Topic: National Review's Kevin Williamson attacks the Transgendered community
+Anonymous A — 12.2 years ago #35,941
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379188/laverne-cox-not-woman-kevin-d-williamson
Those comments are grate.
Those comments are grate.
+Anonymous B — 12.2 years ago, 3 minutes later[T] [B] #407,124
![page_2014_200_williamson_square[1].jpg](https://tinychan.net/img/1401748631536140.jpg "page_2014_200_williamson_square[1].jpg")
There is just something about this man's face. I don't know what it is, but it says something.And the comments aren't loading for me.
Oh, requesting a TL:DR of the article please?
+Syntax — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #407,125
@previous (B)
The world is abuzz with news that actor Laverne Cox has become the first transgender person to appear on the cover of Time magazine. If I understand the current state of the ever-shifting ethic and rhetoric of transgenderism, that is not quite true: Bradley Manning, whom we are expected now to call Chelsea, beat Cox to the punch by some time. Manning’s announcement of his intention to begin living his life as a woman and to undergo so-called sex-reassignment surgery came after Time’s story, but, given that we are expected to defer to all subjective experience in the matter of gender identity, it could not possibly be the case that Manning is a transgendered person today but was not at the time of the Time cover simply because Time was unaware of the fact, unless the issuance of a press release is now a critical step in the evolutionary process.
As I wrote at the time of the Manning announcement, Bradley Manning is not a woman. Neither is Laverne Cox.
Cox, a fine actor, has become a spokesman- no doubt he would object to the term - for trans people, whose characteristics may include a wide variety of self-conceptions and physical traits. Katie Couric famously asked him about whether he had undergone surgical alteration, and he rejected the question as invasive, though what counts as invasive when you are being interviewed by Katie Couric about features of your sexual identity is open to interpretation. Couric was roundly denounced for the question and for using “transgenders” as a noun, and God help her if she had misdeployed a pronoun, which is now considered practically a hate crime.
The phenomenon of the transgendered person is a thoroughly modern one, not in the sense that such conditions did not exist in the past- Cassius Dio relates a horrifying tale of an attempted sex-change operation - but because we in the 21st century have regressed to a very primitive understanding of reality, namely the sympathetic magic described by James George Frazer in The Golden Bough. The obsession with policing language on the theory that language mystically shapes reality is itself ancient - see the Old Testament - and sympathetic magic proceeds along similar lines, using imitation and related techniques as a means of controlling reality. The most famous example of this is the voodoo doll. If an effigy can be made sufficiently like the reality it is intended to represent, then it becomes, for the mystical purposes at hand, a reality in its own right. The infinite malleability of the postmodern idea of “gender,” as opposed to the stubborn concreteness of sex, is precisely the reason the concept was invented. For all of the high-academic theory attached to the question, it is simply a mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality. Facebook now has a few score options for describing one’s gender or sex, and no doubt they will soon match the number of names for the Almighty in one of the old mystery cults.
Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman. Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.
Genital amputation and mutilation is the extreme expression of the phenomenon, but it is hardly outside the mainstream of contemporary medical practice. The trans self-conception, if the autobiographical literature is any guide, is partly a feeling that one should be living one’s life as a member of the opposite sex and partly a delusion that one is in fact a member of the opposite sex at some level of reality that transcends the biological facts in question. There are many possible therapeutic responses to that condition, but the offer to amputate healthy organs in the service of a delusional tendency is the moral equivalent of meeting a man who believes he is Jesus and inquiring as to whether his insurance plan covers crucifixion.
This seems to me a very different sort of phenomenon from simple homosexuality (though, for the record, I believe that our neat little categories of sexual orientation are yet another substitution of the conceptual for the actual, human sexual behavior being more complex and varied than the rhetoric of sexual orientation can accommodate). The question of the status of gay people interacts with politics to the extent that it in some cases challenges existing family law, but homosexual acts as such seem to me a matter that is obviously, and almost by definition, private. The mass delusion that we are inculcating on the question of transgendered people is a different sort of matter, to the extent that it would impose on society at large an obligation- possibly a legal obligation under civil-rights law, one that already is emerging - to treat delusion as fact, or at the very least to agree to make subjective impressions superordinate to biological fact in matters both public and private.
As a matter of government, I have little or no desire to police how Cox or any other man or woman conducts his or her personal life. But having a culture organized around the elevation of unreality over reality in the service of Eros, who is a sometimes savage god, is not only irrational but antirational. Cox’s situation gave him an intensely unhappy childhood and led to an eventual suicide attempt, and his story demands our sympathy; times being what they are, we might even offer our indulgence. But neither of those should be allowed to overwhelm the facts, which are not subject to our feelings, however sincere or well intended.
The world is abuzz with news that actor Laverne Cox has become the first transgender person to appear on the cover of Time magazine. If I understand the current state of the ever-shifting ethic and rhetoric of transgenderism, that is not quite true: Bradley Manning, whom we are expected now to call Chelsea, beat Cox to the punch by some time. Manning’s announcement of his intention to begin living his life as a woman and to undergo so-called sex-reassignment surgery came after Time’s story, but, given that we are expected to defer to all subjective experience in the matter of gender identity, it could not possibly be the case that Manning is a transgendered person today but was not at the time of the Time cover simply because Time was unaware of the fact, unless the issuance of a press release is now a critical step in the evolutionary process.
As I wrote at the time of the Manning announcement, Bradley Manning is not a woman. Neither is Laverne Cox.
Cox, a fine actor, has become a spokesman
The phenomenon of the transgendered person is a thoroughly modern one, not in the sense that such conditions did not exist in the past
Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman. Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.
Genital amputation and mutilation is the extreme expression of the phenomenon, but it is hardly outside the mainstream of contemporary medical practice. The trans self-conception, if the autobiographical literature is any guide, is partly a feeling that one should be living one’s life as a member of the opposite sex and partly a delusion that one is in fact a member of the opposite sex at some level of reality that transcends the biological facts in question. There are many possible therapeutic responses to that condition, but the offer to amputate healthy organs in the service of a delusional tendency is the moral equivalent of meeting a man who believes he is Jesus and inquiring as to whether his insurance plan covers crucifixion.
This seems to me a very different sort of phenomenon from simple homosexuality (though, for the record, I believe that our neat little categories of sexual orientation are yet another substitution of the conceptual for the actual, human sexual behavior being more complex and varied than the rhetoric of sexual orientation can accommodate). The question of the status of gay people interacts with politics to the extent that it in some cases challenges existing family law, but homosexual acts as such seem to me a matter that is obviously, and almost by definition, private. The mass delusion that we are inculcating on the question of transgendered people is a different sort of matter, to the extent that it would impose on society at large an obligation
As a matter of government, I have little or no desire to police how Cox or any other man or woman conducts his or her personal life. But having a culture organized around the elevation of unreality over reality in the service of Eros, who is a sometimes savage god, is not only irrational but antirational. Cox’s situation gave him an intensely unhappy childhood and led to an eventual suicide attempt, and his story demands our sympathy; times being what they are, we might even offer our indulgence. But neither of those should be allowed to overwhelm the facts, which are not subject to our feelings, however sincere or well intended.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.2 years ago, 12 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #407,126
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #407,128
+tommy toughstuff !ogS6LtyaLs — 12.2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #407,138
didnt read
+Anonymous F — 12.2 years ago, 35 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #407,161
·Anonymous B — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,171
+Anonymous G — 12.2 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,226
@407,125 (Syntax )
From the fourth paragraph onward, the points being made collapse upon the word salad which was intended to support them, becoming noting more than unintelligible psycho-babble. Near the end he attempts to resurrect his stance, but his point of contention is something which is in no way unique to the 'trans' community. It's a simple matter of a coddled generation reaching an age where the begin to hold influence in the world, and refusing to accept that the world is going to tell you what it thinks, and couldn't care less if that is what you want to hear.
For my part, I'd say there are no 'trans' people. there are those who have undergone reassignment, and those who have not. For all legal reasons this should be the defining line. As far as pronouns go, elevating the misuse of a 'he' or 'she' to a hate crime is thought policing. I've encountered plenty of people who are too androgynous to tell what pronoun should be used based on sight alone. Can they blame us for not having x-ray vision to check their anatomy? The reverse applies to those who wish to be addressed by a different pronoun. If you look and act like a woman, I'll assume you're a woman and address you as such. As long you don't tell me you've got a penis tucked under that dress, I really don't give a damn. If you're gonna wear sweatpants and a tight shirt with a 5 o'clock shadow, I'm gonna call a man a man.
From the fourth paragraph onward, the points being made collapse upon the word salad which was intended to support them, becoming noting more than unintelligible psycho-babble. Near the end he attempts to resurrect his stance, but his point of contention is something which is in no way unique to the 'trans' community. It's a simple matter of a coddled generation reaching an age where the begin to hold influence in the world, and refusing to accept that the world is going to tell you what it thinks, and couldn't care less if that is what you want to hear.
For my part, I'd say there are no 'trans' people. there are those who have undergone reassignment, and those who have not. For all legal reasons this should be the defining line. As far as pronouns go, elevating the misuse of a 'he' or 'she' to a hate crime is thought policing. I've encountered plenty of people who are too androgynous to tell what pronoun should be used based on sight alone. Can they blame us for not having x-ray vision to check their anatomy? The reverse applies to those who wish to be addressed by a different pronoun. If you look and act like a woman, I'll assume you're a woman and address you as such. As long you don't tell me you've got a penis tucked under that dress, I really don't give a damn. If you're gonna wear sweatpants and a tight shirt with a 5 o'clock shadow, I'm gonna call a man a man.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,227
·Anonymous G — 12.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,229
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Ok then. But tell me this: do you disagree with the statement "the world does not owe anyone anything"?
I don't care what people want to do with themselves. I'm just tired of people expecting the world to stop for them because their shit doesn't smell like roses.
Ok then. But tell me this: do you disagree with the statement "the world does not owe anyone anything"?
I don't care what people want to do with themselves. I'm just tired of people expecting the world to stop for them because their shit doesn't smell like roses.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,231
·Anonymous G — 12.2 years ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,232
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,233
·Anonymous F — 12.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,234
@407,171 (B)
They did but docs were not getting reimbursed enough by medi-cal so most trannies would not get coverage. Apparently obamacare will help medi-cal expand their coverage.
> In 2001, the California Supreme Court ruled that Medi-Cal must cover “medically-necessary treatment,” including sex reassignment surgery. But the problem, Harbatkin said, is Medi-Cal reimbursement rates were too low. In San Francisco, she said, there were no surgeons providing sex reassignment surgery who would take Medi-Cal rates.
They did but docs were not getting reimbursed enough by medi-cal so most trannies would not get coverage. Apparently obamacare will help medi-cal expand their coverage.
> In 2001, the California Supreme Court ruled that Medi-Cal must cover “medically-necessary treatment,” including sex reassignment surgery. But the problem, Harbatkin said, is Medi-Cal reimbursement rates were too low. In San Francisco, she said, there were no surgeons providing sex reassignment surgery who would take Medi-Cal rates.
·Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM — 12.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,237
@previous (F)
How would this affect me? I've recently been applied for Medi-Cal and recently after some searching via Google found out that Medi-Cal can cover the cost of hormones and the genital surgery. Does it really cover this?
Because even though it's not a massive relief, it still is a relief knowing what I should be saving my money for (i.e. facial feminization surgery, laser hair removal, and if possible hair transplants).
How would this affect me? I've recently been applied for Medi-Cal and recently after some searching via Google found out that Medi-Cal can cover the cost of hormones and the genital surgery. Does it really cover this?
Because even though it's not a massive relief, it still is a relief knowing what I should be saving my money for (i.e. facial feminization surgery, laser hair removal, and if possible hair transplants).
·Anonymous G — 12.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,240
·Anonymous F — 12.2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,241
@407,237 (Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM)
I really wouldn't know other than a few recent news reports. But the lgbt groups seem pretty excited, so probably good news for you. I haven't been to the dr myself in years since I hurt my back, and then all I got was some Aleve.
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/02/05/medi-cal-expansion-opens-doors-to-care-for-transgender-patients/
I really wouldn't know other than a few recent news reports. But the lgbt groups seem pretty excited, so probably good news for you. I haven't been to the dr myself in years since I hurt my back, and then all I got was some Aleve.
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/02/05/medi-cal-expansion-opens-doors-to-care-for-transgender-patients/
+Anonymous H — 12.2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,243
+kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,261
@407,237 (Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM)
Dont you have more important things to worry about than facial surgery and hair implants?
Dont you have more important things to worry about than facial surgery and hair implants?
·Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM — 12.2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,262
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 37 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,265
@previous (Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM)
maybe you should work on getting a job, and making healthy life choices first. Transitioning wont magically cure all of your problems.
maybe you should work on getting a job, and making healthy life choices first. Transitioning wont magically cure all of your problems.
·Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM — 12.2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,267
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 14 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,427
@previous (Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM)
Um, what? You could easily start school, get medicated, and get a part time job before you start hormone therapy, and get a hair transplant.
Um, what? You could easily start school, get medicated, and get a part time job before you start hormone therapy, and get a hair transplant.
·Cathy Constantine !TGirlYJKXM — 12.2 years ago, 30 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #407,432
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,506
+Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,507
·tommy tootough !W0sCDjViag — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,510
@407,427 (kook !!u4KQvs2JM)
> Um, what? You could easily start school, get medicated, and get a part time job before you start hormone therapy, and get a hair transplant.
tons of people have already brought this up already though, syntax knows more about it apparently
> Um, what? You could easily start school, get medicated, and get a part time job before you start hormone therapy, and get a hair transplant.
tons of people have already brought this up already though, syntax knows more about it apparently
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,521
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,522
·tommy tootough !W0sCDjViag — 12.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,525
@previous (kook !!u4KQvs2JM)
> I believe that was copypasta
people telling catherine how to better his/her life and they all pretty much outlined the same method (get part time job maybe, go to school, get medicated etc) so i could see how it would be
> I believe that was copypasta
people telling catherine how to better his/her life and they all pretty much outlined the same method (get part time job maybe, go to school, get medicated etc) so i could see how it would be
·Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,529
·Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,530
·tommy tootough !W0sCDjViag — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,531
@previous (J)
> Meet tommy tootough, TC's latest retard.
nice madpost bobby, i already made you your own thread i couldn't possibly understand what more you could want, now you're calling me a retard? someones upset (its you you are upset lol)
> Meet tommy tootough, TC's latest retard.
nice madpost bobby, i already made you your own thread i couldn't possibly understand what more you could want, now you're calling me a retard? someones upset (its you you are upset lol)
·Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,534
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 12.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #407,536
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.