OK, this is good

She has made films about a gay club in LA that became a phenomenon and rewritten history as sapphic martial arts. Enters the dazzling world of trans artist Wu Tsang

What glory of a liberal society, that people can indeed devote their lives to absolutely anything they damn want to.

What it is being devoted to is of less than no interest to me I admit. But that is is possible for xe to do so is glorious. It’s the very point of the system itself.

As long as it’s not on our money of course.

20 thoughts on “OK, this is good”

  1. “By chance, I recently found myself seated beside Wu Tsang at the Venice Biennale. Willowy and gender ambiguous…”

    Do you mean like a man with his knob chopped off?

  2. I love how people still think ‘made films’ (or ‘wrote a book’) means something like it once did. My kids make films.

  3. It is a freakshow.

    Using their moronic terminology–“xe”–even in mocking jest normalises Marxian subjectivist shite. Which is the very real evil these poor freaks are being weaponised to serve.

    2+2=4 Not and NEVER 5. Dick-chopped males are not and never will be women. Newspeak does not change reality.

    Those who have murdered 150 million are not good people or full of compassion for the afflicted. They are scum who seek to use troubled souls to advance their evil.

  4. The Meissen Bison

    Why stop at history?

    If she could rewrite the Libdem manifesto as sapphic martial arts I might be interested in having a peek.

  5. > about a gay club in LA that became a phenomenon

    Yes, if you lived in the area at the time, and were of the persuasion to attend such venues, then I’m sure it was a phenomenon. But to the rest of the world, it seems awfully parochial.

    See also: the Hacienda, CBGB.

  6. Bloke in Wiltshire

    Andrew M,

    “See also: the Hacienda, CBGB.”

    Media luvvie perspective. It’s like punk rock. It was never half as big as people imagine it was. Disco and Fleetwood Mac sold a ton more records (and considering all the stuff Nile Rodgers went on to produce, had more influence).

  7. What is a xe?

    I’ve been watching with interest the on going saga with Professor Jordan Peterson and the freedom of speech argument at Uni of Toronto and Canada in general.
    But I haven’t looked up the terms themselves.
    Is xe a he-she? A she-he?
    Actually on second thoughts, I don’t care. I won’t be using those pernicious terms anyway.

    I think these terms won’t catch on with the general public. There are too many of them and quite similar. Most people won’t be bothered to learn – hopefully.

  8. To be a philistine.
    Has this xe actually made any money from this?
    Italian and Dutch painters got to be millionaires (equivalent).
    Even the ones whose personal (da Vinci, Michelangelo, Carravagio etc) lives were, erm. trangressive. Illegal, in fact.

    There are exceptions of course. Van Gogh died without a cent, crappists like JK Rowling-in-it make a fortune.

    But generally, good art gets recognised straight away. Even if it’s not everyone’s taste, like Picasso or Monet. Shakespeare was regarded as a bit of a journeyman (Little latin, less greek) but didn’t die penniless.

    It would be interesting for the IRS to be hacked to get the xe’s tax return.

  9. “Actually on second thoughts, I don’t care.”

    Yes. That’s the correct meaning! People sometimes put an ‘X’ in place of the unknown/variable part (or sometimes an ‘Ecks’ if they can’t spell) as a way to indicate that they’re not saying and that it shouldn’t matter. ‘I don’t care’ is a marvelous way to sum it up.

  10. > As long as it’s not on our money of course.

    > Has this xe actually made any money from this?

    From a 2013 viewing at the Tate Modern:

    Tsang is a 2012 Louis Comfort Tiffany Fellow and has received support from the Good Works Foundation, Frameline, the Wexner Center for the Arts, the IFP Documentary Lab, Art Matters, and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

    Xe’s art is funded by private foundations, not taxpayer funding. So we can rest easy. Mind you, this kind of thing may not be what the donors had in mind.

  11. A liberal society is good thing, but such liberalism is not an absolute good, so there can be to much liberalism in a society. Too little liberalism leads to ossification and authoritarianism; too much liberalism leads to deliquescence and decadence. I’d say these narcissistic radicals, Wu Tsang and Boychild, are on the latter end of the spectrum.

  12. Andrew M
    You went to Tate Modern? I did too!


    And another thing. Aren’t these Foundations etc just tax avoidance schemes in drag? Let’s ask Spud, I’m sure he’ll have the answer.

    BTW I own a flat within walking distance, so if anyone here wants to rent it for a few days…

  13. What matters is reality NiVster and that reality not be fucked up by leftists.

    Your “compassion” for your oddball chums is your own business. I don’t care about that–except insofar as it involves attempts to help the scum of the left boost their subjectivist evil. But reality is going to stand regardless of how many silly sons and daughters of bitches try to destroy it.

  14. The Meissen Bison

    NiV: (…if they can’t spell) […] ‘I don’t care’ is a marvelous way to sum it up.

    Forget about spelling – and you don’t appear to need encouragement as far as that goes – for want of an agreed way to pronounce these newly invented personal and possessive pronouns, the whole business lapses into the senseless tokenism which sensible, tolerant people decry.

  15. “What matters is reality NiVster and that reality not be fucked up by leftists.”

    What matters is that nobody gets to impose their own definition of ‘reality’ on other people. Left on right, or right on left.

    “for want of an agreed way to pronounce these newly invented personal and possessive pronouns, the whole business lapses into the senseless tokenism which sensible, tolerant people decry.”

    Agreed. Sub-cultures are always inventing their own identifying jargon and slang, which outsiders find incomprehensible.

    Consider ecclesiastical address as another example. A lot of people know that a cardinal is addressed as “your eminence” while an archbishop is traditionally “your excellency”. A nun is “sister”, while an abbess is “mother” or “mother superior”. But what’s the proper way of referring to Pronotary Apostolic? Turns out he is ‘The Reverend Monsignor’. It’s all very complicated. The aristocracy have a similar set of terms – a recently minted “Sir” may well be offended to be called plain “Mr”, although most aristocrats (modern ones, anyway) would consider it bad manners to make an issue of it. (Had some French peasant used the wrong term to King Louis XIV’s face, it might have been a bit more serious.) The LGBT sub-culture is far from the only one to invent complicated rules of address, and aristocrats are not notably Marxist.

    Traditional rules of address – Sir/Dr/Mr/Mrs/Miss/him/her/etc. – are used to convey specific information about social status, to let others know how they’re supposed to treat them. In many cases, that information is wrong or misleading when applied to LGBTers. They don’t fit in the usual categories. So you have to invent new categories and new words for them if you want to keep on using rules of address for the same purpose. The concept itself is supposed to be helpful.

    The conflict is over two aspects. One is that some of the in-group of an authoritarian bent use it as a badge of social acceptability – the SJWs demand conformity to their norms, and punishment for breaking them. That gives them power and authority over others. Conversely, some of the out-group are equally insistent on enforcing their own categories, rules, and social roles, and it’s not just a matter of not knowing the particular new term, but of forcing other people into their traditional social boxes by using the old terms deliberately, as a statement. It’s like persistently calling the queen “Mrs Mountbatten” in a loud voice at every opportunity, as if to say “you’re nothing special”.

    Both sorts of people are doing the same thing – trying to ensure their own culture dominates all the others.

    The queen of course can look after herself, but it can be a bit different for a vulnerable teenager already pushed to the edge of suicide by having been forced into that social box against their will to bully them that way, just for the sake of making a selfish cultural point.

    So it depends on context. Yes, sensible, tolerant people will decry forcing silly new pronouns on other people, but they’ll also judge people for deliberately using the old pronouns just to be nasty, or as a way to force others into traditional social roles that cause them immeasurable distress.

    Someone brought up with a certain set of strict social rules, and little exposure to other cultures, will often come to believe that the rules they know are absolute and unchangeable truth, and anything else would be a perverse and morally unacceptable contradiction of “reality”. But to be “tolerant” only of things that conform to such a “reality” isn’t tolerance at all.

  16. What matters is that nobody gets to impose their own definition of ‘reality’ on other people. Left on right, or right on left.

    Indeed. So I can refer to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner as a he because he has a doing right? Because otherwise he/she is imposing their reality on me right?

    The he/she terms have evolved naturally and give information to others about what is socially acceptable to say about / do to that person.
    For example, if a man starts aggro in a pub, it is more socially acceptable to knock him on his arse than it would be a woman doing the same.
    But what if it is a woman who is really a man or a man who is really a woman but identifies as the opposite?
    Imposing new terms so quickly, demanding adherence to their use and trying to ostracise anyone who objects isn’t going to end well, especially when the terms aren’t clear.

  17. “Indeed. So I can refer to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner as a he because he has a dong right?”

    It depends what convention/definition you’re using. The problem is that the original meaning of the word “he” encompasses a range of different properties – biological, psychological, social, legal, and cultural – that were previously assumed to occur together, but were more recently found not to. So you now have a choice as to which particular aspect of the original meaning you’re going to use for your definition. Different people make different choices, and sometimes a person will even use different definitions for different purposes, depending on the context.

    If you want to base your definition on “having a dong”, then that works for a lot of purposes. It implies in particular that if it’s been removed surgically (or by a nasty accident or assault) then they do – according to your definition – genuinely become a ‘she’. It also means that the guevedoce from the Domincan Republic start off as she’s and turn into he’s as they reach puberty. David Reimer really was a girl. Eunuchs are all female, and what were formerly thought to be female spotted hyenas turn out under this definition to be male. Even though they’re the ones that give birth, they do also have a dong.

    Other people use different definitions. In particular, a lot of people think that for the purposes of defining most social roles, the psychological differences resulting from the different wiring of male and female brains is what matters most. What’s between your legs is only strictly relevant on a very few social occasions.

    Users of neither definition are necessarily denying reality. Jenner was born with the brain wiring associated with females and the genitals associated with males. People who use the brain to define gender are under no illusions about the shape of the genitals. People who use the dong definition can still acknowledge the reality of the mental wiring. Using “she” for such a person disputes no objective reality. And the meanings we attach to words are social conventions – subjective choices, not absolutes of nature.

    It’s only people who think their arbitrary conventions and traditions are actually unalterable facts of nature that are denying reality.

    However, mindful of the confusion and ambiguity having multiple definitions causes, people have tried to help by introducing new terminology for it. ‘Sex’ is about what’s between the legs, ‘gender’ is about what’s between the ears. So someone can be simultaneously of the male sex and the female gender. Similarly, the silly pronouns were trying to avoid the problem and the awkwardness by inventing terms that didn’t specify, and could be applied to anyone.

    I doubt they’ll catch on – but I expect as it becomes more mainstream some other solution will evolve naturally. That’s what language and social rules are all about. In the meantime, none of the TG people I know care about that sort of crap. They have bigger problems to worry about.

    As it happens, Caitlyn Jenner has had SRS, so even by your “dong” definition, she is definitely a ‘she’ now. So I’m glad we’ve finally got that sorted out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *