Showing posts with label transgender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transgender. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Self-described "Radical Feminist" Comes Out Against Transgender Bathrooms - Gets Rape Threats, Death Threats: "Bigot! Shut up and go die in a fire!"


According to Tucker Carlson of Fox News, "Christian evangelicals and radical feminists are teaming up to fight Barrack Obama's "transgender" bathroom legislation. Last night, Carlson interviewed Kara Dansky, Board Chair for Women's Liberation Front.

Let me make a quick comment before introducing an excerpt from the interview. The video follows at bottom.

There are real feminists and there are fake feminists. By "real" versus "fake" I'm not separating feminists out as to whether they, say, agree with me, or are "right-wing" as opposed to "left-wing" or whatever. Rather, I'm separating those who fight for the rights of women as they honestly see it versus those who are simply conforming to the political zeitgeist of the moment.

I'm sure I would disagree with Dansky on many things. But I think it's clear she honestly cares about women - not women as part of or defined by some larger political cause, but just woman. Or as she puts it, "women and girls."

This has earned her death threats and the appellation, "bigot" from others on the left.

It's also clear that she and her allies are honest enough and brave enough to fight through it. She doesn't care about what other people think.

There is an obvious sense to her position that I'm surprised has not come to the fore earlier. The "transgender" movement , as it currently exists today, is an abomination. And I'm not talking here about, say, morality or even Catholic morality, but rather, biology or more to the point, basic logic. In just a few short years, the movement has gone from, charitably interpreted, a defense of mentally or sexually troubled people (or, to put it neutrally, "different" people) to an outright denial of objective facts and the very meaning of objective thought and language.

That doesn't help "transgenders," women or anyone else.
Kara Dansky: ...If we define sex under title IX to mean gender identity, what we're essentially saying is that "women" and "girl" can mean anyone who self identifies as women and girl, which renders the category, "women and girls" meaningless as a category. And it goes further than that. We see this in language all throughout society. We see, for example, women are no longer allowed to talk about body parts. We're not allowed to talk about pregnant women - we have to talk about pregnant people. We're not allowed to say that women have certain kinds of body parts. Language is degrading. We're seeing the erasure of women and girls as a meaningful category.
Tucker Carlson: Language and thought along with it. So acknowledging biological reality is now hate, in other words.
Dansky: Yes.
Carlson: So, how, I mean, as someone on the left, I think it's fair to say, what is your life looking like since you've said something like this publicly?
Dansky: Well, what most of us who say things like this publicly receive is a lot of hate online, and threats. We're called "transphobic bigots" because we ask questions about gender identity. And it goes further. We are often threatened with rape and death. We're told that we need to shut up and go die in a fire because we're asking questions and we're standing up for women and girls. And that seems to be not permitted. It's interesting to me that specifically the word "bigot" is used, because the word bigot means someone who is intolerable (sic) toward another's views. And I'm open to other views . . like, I am open. If I'm wrong about this, I will own it. If I, if someone can demonstrate to me that there is some legitimacy to gender identity ideology, then great, I'm completely . . .
Carlson: Like, for example, science.
Dansky: Sure. Sure. I'm completely open to that. But instead what we see is when women and girls stand up and say, wait a second, what to you mean by gender identity. Like, I am a woman because I am an adult human female, which is the dictionary definition of "woman," we are shut down immediately and told that we are transphobic bigots.
Carlson: I just want to . . . I never thought I would say anything nice about a radical feminist group, but you said, "we exist to protect all women and girls, regardless of political affiliation." And I just want to say, thank you for that.
Dansky: Because it's true.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

If I Were Transgender, I Would BE Steven Crowder



Dissident YouTube journalist Steven Crowder crashed the Women's March Sister March in Austin, Texas.

The 200+ pound male presenter wore a wig and a pink dress. Crowder pretended to be a man pretending to be a woman.

That's actually not that hard to do these days, especially within a "women's march."

Think about that for a moment.

Crowder scored an interview (in drag) with Texas pro-abortion politician Wendy Davis. They seemed to have a thing going when they laughingly agreed about the political power of women shoppers.

"Charge it!" (as Crowder reminds us Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble would cry).  

Crowder also ingratiated himself into a group of topless feminists seemingly attached to a float. They all posed for a bicep photograph together. Crowder pointed out another guy who had also ingratiated himself into the topless group. The guy claimed to be gay but didn't look gay. Whatever works, man.

People used to think that a man pretending to be a woman was funny. Generations of people watching movies or television shows from Some Like it Hot to Monty Python found it funny.

Now, it's not funny. Not funny at all. Laugh and we'll "out" you as a Trump supporter.

One brilliant thing in the video is how Crowder gets all his left-wing "comrades" to laugh. The ideologue who claims all white people are really "white supremacists" cracks a smile. The  Muslim women in the hijab who can't quite formulate why she dislikes Trump, beams at Crowder's infectious good-will.

We're all just people. Why can't we all get along?

Because the left won't let us.



Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Chelsea Manning Commutation: Chivalry Isn't Dead


Obama just commuted much of Bradley/Chelsea Manning's sentence for leaking classified military material.

Even though Manning is, as far as I know, still anatomically a guy, I'm going to call her a girl.

In truth, I think she looks better as a girl.


What are we to make of this?

Leaving Manning out of it for the moment, the White House has bragged that Obama has commuted more sentences than all of the last twelve presidents combined.

Whether that's good or bad, I think it's an odd thing to brag about. If giving people a "second chance" is a good thing, why not go all the way and pardon everybody? Or, at least 50%? Or at least 5%? Or even 1%? (As opposed to a fraction of 1%.)

I'm not being snarky here. I'm honestly asking. If I don't understand the logic, pardon me.

Obama also commuted the sentence of a Puerto Rican terrorist who pointedly refused to renounce terrorism. Google "Oscar Lopes Rivera". Rivera rejected an earlier commutation because it was conditional on him making a vow he didn't want to make. He served an extra 16 years for that. I don't think much of Rivera, his cause or his murderous principles, but in a sense he has more honor than Obama.

But back to Manning.

It's not unreasonable to claim that a sentence of 35 years for what she is excessive. It's out of line with some other cases. She didn't sell secrets to hostile foreign governments but rather leaked information (much of which was embarrassing and tragic but also true) to Wikileaks. She violated an oath. She broke the law. But it isn't clear to me that she "put American servicemen in danger" (as many now assert). Espionage is espionage, but not every leaker deserves 35 years in prison.

What Obama, Hillary Clinton and others have done to endanger our national security and the lives of Americans (Hillary actually directly got Americans killed and then lied about it) for a variety of motives was far worse. It has arguably treasonous. Tell me again how many years they're getting?

Manning actually would have been eligible for release anyway in only two more years (which either argues for or argues against the case for commutation depending on how you look at it).

Does she deserve clemency because she's "transgender"? Of course not. I reject that particular argument entirely. But by the same token, that doesn't mean she should be penalized for it. As it were.

Another twist here is that Julian Assange promised to allow himself to be extradited to the United States if Manning was given clemency.

Manning was given clemency.

What will Assange now do?