A guest post by Claudio Natsheh-Yamaguchi
I’m tired of this cant about “a woman in a man’s body.” If you’re a woman, cis or trans, then the body you’re in is a woman’s body. Saying otherwise de-legitimalizes trans women in favor of their cis-ters, implying that trans women are somehow less authentically female.
And don’t give me any nonsense about “presenting as a woman.” If you’re a woman, how you choose to present yourself is just one of the many ways that a woman can authentically choose to present herself. None of these choices is less feminine than another. If you want to dress like your mother, go ahead. But don’t tell me that how you and your mother dress is how all women dress.
Stop privileging so-called “birth gender.” You do a disservice to all of us. Everyone is unique. If you’re a woman in a man’s body, or a man in a woman’s body, you can wear a sun dress and high heeled shoes, or you can wear jeans, boots, and a greasy t-shirt. Both choices, and any others, are as authentically masculine or feminine as you are.
Living In Unreality, by Rod Dreher
Jose Bautista got a new slide rule. Some people are angry about it, but I’m glad they’re still making them, and that people still know how to use one.
Imagine the uses:
- Special effects
- Psychological warfare
- Individual psychological manipulation
You could know it was a fake, and the visual image would still have its effect.
To commit an outrage is to overstep bounds, for the word comes to us from the French outré (meaning excessive) and the Latin ultra (meaning beyond). It is an accident of etymology that the word seems to indicate a feeling of rage, although raging against outrages is common enough, and convention permits us to say we are outraged by the outrageous. — Over the line by JMSmith
- The law of identity: Everything is identical with itself.
- The law of non-contradiction: No thing is both black and not black.
- The law of the excluded middle: Every thing is either black or not black.
When one of these foundational principles of logic is pointed out to those people in a context in which they must respond (ignoring it being their preferred option), they respond with blather, denial, or force — of one kind or another and in combination. Maybe the blather takes the form of endless demands for dialogue; the denial might involve two activists making contradictory assertions while claiming to agree with each other; the force starts with name-calling and escalates to whatever it takes.
I’m not sure who those people are exactly. Maybe liberals, or progressives, or leftists; maybe elites, or politicians, or The Man; maybe simply anyone who begins by thinking “What should I say to get what I want?” Maybe it’s almost everyone at one time or another. Errors are easier to see in other people than in ourselves, and we’d rather not draw attention to the logical failures and sophistry of someone who is “on our side.” Anyway, it’s probably a mistake to put all human discourse into one of three categories.