Nonsense begets nonsense
More of the same pious mindless glurge.
“Everyone should be able to love themselves and be loved for who they are,” she says earnestly. Really? Is that true? No. Should Trump be loved for who he is? No. Should he be able to love himself for who he is? No.
Funny how feminism never claimed this. Funny how no human rights struggle claimed this, until the trans hyperbole train rolled into the station. There is no Right to be Loved (except possibly children’s right to parental love). Human rights aren’t about love and they can’t depend on love. This is probably too obvious to bother saying, and I’ve said it before anyway.
But why is it that the trans movement leans so heavily on this kind of emotive glurge? Maybe because it’s so unreasonable to begin with, to the extent that it demands belief and avowal that men are women if they say they are. Once you go for the quack bullshit assertion you might as well add more, I guess. “We are literally women because we say so, and you have to love us.”
The “for who they are” part is also meaningless drivel. They are talking about claims about themselves, or their self-perception; there is no reason the rest of us have to agree, let alone love someone because of those claims.
It always seems to me that the stronger demand would be to love people despite differences, rather than to insist that those differences must be minimized, eliminated, or even celebrated.
Being loved for who you are is a great thing to aspire to, and a terrible thing to demand. Thinking you have a right to someone else’s love without their consent is rape culture.
Maybe not even that. A right to parental or guardian care, certainly, but love is a different thing and is something that some parents may not feel for their children, even though they may provide all the care needed.
I know, but that’s a terrible thing. It’s not really possible to love on command, which is why I said “except possibly,” but it is a real need of children and in some sense a duty of their parents. People who know they can’t love their own children shouldn’t have them.
Leaving aside whether “love” is involved in human rights and just considering that it’s nice to be loved for who you are, there are two ways a Gender Critical person can love a trans person “for who they are.”
We could love them for their personality, their virtues, their values, and all the big and little things having to do with who they are as individuals. And we could love them as people who mistakenly believe they have the minds of the opposite sex which — if we are correct — means TRAs love them for who and what they aren’t .
Sastra:
When viewed as a supposed oppressed class that gives them an excuse to scream and shout and patronise and threaten, TRAs really do love trans people for what they are.
There was something of an inside out precursor to this in the LGB rights movement: you shouldn’t be discriminated against for who you love.
I despise them for who and what they are: entitled, narcissistic, whiny little shits.
TRA, in general seems to equal : ‘entitled, narcissistic, whiny little shits’
Actual trans people who AREN’T ENWLS need to have a ‘movement’ of their own. Gay rights groups washed their hands of NAMBLA pretty damn’ well. The trans ‘movement’ has been hijacked by the equivalent.