough benefit to their relatives that it will spread their genes more widely, it could potentially have beneficial effects over long time periods.

    It’s a long-shot, but otherwise such a gene would probably have been evolved out long ago.

    That’s assuming the left are correct when they claim gay is genetic, anyway. Since SJWs always lie, that may not be the case. I have one gay acquaintance who claims it’s often a response to childhood sex abuse by men.

  28. “That’s not necessarily true. If a (presumably recessive) gene that frees up some men from the time required to bring up and provide for a family provides enough benefit to their relatives that it will spread their genes more widely, it could potentially have beneficial effects over long time periods.”

    There are lots of ways that apparently non-adaptive genes can be beneficial, and there are even ways that genes that directly reduce the number of offspring can be beneficial for individual genes. Matt Ridley’s book ‘The Red Queen’ goes into a lot of examples.

    For example, there’s the sickle cell anaemia gene, that if you have only one copy of it gives immunity to malaria. Two copies gives you anaemia. So you could theorise that there is some gene giving immunity to some condition that has the side effect of interfering with the chain of sex-determination hormones at some point. Another route I’ve seen proposed is that you could have a gene that increases the reproductive success of women with it, by increasing their attraction to men, and the advantage far exceeds the loss of a few men.

    There are even such things as “male-killer genes”. The nucleus of the cell is not the only place where genes are to be found. The mitochondria also have genes, but these are only inherited down the female line, and to them, every male born is a dead end. So mitochondrial DNA sometimes produces genes that kill males they appear in, increasing their own success. The cell nucleus has to deploy countermeasures to prevent this. Conversely, because the Y chromosome is only inherited down the male line, Y chromosome genes have motive to kill female children – this is thought to be the reason the Y chromosome is so small, reduced to absolute essentials. That’s to reduce the scope for genetic saboteurs to develop.

    Indeed, there is an argument that males themselves are evolutionarily counterproductive. One male can keep a hundred women happily pregnant. All the rest are waste. If some subgroup of humanity had a sex ratio of one boy to every hundred girls born, it could reproduce at double the rate of the 50:50 humans. That’s a thousand-fold advantage every 10 generations. A million-fold every 20 generations.

    With a hundred daughters per generation instead of fifty, you can have a hundred pregnancies going on simultaneously instead of only fifty. They only actually need one guy (eating only one ration of the available food) to make that happen – and the fifty guys they got wind up fighting one another to be that one guy, at a huge evolutionary cost in injuries, maiming and death.

    Hence, if you count evolutionary fitness as your criterion for something being an ‘illness’, then 98% of males are a sickness, and the aggressively competitive male thinking is a mental illness!

    (Likewise with other non-reproductive male pursuits like masturbation – that reduces evolutionary fitness by subverting the reproductive urge into non-reproductive activity. Mental illness, yes?)

    And I really don’t think Paul intended to prove the man-hating radical feminists totally right, right? 😉

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.