Pop this.

21 thoughts on Pop this.

1. i really dont think she was being serious. it seems to be that she was just sarcastically responding to laylalola.

2. i really dont think she was being serious. it seems to be that she was just sarcastically responding to laylalola.

   No, I know. I think she was entirely serious in what she said about what transition involves.

3. “after she posted about “trans politics,” which is a term similar in origin and effect to “homosexual agenda,” “contraceptive mentality,” or “gender feminism.” The phrase is an imposition by outsiders. It is based on a conception of the loosely-aligned community it purports to describe that is so at odds with reality that it cannot be used to say anything accurate. Period. “

   This strikes me as ill-liberal, and anti-intellectual. Even if such terms are “imposed” from the outside does not mean they lack validity or veracity. And to boldly state “period” in conclusion is to betray a defensiveness that is indicative of a narrow & insecure worldview.

4. The thing is, though, that the terms do lack validity and veracity. “Gender feminism,” for example, lumps a whole bunch of different views together, slaps on a label which totally doesn’t describe the views of at least some of the people so lumped, and basically boils down to “feminists that I don’t like.” “Contraceptive mentality” is problematic because it turns out not to actually be the mentality of many real life people who use contraceptives. And so on. If “trans politics” is going to be any use as a term, it better describe the actual politics of actual transsexuals (who, as far as I can tell, don’t have much politics in common, actually).

   Here’s the gay agenda, though.

5. Fitz, if you dislike so much of what is written here, why do you bother to even load the pages?

6. Even if such terms are “imposed” from the outside does not mean they lack validity or veracity

   Which would be fine and true if the term didn’t, inherently, lack validity and veracity, which is what piny said if you’d bothered to read it.

   The phrase is an imposition by outsiders. It is based on a conception of the loosely-aligned community it purports to describe that is so at odds with reality that it cannot be used to say anything accurate. Period.

   Context: It Does The Reading For Comprehension Good

7. For whatever it’s worth, I thought it was funny, even if way too strong of a reaction for such a mild-mannered comment. Although, mixing up radical lesbian feminist “androgynous ideals” with genderqueer or even butch/femme notions of “androgyny” is pretty insulting on all sides.

   I think I just like the visual Puffin’s comment creates.

8. This strikes me as ill-liberal.

   It’s a pretty dum-ass thing to call something ill-libera and then fail to explain in clear terms what the Big Liberal Book Of Rules is, and why that statement is verbotten.

   Unless of course you’re intentionally being an asshole. In which case, good play, man!

   By the way, do you get paid by the hyphen?

9. Pingback: jay sennett jaywalks

10. I believe what we are experiencing here is not so much a lack of validity or veracity on either side, but rather a certain political fatigue in the culture wars.
    Social conservatives are often exasperated by terms like “gender equality”, “heteronormativity”, “eternal verities’ and so on. This is not to say (even though ’The phrase is an imposition by outsiders’) speakers of such language or the terms themselves are ’based on a conception of the loosely-aligned community it purports to describe that is so at odds with reality that it cannot be used to say anything accurate. Period.’

    Large swaths of the contemporary cultural left may occupy a narrow, academic, rarefied world with little or no impact on the lives of ordinary people. They may be indicative of a narcissistic, rights based, Hegelian dialectic, that strips humanity of any natural affinity with its own elemental biology. They may be imposed from an insular environment that demands ideological cohesion in championing the “worldview” of politicized sexual misanthropes as the newest proletariat in a senseless revolution toward some mythical genderless utopia.

    All this may be true, but this liberal finds it to be anti-intellectual to dismiss ones social/political opponents as lacking validity & veracity – until one has thoroughly inculcated their worldview, digested it, and taken what truth it contains.
    If you decide to explore what your opponents mean by “contraceptive mentality” or “gay agenda” you might find that contraceptives promote a mentality and gays have agendas.
    That’s all I’m trying to say.

11. Questioning Transgender (.com!) contains a tiny handful of out-of-context direct quotations from actual individual transsexual writers and theorists. That’s on the entire website, which includes a dozen articles and a couple of overarching position papers. Over four long posts on “the trans issue,” Feh-muh-nist did not quote one single individual writer who held views in concordance with “trans politics,” whatever she considers those to be. Contrast that with Patrick Califia’s direct engagement with Janice Raymond and Catherine Millot in Sex Changes.

    “Trans politics” is a chimera. It does not refer to any actual thing. It implies a number of things that are not true: that “trans” have a unified or general politic, that they tend to hold views in common, that they define the community itself in an amicable way, etc. It’s a wrongheaded term whose existence in any given statement renders that statement false.

    It’s not that transpeople haven’t “inculcated” (and I don’t think that word means what you think it means) these arguments. The people criticizing them have read them, found them severely lacking, and decided that they therefore do not deserve praise. There’s nothing intolerant about saying that someone’s just plain wrong when they are, or with pointing out that their terminology defines certain people or communities out of existence.

    Large swaths of the contemporary cultural left may occupy a narrow, academic, rarefied world with little or no impact on the lives of ordinary people. They may be indicative of a narcissistic, rights based, Hegelian dialectic, that strips humanity of any natural affinity with its own elemental biology. They may be imposed from an insular environment that demands ideological cohesion in championing the “worldview” of politicized sexual misanthropes as the newest proletariat in a senseless revolution toward some mythical genderless utopia.

    You know, for someone who sees the left as occupying a “narrow, academic, rarefied world,” you’re awfully comfortable with a lot of awfully meaningless words. The “trans politics” debate is not between academics and academics, but between theorists and people. The theory that created “trans politics” damages the concrete lives of a lot of transsexuals.

12. I think I’m going to start using the phrase “car mentality” to describe everything people do with cars that I dislike, and then, if anyone professes to use cars and not share that mentality, rant at length about how cars really do facilitate a certain mentality.

    And then there’s always cell phone mentality.

13. Jesus Fitz, what a load of stinky manure. i don’t inhabit any isolated academic world at all. i barely make a living and I am one of those “poor peoples” you folks always claim to be speaking for. And I’ll be damned if I find accurate language really quite useful and that it speaks directly to my experience. In fact, that sinky old postermodernist stuff makes more and more sense every day I live my life. never thought it didn’t much, but seems like every time I turn around I understand it better than I used to because — wow! — it helps me make sense of my world.

    Man, I hate faux populism b.s. that purports to speak for me as if people like me are too stupe to deal with Big Wirdz.

14. Fitz:

    My goodness you do get around. Covinced anyone over here you’re a liberal yet? And, how interesting, the exact same long paragraph of gerbil-gibberish as at Pandagon. Naughty boy!

    Pretty spiffy little word generator you got there. Now..ummm …perhaps you would care to tell us why exactly the dialectic strips us of our biological imperatives. I’ve always kinda sort of thought that evolution is the dialectic in action, as it were. Before you answer, remember, a lot of people here have actually, like ya know, read Hegel.

15. Ironically, I understand the term “heteronormativity” but can barely figure out what the hell Fitz is trying to say.

16. Something about how Hegel killed his dog.

17. Magis, I thought I was perfectly clear.

    “tell us why exactly the dialectic strips us of our biological imperatives.”

    That’s not right, I did not mention a biological imperative, I said- quite matter a fact-

    Large swaths of the contemporary cultural left may occupy a narrow, academic, rarefied world with little or no impact on the lives of ordinary people.* They may be indicative of a narcissistic, rights based, Hegelian dialectic, that strips humanity of any natural affinity with its own elemental biology. They may be imposed from an insular environment that demands ideological cohesion in championing the “worldview” of politicized sexual misanthropes as the newest proletariat in a senseless revolution toward some mythical genderless utopia.

    * (or be useful idiots in the propagation of such theories)

18. politicized sexual misanthropes

    Leftists hate sex. Got it. (At least human sex – squid sex may be OK.)

19. What did he just say? I know he said something, but from the beginning of the paragraph to the end of the paragraph, I think he lost his train of thought. Getting caught up in words he doesn’t understand. Let’s disect his diatribe shall we?

    Large swaths of the contemporary cultural left may occupy a narrow, academic, rarefied world with little or no impact on the lives of ordinary people.

    You misspelled “swaths”
    Swarths:
    1. Land covered with grassy turf.
    2. A lawn or meadow.

    I think the word here that you wanted to use (but would have hurt your delicate sensibilities) would have been “Population” as relating to actual human beings regardless of gender. So we can extract from this to mean you do not regard those people who are different from you as human beings. Ok we knew that, we feel that in our culture every single day. It’s called prejudice.

    If I am beinging snarky, it’s because of the tone of your condescension in your above rant.

    “contemporary cultural left” You don’t understand this statement. Your word choice made it clear, your conservative. Very conservative. You have no idea what open mindedness is if it bit you.

    Contemporary:
    A person of the present age.

    Cultural:
    Of or relating to culture or cultivation.

    Left:
    The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.

    So you think that we don’t deserve to be treated equally. Oh ok I get it. I knew something was fishy. Let’s continue to explore this rant.

    I want to so attack the last part of that quote, but you know what, you contradicted yourself already in the first part with calling us “left”, so it’s easy to discount the rest of what you said, and just continue on.

    They may be indicative of a narcissistic, rights based, Hegelian dialectic, that strips humanity of any natural affinity with its own elemental biology.

    Boy, you sure plaster it on thick don’t you?

    Hegelian:
    The monist, idealist philosophy of Hegel in which the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is used as an analytic tool in order to approach a higher unity or a new thesis.

    That does not give me much to go on, but someone here upthread said it had something to do with killing your own dog. That is quite offensive if I do say so myself. Unless it was for their own benifit. Example my dog got hit by a car and it crushed her wind pipe and there was no way to save her. My dad had to shoot her and put her out of her misery.

    Is this what you propose to do to the people who don’t fit your Ideal as being a human being? You have got to be kidding me? You couldn’t possibly ever advocate this could you? Or did you really use words you don’t understand?

    Words have power sir, in people who know how to use them. You weild this kind of threat and expect everyone here to bow down to you? I think not.

    Narcissitic:
    A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

    Rights:
    loaded gun.
    There is so many definitions for this word. You could mean anything by how it’s used. This is definately a loaded term, to incite many different negative feelings on the parts of your reader. One will take it one way, and another will take it another way. So much so, that we need to hold on to that word, and connect it to something with in your rant to obtain a full meaning here.

    Strips:
    Interesting that this word is also a loaded weapon. Should we put this with rights as you intended implicitly by your word choice?
    Maybe you didn’t intend for that kind of meaning, and giving you the benifit of a doubt (which you don’t deserve) we will not combine this word with “rights” which we are still holding on to, to pair with another word for the entire MEANING of your rant.

    Are you sure this isn’t you projecting your own closed minded ideas and theories on those who it honestly doesn’t match? Have you actually read what everyone here posts about? Or say maybe comprehended what they post about? Because it honestly (from a lurker perspective) says completely opposite of what your arguing about.

    Natural:
    WoW, three loaded guns back to back, this word is also a word used to describe many situations in which it is appropriate. So another word we must hold in our head to aquire the meaning of said word.

    You do realize that the more words you make your reader hold for a full definition, will make it so
    they can’t fit it to an approprieate meaning, and then it leaves it open to their own interpretation of
    what you meant right? You do know this? Oki assuming you know this, let’s continue.

    affinity :
    You can’t be serious? You place another loaded term behind 3 others and expect someone to just pick a definition out of thin air. You sir are projecting every vile idea you want into what ever you want it to be. I don’t find this comforting at all. What are you trying to get at? Your very good at diverting your subject to far reaches of intellectual understanding. Moving on.

    Elemental:
    Of such character as to resemble a force of nature in power or effect.

    Oki we have a solid definition of a word that can be placed, with rights, strip, natural and affinity.

    Do you see the implications of your statement? In one small turn of the definitions and the weilding of your sword, You have made those reading your statement place together insuch away as to imply that you wish to strip the rights that are inherent to elemental natural beings, with an affinity for open mindedness and care of those of lesser standing then you. You arrogant prick.

    In one of your paragraphs of your rant. And that’s just one.
    Shall we proceed to find out how further you can insult us?

    They may be imposed from an insular environment that demands ideological cohesion in championing the “worldview” of politicized sexual misanthropes as the newest proletariat in a senseless revolution toward some mythical genderless utopia

    Insular:
    “Circumscribed and detached in outlook and experience; narrow or provincial.”

    ideological:
    “Of or concerned with ideas.”

    Misanthropos
    misanthrope
    misanthropy’s
    misanthropist
    misanthropy

    Hmm.. Let’s pick which one he intended, because he misspelled it.

    I pick, misanthropy (plural) or the practice of a group of them.

    misanthropy:
    “Hatred or mistrust of humankind.”

    proletariat:
    ” The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor.”

    Ah, he called people whores.. Just nicely. I knew there was something wrong with his words.

    utopia:
    “A work of fiction describing a utopia.”

    And he thinks it’s all made up, cute..

    I can’t imagine that you would get very good responses with this, or that anyone reading would see you as a lefty.. Or one that would support the policical agenda of anyone here. Why are you here anyway? Do you enjoy inciting those around you? Oh I know what it is, you enjoy the attention you receive by insulting and down right hating everyone here.

    Got ya.. ok I let you speculate on that, but next time I will use small words so you can be sure to understand MY meaning.

    Loosely Twisted

20. Loosely Twisted just “problematisized” my statement.

    (but he knows what I mean)

21. Loosely Twisted: “WoW, three loaded guns back to back …”

    —

    A fine way to think of Hegel’s dialectic. :p

Comments are currently closed.