Skip to main content

Transgender bathrooms

The left would be most smart to fully understand that part of their previous success with the transgender bathroom policy, with transgender recognition overall, owes to what was only going to prove a momentary situation: that much of the population was suffering from a masochistic desire to be lead along into viewpoints that run counter to anything they can ground as "common sense." The left has always understood that it is though the courts or through a sympathetic president that they were going to advance human rights issues; they never really believed they were going to get most Americans' sympathies, and ground their gains through them -- through their enlightenment. "You can count on the coastal cities, but everywhere else you have to stake gains at least in part through coaxing, manipulation, and near-blunt intimidation, because here's the people "we all," after all, escaped from for the dense-knittedness and never-endingness of their coarseness, intrinsic cruelty, and stupidity," is what they always thought. They did think they could create an environment which most people would at least want to pretend they were fully part of, would pretend they were fully part of, held in place out of a fear that if you weren't part of it you weren't relevant to contemporary culture -- you were left behind and in the dustheap, and weren't allowed to count oneself with Beyonce. But what they weren't savvy too, is that masochism played a part as well. 
What I mean by this is that many of those who voted for Obama but then voted for Trump, knew immediately with the transgender bathroom issue that in agreeing with it they were agreeing with something they could at the moment allow to register as showing how easy to manipulate they'd become, how their "masters" could now presume it so much that they would register up as down, and down as up, if a quick stern look was given to in fact do so. They knew they had another number they could use here to demonstrate themselves those who've served mostly as those who've been manhandled all these long years by an economy that's pit against them, and a professional class and ideological system that just plain out and out hates them. They knew they could say that their years had been not just been about economic suffering but about their being forced into playing the overt fool... all just to survive, and prosper not much beyond this. They also knew that when they'd about finished this period when suffering was required -- what they wanted and needed to demonstrate their virtue, their absolute lack of sin, they're being absent possession of anything that overtly represents their own interests -- and now convinced of their own sinlessness, they could go next stage and face this movement that represents everything about themselves they've needed to disown, with an absolutely fool-proof ability to go hot on the path of revenge. 
We're in this time now, and so when the gender right activist on the show argues that only "you" know what gender you are, and that if Tucker Carlson insisted she was a she, that that is what gender she is, and how that would qualify her to play on women's sports teams and for government subsidies and programs available only for women, and we see this guest agree to this, and further to the fact that science was now ostensibly absolutely on her side, this to the American populace is not any of what I discussed previously -- anything one is obligated for selfish purposes to mask in a beauticious manner, as wisdom, as evolution, as glory -- but only the overconfident Mouth of Sauron, unmasked, absurdly standing up to Gandalf and telling him he's to bow to the foul mien of the overtly demonic... even as the American populace has secretly got their Frodo in place, about to blow this shit-show up for once and for good.
To me, transgender rights is about two things: 1) it's about furthering the ongoing liberal mission to deny regressives... to deny the lagging psychoclass in society any category of people they are permitted to hate; 2) it's about the ongoing liberal mission to think creatively and openly and sensitively towards the world about them. For flow and deep truths and ongoing revelations; against ossification and stupidly stalwart clinging. These are great things. 
Is science on their side? Psychiatry, really? I honestly think the better question is who asking these questions is representative of a 21st century cosmopolitan and caring outlook, and who, someone cherishing the 1950s? Who is for enlightenment? And who is for bringing the good and the vulnerable, down? It's a bizarre thing, but if "science" to most people still represents 1950s white coat jackets, sterile laboratories and the Golden Age science-fiction whiz-bang, then it's not really their cup of tea, either.
Alex 🇼 I would not believe if someone said this to me, Check out Donald Trump's facts
UnlikeReplyRemove Preview13 hrs
Patrick McEvoy-Halston He's clearly what you see in an adult who has been subject to a love-denied, trauma-filled early childhood. He's a very emotionally un-evolved person who is in power because too many of the American populace shares his severe childhood, and wants to war against all the vulnerable people in the world, as well as all the "uppities". I don't focus on him much because the problem is the American people. If he is disposed, he'd be filled with the same; and if HE was disposed, he'd be ... There were several million potential Hitlers and Mussolinis: the problem was all the more-than-willing German and Italian executioners, ready to use their leaders for their own desired purposes.
LikeReply3 hrsEdited


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

When Rose McGowan appears in Asgard: a review of "Thor: Ragnarok"

The best part of this film was when Rose McGowan appeared in Asgard and accosted Odin and his sons for covering up, with a prettified, corporate, outward appearance that's all gay-friendly, feminist, multicultural, absolutely for the rights of the indigenous, etc., centuries of past abuse, where they predated mercilessly upon countless unsuspecting peoples.
And the PR department came in and said, okay Weinstein... I mean Odin and Odin' sons, here's what we suggest you do. First, you, Odin, are going to have to die. No extensive therapy; when it comes to predators who are male, especially white and male, this age doesn't believe in therapy. You did what you did because you are, or at least strongly WERE, evil, so that's what we have to work with. Now death doesn't seem like "working with it," I know, but the genius is that we'll do the rehab with your sons, and when they're resurrected as somehow more apart from your regime, belonging as tropes …