A Freeper comments:
enlightened thinking on gender identityThis reminds me of some graffito in the New York subway during the initial wave of AIDS in America: “Gay is sad.” This poor person is not homosexual but under the rubric of “Giselle Donnelly can finally be herself” "she" can enjoy a new lifestyle where a party invitation requests (since normal people will be invited) “no fetish attire, please.” Does “transitioning” necessarily involve entry into a community where “fetish attire” is part of the scene? BDSM is in there as part of the picture as well. How is that something to be celebrated?I thought part of "enlightenment" had to do with accepting the evidence provided by hypothesis testing and reproducible results, rather than believing in things as true because you wish it to be so.
In that sense (you know, the English language sense), who's "enlightened" with regard to gender "identity"?[1]
I have no desire to harm this person and include her name only because “she” has herself chosen a very public announcement of her “change.” God bless people with different inner wiring and if they want to tell themselves and each other that it’s all good, then normal people need not add to their difficulties.
One is entitled to take note of the self delusion, however, and refuse to be a part of the requirement for obsequious pandering. Good manners are sufficient to handle interactions with this person, as the AEI management demonstrates. Self delusion, however, is a problem of national dimension and we are not required to affirm every new absurd wrinkle.
Sadly, the entire public life of America is anchored in make believe. Objecting to the reduction of whites from a 90% majority to something like a 77% majority – with whites proceeding to “majority minority” status, SHMG – merits one the accusation that one is a “white supremacist.” Observing decades of general black academic failure, social breakdown, urban destruction, and through-the-roof criminality, a white person dares not ascribe this to genetic differences or debased culture. No. The magic phrases relating to causation one must use are only “white privilege,” “white racism” and “legacy of slavery.” End of story.
 |
The U.S. can engage in aggressive and unconstitutional war against Syria and that’s “legal” and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an “animal” for allegedly killing or injuring a few thousands of Syrian civilians in jihadi area with gas. Emphasis on the word “allegedly.” But . . . it’s perfectly fine, even noble, for the U.S. to lead the anti-Assad coalition that has massacred over 500,000 Syrian civilians. Maybe it’s not a “massacre” if you just kill a few hundred here and there and the numbers just add up over time. A new twist to the meaning of “the new math.”
Well, onward into the life of total fairy tale. If you thought total war was bad, just wait.
Notes
[1] Comment by Jim Noble on "Giselle Donnelly can finally be herself." Posted by 4Runner, Free Republic, 10/13/18.
UPDATE (without comment) :
Women’s March organizers are moving away from the iconic “pussyhat” because it may be offensive to trans women who don’t have female genitalia."Women’s March Ditching Pussyhats Cuz of 'Men.'" By Steve MacDonald, Granite Ggrok, 1/11/18.
Does “transitioning” necessarily involve entry into a community where “fetish attire” is part of the scene? BDSM is in there as part of the picture as well [...]
ReplyDeleteHmm, I must not have gotten the memo. The closest I ever wear to "fetish attire" is the black leather dresses I wear for some of my performances...and they're both made by Jessica London and were bought on clearance. Sometimes people that come to the bars I perform at will be wearing what you might think of as "fetish attire," but not often. And I've never engaged in BDSM practices, or witnessed any serious BDSM. But, when I go to work, I wear the same things that any other woman might when working in a "business casual" office. Granted, I may often look a little more "dressed up" than some, but certainly not that far out of the ordinary.
I'm actually Facebook friends with both Giselle and her wife Elizabeth (who runs a transformation studio in Washington DC), and I actually didn't know until this morning that Giselle had such a prestigious position. But I know what it's like to finally be able to show up for work as your true self, and I'm glad that she appears to have had as easy a time as I did, over a year ago.
The memo you didn't get was the invitation to a BBQ that requested no fetish attire. And it was the "Washington Examiner" that reported that "[Giselle and Elizabeth] met several years ago following Donnelly's separation from her first wife, and bonded over a shared love of national security, wine, gender fluidity, and BDSM."
ReplyDeleteI understand that fetishism and BDSM are not part of your life but apparently with others in the "transgender" world it is.
I am glad that you and Giselle have had an easy time of it living with a new identity or persona. More power to you, especially if you can make a useful contribution and make a living.
I regret that I still believe that, no matter how competent or pleasant someone is, the decision by a man to start wearing a dress and acting like a woman is aberrant, absurd really. As with the idea of the writer of "Gay is sad" I believe there is a boatload of sadness that awaits people who stray so far from the norm. For example, if Bruce Jenner decides his true nature is that of a woman then it follows that the true nature of a woman is to want a man. But no normal man will be satisfied by a former Bruce. If a woman can be a "woman" and love another woman, then the mechanics are similarly artificial. The plumbing of one is just male or surgically artificial.
All are God's children as it is kindly observed of the human condition but there are some things that need to be tolerated with kindness not celebrated or encouraged. People are entitled to seek happiness as they understand it but "transgenderism" is at worst a tragedy and at best a fantasy and it makes no sense to make use of the term "wife" from the institution of heterosexual marriage. I would politely accept such a reference in my presence without objection but the parties in question would be very much in error if they think my politeness means fundamental agreement.