Got a few points in his post I want to talk to first, and then I want to show you the pretzel logic he and his are forced to have to believe what they believe.
First, to Denninger:
"If you support "equal access for anyone who identifies as {whatever}" then what you are supporting and demanding is men having access to a woman's locker room."
Look at some of the court papers over the last six years vis-a-vis Donald Trump, and tell me we aren't already there! And then look at the reaction to some of the things he's said, and tell me a lot of "Real American Men" don't want exactly that privilege...
"If you're a parent of a girl and support this crap whether explicitly or by your silence then I have to question whether you give a wet crap about your daughter -- her modesty, safety and the ability to do ordinary athletic things that women want to participate in and excel in while being able to go take a shower, get the sweat off and then change back into street clothes without some person with a DICK being present in said place at the same time.It really is that simple and if you have any respect for women at all then you must put a stop to this -- right here, right now, permanently."
Ask any person who's been a Debbie Gibson fan more than a quarter-century as to whether it is believed I respect women -- or anyone who was in the University of Wisconsin-River Falls between September 1987 and December 1990.
That's one problem. Two, if you had any merit for your hypothetical daughter's safety, you'd have killed me outright (even as a cis-male) before I turned... 19? 16?? Younger???
So, Karl, I know you have a daughter and she is rather good looking. You can't take that chance. If you had any respect for your daughter's safety, you kill me as a known and recognized and adjudicated threat -- even as a cis-male.
Your argument does not hold water in the least. But it pales in comparison to some of the pretzel logic in your comments section:
Skybluepink: "I'm old enough to remember a time when guys got arrested for showing their junk off to women and girls who had no interest in seeing it."
Depends on the owner of said junk. For some people (read: The captain of the football team, the aforementioned Donald Trump, Billy Bob Blow Job Clinton), it is no less than a rite of passage for the women and girls involved, and you damn well know it!
Augeries: "Who is the most discriminated group of people? No ethnicity, or sex, or religion. It's the people who want to be left alone. We are the most harmed through history."
Because you don't want to leave anyone else alone. You scream and yell about people ramming their beliefs down your throat, but I have a quick change for God's charge for you: In practice, it's "Go ye into all the world and ram the Gospel down everybody's throat!"
Karl: "IMHO anyone who shows a dick in a woman's locker room must be instantly arrested and thrown in prison as a pervert or should have said dick immediately and permanently removed from their body."
You don't realize that is the eventual endgame (yes, you're implying without anesthesia or whatever -- I get it, maximum pain, die of shock...) of MTF trans people: They are intending to get their bodies in order for EXACTLY THAT OUTCOME, just in a far more orderly manner than you propose. (A number of people in his section have actually proposed PVC cutters to forcibly cut off the dicks of anyone in the women's locker rooms with one.)
That's one of the reasons this whole thing as a "fad", "lifestyle", even "choice" is a completely pretzel-logiced piece of garbage, because of the fact that it is a lengthy process, taken in concert with much of the medical industry, both physical AND mental.
Captainkidd doesn't get it either, in response: "My daughters, while in my care, were instructed and trained on how to at the very least, render said appendage unusable and non-functional."
That's the idea, just a far more orderly route to get there. And there are some of us cis-men you need that same result for, like it or lump it. This is how stupid they are. If it actually got to a situation in a state where gender-affirming care was no longer available, I could even see this at least the metaphorical equivalent of abortions with a clothes hanger.
Cmoledor misses on any number of levels: "If we dont stop this now, I see a world where rape wont even be a crime. Itll be a human rights thing. Rapists arent rapists. Theyre just horny and thats ok. Bet. I hate thinking that."
Welcome to Republican Male America. That's exactly the desired endgame on that end (or they'd never have elected Trump!), but not in the manner of which you are speaking. Elect Trump or DeSantis, and that world you speak of will be universal (at least in this country) by probably about the end of 2025.
You know, compelling government interest, Be Fruitful And Multiply...
And then there's the comment I made on another anti-trans Denninger screed:
"And then, since a person's wishes, beliefs, and mental health have nothing to do with the above argument, then their consent with respect to it must also be damned. Meaning that there is no material case for rape -- you're raping every transgender person in the world in the first damn place, because their consent to even be what you want them to be will never be given, pain of death in many cases (and, in many cases where reversal has already started, would be a medical situation, not a suicide one!)."
One more: InvisibleSun: "Now marvel at the control over people we are seeing. Why are so many women going along with the abuse, manipulation and even mutilation of their daughters? It is they have been indoctrinated that (1) Masculinity is evil and (2) Whatever their child wants the child should get and to do otherwise makes the mother a horrible person."
Masculinity is evil, on it's face and in completion, because it cannot allow for any other voice to contest it's power. That means, if you end up in trouble, you're also learning (for one reason or another) society never wanted you in the first damn place and does not want you back -- the sole basis of law in the first place.
As far as the second part: If you don't believe in that, then the racist Scott Adams' situation has to come into play (if the situation is large enough). Because we are seeing more and more each day that some kids WILL go after the parents, and lethally.
In short, if you don't believe in the second part of that, then you have to identify the time you tell your child "I put you in this world, I can take you out." and MEAN IT.
Let's put it this way in my case: I was going to be thrown out of the house AT LEAST TWICE. The first was the year my mom died -- and the second I now honestly believe was a concern for the safety of everyone else in the house by the time I turned 16!
No comments:
Post a Comment