I’m afraid I find this amusing

If you had tried to understand, instead of calling me impressionable and discounting the validity of my gender expression, maybe we would still be talking. Maybe I wouldn’t have hidden my transness for more than two years to satisfy the implicit expectations of me not to be a boy.

It’s just one of those things, isn’t it? That people do expect women to be women. Actually, whatever ones’ views on trans-ness we do all still expect women to be women. That being what the vast majority are. So what’s with this implicit stuff?

It’s hard to hear that you are responsible for hurting someone. But, if you got this far, I’m going to give you a tip: instead of asking questions, take action to make people feel comfortable enough to be honest. Projecting your ideas of normality and coating them in a thick layer of “concern” achieves nothing.

At the end of the day, you took away my right to define myself and to decide when I would share that with other people.

This is how you pushed me away. Reflect and do better.

Apparently her aunt started asking “Why’s she dressing like a boy?”

This being unforgiveable. Sigh.

For that is rather to miss the point of language, the very thing that makes us human. The best theory yet about how it arose is so that we could gossip about those in our clan grouping, this being one of the things which reinforces the bonds of said clan and thus enables us to survive this harsh world.

29 comments on “I’m afraid I find this amusing

  1. JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
    REG: Agreed. Francis?
    FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–
    STAN: Or woman.
    FRANCIS: Or woman… to rid himself–
    STAN: Or herself.
    FRANCIS: Or herself.
    REG: Agreed.
    FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
    STAN: Or sister.
    FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
    REG: I think you’d finished.
    FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
    REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
    STAN: Or woman.
    REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
    STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
    FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
    STAN: I want to be one.
    REG: What?
    STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
    REG: What?!
    LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.
    JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
    LORETTA: I want to have babies.
    REG: You want to have babies?!
    LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
    REG: But… you can’t have babies.
    LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
    REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
    LORETTA: crying
    JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
    FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
    REG: What’s the point?
    FRANCIS: What?
    REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
    FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
    REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

  2. “The best theory yet about how it arose is so that we could gossip about those in our clan grouping, this being one of the things which reinforces the bonds of said clan and thus enables us to survive this harsh world.”

    For those with academic access or willing to pay some interesting work on the subject of language development here

    Abstract
    Bickerton (2009, 2014) hypothesizes that language emerged as the solution to a scavenging problem faced by proto-humans. We design a virtual world to explore how people use words to persuade others to work together for a common end. By gradually reducing the vocabularies that the participants can use, we trace the process of solving the hominin scavenging problem. Our experiment changes the way we think about social dilemmas. Instead of asking how does a group overcome the self-interest of its constituents, the question becomes, how do constituents persuade one another to work together for a common end that yields a common benefit?

    Podcast discussion with one of the authors here

  3. The aunt got the question wrong. Instead of “Do you want to be a boy?” which apparently admits of the possibility of changing sex, she should have asked “Would you have liked to be a boy?” which recognises that it’s all right to dream.

  4. >Claims to be a man

    >Writes a bitchy, passive-aggressive, emotionally free-bleeding essay about xir feelings

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Bonus content: As if gender is not a beautiful spectrum, which sexuality sometimes intersects with, but is not dictated by.

    Imagine actually believing this. NiV – please explain.

  5. If you were anything like a man you wouldn’t give a monkey’s about your aunt’s feelings or opinion.

  6. “The best theory yet about how it arose is so that we could gossip about those in our clan grouping, this being one of the things which reinforces the bonds of said clan and thus enables us to survive this harsh world.”

    Hence Twitter and Facebook. Enforcing the left-wing consensus, reinforcing the bonds of left-wing society, enabling left-wingers to survive this harsh world.

    Everyone is always in favour of enforcing social norms when it’s *their* social norms being enforced.

    “Apparently her aunt started asking “Why’s she dressing like a boy?” This being unforgiveable. Sigh.”

    I don’t think that was the unforgivable bit. That would probably have been:

    If you had refrained from commenting on how you saw being “transgender” as impossible, or fake, or unreal, or a joke right in front of me all those years ago, maybe I wouldn’t have been so afraid to say “Yes… sort of.”

    Having set out the social penalties for open transgression, you force people who are that way inclined to hide it. ‘Here are our rules – follow them and there won’t be any trouble.’ OK, that’s just how society works. But then if someone pushes the limits even *within* the rules, they’ll trigger a public investigation into their possible deviancy, and criticise them for hiding it.

    Once you accept that you have to hide your right-wing opinions in public – at work, on the non-anonymous bits of the internet, on a night out with friends – people will learn to keep quiet. But then people start to notice you’re not *openly* and *loudly* left-wing, and start asking questions. “Do you want to be a right-winger?” is a quite different question if a known SJW is asking it of you. “Are my private political opinions any of your business?”

    Not everyone is willing to face the social penalties of being openly right-wing in today’s society. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

    “If you were anything like a man you wouldn’t give a monkey’s about your aunt’s feelings or opinion.”

    Start a rumour at school that a typical boy is ‘secretly gay’, or try sending him to school with his books in a pink ‘My Little Pony’ rucksack (“What’s wrong? It carries your books just as effectively, doesn’t it?”), and they’ll usually get quite upset about it.

  7. Stevella,

    Convinced of what? That people with politically incorrect opinions have learned to keep quiet about them at work where HR can hear, or that if you send a boy to school with a pink ‘My Little Pony’ rucksack he’ll get upset about it?

  8. A tiny number of weirds can arse about as they like an it hurt none.

    What they need the shitkicking for is for helping the scum of the left insert their poison subjectivist shite in to law and custom.

    That is the evil here. Whoever can pretend to be whatever as they like. But frankly death for those trying to undermine objective reality on behalf of socialist terror. Where that leads has cost 150 million lives already.

  9. “But frankly death for those trying to undermine objective reality on behalf of socialist terror. Where that leads has cost 150 million lives already.”

    Authoritarian terror, Mr Ecks. It’s authoritarian terror. And that’s been going on a lot longer than socialism, and killed a lot more than 150 million.

  10. As ever, NiV, you talk bollocks. In any society there will always be pressure towards the consensus point of view. For, in essence, that’s what a society is. Without a consensus point of view it isn’t a society. And the pressure to conform will be greater the further the individual strays from the core consensus. And that’s all your “authoritarianism” is. Unlike the other sort of authoritarianism. Where a non-representative group uses it’s power to attempt to change the point of view of the society it distances itself from. Recognise anything?

  11. As I’ve said to you before, what a thing is is what the consensus says it it is. A tree is a tree & a dog is a dog because that’s what the consensus says they are. The tree & the dog don’t have any say in the matter. They can think they are whatever they like. But their opinion doesn’t count. It’s not of interest to anyone. It’s not their decision.

  12. “In any society there will always be pressure towards the consensus point of view.”

    Yes. All societies contain authoritarians. It’s a natural human instinct. Libertarian philosophy makes a point of discussing it at length.

    Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

    “Unlike the other sort of authoritarianism. Where a non-representative group uses it’s power to attempt to change the point of view of the society it distances itself from.”

    First, it’s no different. Even if a *majority* of society approved of slavery and Orwellian thought-crime, that would not make it ‘liberal’.

    And second, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, 72% of the British public classify transphobia as “always” (53%) or “mostly” (19%) wrong. *You’re* the non-representative minority!

    However, *everyone* is in a non-representative minority on *some* of their opinions and habits. Less than 50% smoke. Less than 50% are overweight. Less than 50% are Jewish. *Everyone* has a stake in us not pressuring minorities towards any consensus without need.

    Go read John Stuart Mill. Maybe he can explain it better than I can.

  13. “As I’ve said to you before, what a thing is is what the consensus says it it is.”

    Do you have that the right way round?! If ‘The Party’ says two plus two is five…? If the popular consensus is that the Emperor is fully clothed…?

    Things are what they are. But people often don’t see things clearly and get it wrong (we’re all only human), so people need the freedom to be able to point it out when they disagree. Even if they’re the ones who are wrong.

  14. Steve: ’>Claims to be a man

    >Writes a bitchy, passive-aggressive, emotionally free-bleeding essay about xir feelings’

    Well, ‘Guardian’, innit? That’s considered a bit macho there.

  15. TMB gets it, more or less.

    The author does have a point, however badly worded. That is, that if your daughter starts dressing like a boy, you try to gently nudge them back in line; you don’t insist that they make a binary choice between girl and boy on the spot.

    NiV,

    Tyranny, tranny – men, women – amazing what a difference a Y can make.

  16. When the tranny bullies her (or his, if you like) aunt the tranny is the one being authoritarian. And also showing she’s still a girl at heart, cos a real man doesn’t care what people think. Oh, we may shut up at times for an easy life or indeed for fear of punishment, but we don’t care what people think.

  17. Tranny talk is to convince the tranny that they are normal.

    NiV’s principal audience is . . . NiV.

  18. And libertarian philosophy, like communist philosophy, is a load of hogwash bollocks. It never survives its collision with the real world. We all want to live as we like. We all want other people to live as we like. If that wasn’t true you wouldn’t be trying to push libertarian bollocks down our throats. All societies are dynamic. Expressing the ever changing tensions between their individual constituents. And you’ll never be able to define liberal as easily as you think you have. Liberal isn’t a point, it’s a vector. A slaveowning society could define itself as liberal. Depends on which directions they believe liberal & illiberal are. They can even define 2+2=5 if they fancy. Although whether they find out that works in practise is another matter. For that’s the only question that’s relevant. Does this work, here & now.

  19. JuliaM – Well, ‘Guardian’, innit? That’s considered a bit macho there

    Touche. George Monbiot and Owen Jones aren’t exactly the Kurt Russell and Sylvester Stallone of journalism.

  20. “And libertarian philosophy, like communist philosophy, is a load of hogwash bollocks. It never survives its collision with the real world. We all want to live as we like. We all want other people to live as we like.”

    Yep. That’s exactly why we got Communism; people thinking like that is how they came to rule. That’s why we’ve always had totalitarian dictators all over the world; why nobody ever thinks ‘we don’t have to keep doing this to ourselves’. And that’s why the SJWs will win. And why the cycle will endlessly repeat.

    “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” We simply take turns wearing the boot.

  21. @NiV, August 11, 2018 at 11:26 am

    Once you accept that you have to hide your right-wing opinions in public….But then people start to notice you’re not *openly* and *loudly* left-wing, and start asking questions.

    eg Taylor Swift attacked for Not commenting-on/condemning Trump.

  22. No NiV, you get communism because people think people are better than they really are. That they’ll all subsume themselves for the common good. And libertarianism presumes much the same, but in the opposite direction.
    In the real, messy world, individuals are not alike but no individual is truly an individual. We are all shaped by our interactions with other people. We are naturally hierarchical. Some will wish to be on the top. Some will wish to defer to others’ leadership. The best we can hope for is a course between totalitarianism & anarchy, changing to meet changing circumstances but resisting extremes. Shooting anyone advocating anything ending in ‘ism’ would be a good move..

  23. “Shooting anyone advocating anything ending in ‘ism’ would be a good move..”

    Trouble is, you’d have to call that policy “shoot anyone advocating anything ending in ‘ism’ ism”. Life of Brian also had a scene with a suicide squad. Silly sods.

  24. “eg Taylor Swift attacked for Not commenting-on/condemning Trump.”

    Yes! Just one of many examples I was thinking of.

    “No NiV, you get communism because people think people are better than they really are. That they’ll all subsume themselves for the common good.”

    … and when they don’t, they consider it reasonable to *make* them do so, for the good of society.

    There are liberal versions of communism – the voluntary ‘hippy commune’ love-and-peace sort of thing. They still don’t work, because of both the economics and the psychology of justice, and they definitely don’t scale, but they’re relatively harmless because they’re voluntary and when they break down everyone just goes home.

    They only become dangerous, the sort of thing that killed 150 million people, when they take the next step of enforcing their ways and beliefs on others. Because they believe they’re doing it for those people’s own good, and the good of society.

    The social morality warriors are much the same. A certain way of life is good and moral, and good people will want to live it. And that often doesn’t work – because people enjoy sin too much to give it up – but is not a problem when membership is voluntary. Some people will voluntarily give up drunkenness, fornication, pornography, greed, sloth, and selfishness – subsuming themselves and their own desires for the common good of society. But then they take that next step – when other people don’t join in, and so endanger the moral fabric and social stability of society, they consider it their right and duty to *make* other people conform to their own idea of virtue.

    All the historical horrors have this one mindset in common – that society has the right and duty to enforce its own beliefs on its members, for their own good and for the common good. Thus: “In any society there will always be pressure towards the consensus point of view.” The problem word there is “pressure“.

    It always starts with persuasion, and ends up with shooting people for the policies they advocate. Such as capitalism.

    Of course, as everyone immediately points out when this view is expressed, a society without any enforced rules at all is impossible – because there would then be no rules to stop murder and slavery. True. Which is why libertarianism doesn’t believe in no enforced rules, but in the absolute minimum of enforced rules needed to guarantee everyone getting the maximum freedom consistent with everyone else getting the same freedoms. Hence JS Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’.

    It’s obviously more complicated than that when you get to the messy details of implementation – there are no sharp boundaries in reality. But that doesn’t really matter since – like the related policies of free markets – nobody is going to actually implement it any time soon. The authoritarian/regulatory mindset is too ingrained and powerful still. I consider it more an aspiration, and a guide to a direction to move in.

    I agree with you, in a sense, that: “It never survives its collision with the real world. We all want to live as we like. We all want other people to live as we like.” You can say exactly the same about the free market, low tax, small government, minimal-welfare, minimal-regulation sort of policies advocated here. (Which are really just libertarian principles applied to economics.) They never survive the collision with a real world full of people always ready to vote themselves a slice of somebody else’s pie.

    Nevertheless, since those Enlightenment philosophers expressed their ideas, the world has moved a hell of a long way in that direction, and is a lot more prosperous and free as a result. I think it does some good to keep on reminding people of the underlying principles that made it all possible. (Mainly, though, I just enjoy arguing about it!)

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.