Thursday, November 13, 2014

Like a Congenitally Blind Person Describing Colors

A Lesbian Theory of the Penis. Stacy McCain holds his nose and take another dive into the radical feminist mind:
“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. It is because the penis serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status that it is so heavily charged with erotic energy, and not because it is driven by testosterone. Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession; women must be constantly used by it to prove that men exist, that the sum total of a man is his penis. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)
Blah, blah, blah. And sometimes a penis is just a penis.
As males, we are members of a demonized group of enemies, and everything we might say in our own defense is illegitimate. So when Brownmiller speaks scornfully of “the biological tool” — i.e., the penis — as also a “weapon,” when she implies that we as males derive a benefit from rapists who serve as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” in a war of all men against all women, we cannot dispute this hatefully insulting anti-male doctrine without being Kafkatrapped, where our claim of innocence becomes proof of our guilt.
As I've said before, I can't see how an American male can vote democrat, given their support for the most insane of the feminist propositions.
Honest, decent and intelligent people rightly perceive feminism as a limitless doctrine of fanatical hatred. There can be no compromise with this totalitarian belief, nor can there be any “moderate” feminism. The problem, in the 21st century, is that the majority of Americans are neither honest nor decent nor intelligent. . .
Hmm. . . sort of the same thing Dr. Jonathon Gruber is accused of saying, calling the American public stupid.

And more news from the front lines of the gender wars, a lot of transsexuals are not happy with their transformations, and gender warriors are determined to keep them stifled:
Let’s start with Alan Finch, a resident of Australia who decided when he was 19 to transition from male to female, and in his 20s had genital surgery. But then, at age 36, Finch told the Guardian newspaper in 2004:
. . . transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists. . . .You fundamentally can’t change sex … the surgery doesn’t alter you genetically. It’s genital mutilation. My ‘vagina’ was just the bag of my scrotum. It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused. It’s like phantom limb syndrome. It’s all been a terrible misadventure. I’ve never been a woman, just Alan . . . the analogy I use about giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is it’s a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic.
Finch went on to sue the Australian gender identity clinic at Melbourne’s Monash Medical Center for misdiagnosis. He also was involved in starting an outreach to others called “Gender Menders.” The reaction from the transgender community was fast, furious, and abusive, particularly in the discussion forum as described in Sheila Jeffrey’s book, “Gender Hurts.”
Many of us old farts may remember the case of ophthalmologist Richard Raskins who became professional tennis player Renée Richards after a sex change
Tennis champion Rene Richards was one of the first to go through sex-change surgery and was something of a sensation in the 1970s. As such, you might expect Richards to be a tower of strength, offering encouragement to those in similar circumstances today. Well, not so much. This is what Richards had to say in an excerpt from a March 1999 interview attributed to Tennis Magazine (unavailable in full online):
If there was a drug that I could have taken that would have reduced the pressure, I would have been better off staying the way I was—a totally intact person. I know deep down that I’m a second-class woman. I get a lot of inquiries from would-be transsexuals, but I don’t want anyone to hold me out as an example to follow. Today there are better choices, including medication, for dealing with the compulsion to cross dress and the depression that comes from gender confusion. As far as being fulfilled as a woman, I’m not as fulfilled as I dreamed of being. I get a lot of letters from people who are considering having this operation…and I discourage them all.’ —Rene Richards, “The Liaison Legacy,” Tennis Magazine, March 1999.
Finally, Sundog Pictures, a well-known UK documentary production house, seems to have been exploring the possibility of a documentary on the phenomenon of sex change regret. But chances are you won’t be hearing about it.

Consider this October 2014 blog post at “No I will not Help Sundog Make a Documentary about Trans ‘Regret’” which reacts to a letter of inquiry about the project from a Sundog representative. “NotRightRuth” scolded and lashed out against Sundog Pictures for its interest and stated that such a documentary would be “harmful” to the trans-agenda. A number of followers retweeted it here.
Here's hoping Chelsea Manning has a serious case of the regrets.

No comments:

Post a Comment