Keeping in mind that we're looking for unifying principles that transcend particular ideologies or "issues," compare and contrast:
exhibit 1:
These women say they are traumatised. The near impossible job for the Law is to try and assertain if that is the case when often there are no independant witnesses or evidence.
We all do things we regret. We shouldn't expect the Law to sort things out for us afterwards.
Convictions for rape should be made on objective not subjective evidence.
exhibit 2:
If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway. If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.
Claiming that something is phobic can only be valid after the criticisms are actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. Asking the trans community to prove their assertions instead of just whining about their feelings is not a lot to ask. So prove it!
Context helps a bit (in both cases, the commenters are addressing arguments that were never actually made in order to bring legality and medicalization into it, respectively), but I think we can start to tease out some common denominators nonetheless.
1) Your feelings are irrelevant, particularly seeing as how we're talking about something that depends -entirely- on a subjective experience.
2) The burden of proof is on you to justify your experience, if not your actual -existence-, to me.
3) why: I am logical and rational and objective! Witness me being logical and rational and objective! WITNESS, I say!
4) also, -appeal to authority-
5) Stop whining! If anything, actually, you're hurting ME.
...hm.
Further research is clearly indicated. Please send lots and lots of money to Me, c/o I Am Wearing My Serious Pants Cause On Account Of I'm Clever And Rational And Shit, box # lunch.
22 comments:
Is m Andrea a parody?
I suppose it's very naive and privileged of me to even think that. *sigh* I know there are people who think that way in this world, but I'm always surprised when they're right up front about it.
By teh way, if you like email me at Mandos at la - mancha . net.
Wow. Yeah. I was thinking some of the
I AM LOGIC!!! LOGIC VON LOGIC! BARONESS VON LOGICHAM!
was, maybe, a bit of confusion coupled with, well, not having taken the classes she might be fascinated enough by to e-study. (I took two; that comes of studying philosophy at both the undergrad and grad level.)
But no, that sounds like garden variety bad reasoning, plus Having Something To (not quite) Prove, at this point.
yeah, did well in my formal logic class m'self. can be fun. but, really kind of doesn't have much to fucking do with, well, bigoted fuckwittery.
TIC: some people are walking parodies.
no, but yeah, you figure: there are six or seven billion people in the world; whatever it is you think is too outrageous for someone to think or do, someone's thinked or dood it.
"If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition..."
frankly, i don't believe that trans people have a "medical condition", though certainly, procedures that would be considered to be "medical" are used by trans people to improve the quality of their lives.
i do believe that trans people suffer from a social condition. specifically, that a significant percentage of the population is under the mistaken belief that humans are not like the rest of the biological world, and don't exhibit a large degree of diversity, despite an entire history of exhibiting said diversity.
The reason why is that I will be In Town and thought it might be fun to touch bases again even though I haven't been very present internetually.
ah, okay! I thought you were making funny, with the--never mind. Sure, or--you have my email? bel4 AT earthlink DOT net. lemme know when you're around.
oh, and if you think she's charming there, mAndrea whosis, surprise, she also branches out to, well, multiple assholeries, viddy.
nexy ... I'm desperately trying to read your comment as not saying "transgender people are stupid" or "transgender people just need to get over social distinctions of gender", but I'm not sure how to.
Hm, I'm having trouble seeing how nexy's comment could be interpreted as suggesting transgender people are stupid or are the ones needing to get over anything.
I am having a hard time reading that into nexy's comment as well. I also never got the impression nexy thought of herself as "stupid" or "needing to just get over it," especially.
welcome to new posters, p.s.
"I am having a hard time reading that into nexy's comment as well. I also never got the impression nexy thought of herself as "stupid" or "needing to just get over it," especially."
Belle: I don't know what Ideologically means here, but ze may not realize Nexy is trans, and may be thinking that Nexy is saying "Oh, SOCIETY is just SILLY about GENDER *twitter twitter* so some PEOPLE decide that they must be TRANS and..."
Which is emphatically not what she said, but if one is used to ciswomen who are convinced Gender Is A Social Disease And Thereby Trans People Aren't Trans, and feeling entitled to spout Theory out their Runny Backend about Society and Gender, I think one might misread, potentially.
ideologicallyimpure,
Nexy's saying something very much like "disability is social, not medical."
That is, trans is only a problem because other people who are not trans make it a problem. I'm inclined to agree with her.
I've also got a trans history, like Nexy.
*lightbulb goes off* Thanks, folks. I must've been having a brainfart.
What "asshole?"
Weee do post for u today, Bellez!
http://bastantealready.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-belle-againz.html
We shouldn't expect the Law to sort things out for us afterwards.
...I kind of thought this was exactly what we expect the Law to do for us, at least in part. With like, trials, or whatever you call'em.
Re: m Andrea. She uses some pretty big "ifs" there. *If* we're going to be talking about how we're just looking at this *logically*, then somebody needs to sit down and talk about those ifs and premises-taken-as-given and all that.
ideologicallyimpure, I actually appreciate your brainfart, because though I didn't read nexy's comment the way you (initially) did, the explanatory responses to your question were lightbulby for me, too. So, I dunno, unintended benefit, maybe?
Yeah, I loved Dr Creepo's brigade handwringing about how the law has "winners" and "losers" and how terrible that is. Because, you know, really, I am sure that for ALL crimes, they would prefer a more, what, -balanced- approach. Mugging, burglarly, etc. You know. There're two sides to everything...
Purtek,
I think if one wants to approach the question of transgender logically, that the first step is not to dismiss anything actual living, breathing, trans people say about ourselves when it doesn't match up with what you (generally speaking) want to believe.
Of course, since we're dealing with simple bigotry, Ms. Andrea has no will or desire to look beyond her preconceived hatreds. Or perhaps her desire to see trans people as pathetic creatures.
louboutin shoes
moncler
off white shoes
hermes handbags
kyrie 5
curry shoes
louboutin outlet
yeezy boost 350
balenciaga sneakers
coach outlet store
like this Ysl replica get redirected here best replica bags top article Ysl replica bags
bape
curry shoes
hermes outlet
palm angels
goyard handbags
jordan travis scott
yeezys
nike sb
hermes handbags
yeezy boost 350
Post a Comment