Who you callin’ bitches
Ok…
Commence piling on. If love, respect and humanity should be the bedrock of society then why are you calling people bitches? I know it’s hip and everything but what’s it got to do with love respect n humanity?
Also, how does “equality” come into it? What do “pronouns” have to do with equality?
In reality, nothing. In the jargon-world these two apparently inhabit, part of “equality” is bespoke pronouns and forcing everyone else to use those bespoke pronouns. How they get there, though, remains obscure.
And then from the Jason Michael tweet, what does treating other human beings with love, dignity and respect have to do with pronouns?
In reality, nothing. In the jargon-world these two apparently inhabit, it’s dignity and respect and even love to use bespoke third-person pronouns that don’t match the sex of the bespoke pronoun-haver. See? It’s a touch confusing and remote, isn’t it.
Also, by the way, why is it so often “love” that gets dragged in along with respect? I don’t recall feminism ever demanding “love” from the world at large. If anything feminism has always wanted a little less “love” (and a lot less groping) and more respect. Demanding “love” is bizarre, because social justice is social, not personal. Justice, equality, fairness, rights – none of those are about “love,” and they can’t possibly depend on them, because nobody can possibly “love” everyone, just because of a command or a principle or a movement. Love is a big step too far. We get to have rights and justice even if we’re not lovable; they’re not earned, they’re rights.
I wonder if this weird mission-creep is connected to the way trans-activism is so heavily tilted toward trans women. I wonder if it’s connected to the way trans women are necessarily self-conscious about being womany in a way that women mostly are not, because we just are women, whether we fit the stereotypes or not. I wonder if these trans women and their “allies” are thinking of women as all squishy and gooey and sentimental and thus in need of being told “we love you” all the time, and thus in trying to be womany themselves they beg us to “love” them, just as women normally do.
Except we don’t.
We don’t demand love, and we don’t answer to “bitches.”
Complicated, aren’t we.
If you’re a creepy eunuch nobody wants to touch with a ten-foot pole, then rhetorical love might be the only kind you can get.
Because this is the Newspeak word for capitulation.
And transwomen, because transmen find it easier to pass. I’ve seen a number of transmen that you couldn’t tell were trans unless they told you. Most of the transwomen who keep demanding this “love”, “respect”, “pronouns” garbage do not pass well. I know there are transwomen who do; maybe they are out there just living their life, not demanding.
And for those dudes who want to keep dude privilege by keeping all their male parts, their beard, their clothes, and their domineering size, while demanding to be “she/her” instead of “he/him”? Yeah, no one actually thinks they are women, probably not even them. They require someone else to confirm they are women, because they have mirrors and can tell they are not. But giving up male privilege is a bridge too far for them.
The “love” thing is nauseating for a supposed political movement, as is the “be kind” that is bandied about. These are good, and necessary things in personal relationships,. but feminism demanded justice, not love, not kindness.
Remember those indignant chaps who used to sigh, “but how can I possibly sexist, or chauvinistic? I LOVE women.”
As for “love is truth” – what? Those 2 have nothing to do with each other. You may as well say ice-creams are beer. One nice thing is not the same as another nice thing.
Yes, on second look, that Jason Michael tweet is full of dopy christiany preachery catchphrases…”It costs us nothing and profits us infinitely to treat other human beings with love, dignity, and respect; to acknowledge in the other the personhood and identity they see in themselves. Love is truth, and never needlessly cruel.” You can just hear some self-consciously hip “pastor” saying all that.
That post was too wordy so I fixed it “do what the men tell you to do, bitches”
Lots less words and lot more of what is demanded.
Dopey christiany preachery. I love that. What beautifully turnedery phrasery.
There are so many stock religious elements in gender ideology that it is nigh impossible to see them as anything but a deliberate and cynical attempt to conflate the two themes. The usage of so much quasi-religious language is intended to make people connect religion and gender in their minds, if only at a subconscious level, so as to exploit the unwillingness of the majority of people (including many atheists, of course) to question, criticize or insult religion and the religious.
A classic example is the guilt-trip method as originally used by the soppiest of Christians, in which we are told that because Jesus, (or sometimes God; I’ve heard both versions) has infinite love for those who accept and believe in him, to deny him is to cause him infinite pain. This is often followed by a tilt of the head, a sad look, and a part-simpering, part-accusatory Why would you want to hurt Jesus/God? How is that emotional blackmail any different from the claim that not believing that trans-x is x causes real harm to the trans-x? How does the ridiculous Why do you want to harm trans-x?differ from the simpering accusations of wanting to make the baby Jesus cry?
It is, for both groups, a method that works on far too many people including plenty of supposed sceptics – even those that have no qualms about criticising and mocking the claims of one of the two groups out of hand.
I wonder if following the new cult fills the God-shaped gap in their minds caused by their scepticism, thus giving them much-needed good feelz, and they think it best not to think too much about it lest the feelz should stop. Ring-fence it off from their sceptical side, as it were.
So says every battered woman who believed he only did it because he loves her.
So says every abused child in the certainty that daddy only puts it in there out of love.
So say the eyes of every battered and bashed dog.
Yeah. Right.
Home sweet home
Love is Truth
Live laugh love
Be kind
Bless this mess
When your political statements are indistinguishable from something painted on a piece of driftwood in every homewares department I’ve been in over the last ten years, maybe you need to think harder.
That tweet compresses every recent feel-good and uplift trope into a stock cube.
“It costs us nothing and profits us infinitely to treat other human beings with love, dignity, and respect;”
It depends on the human beings. I don’t treat certain types of human beings – motorists who are passing me too close on the roads; bullying bosses; wankers generally with love, dignity and respect. It wouldn’t profit me even finitely to do so. It would be bad for them as well.
” to acknowledge in the other the personhood and identity they see in themselves.”
If someone tells me they’re a great songwriter and I think they’re pants I don’t “validate” them. Human beings are mostly deluded about their abilities.
” Love is truth, and never needlessly cruel.”
See ice cream and beer.
The good news is that this silly, offensive person has announced she won’t be standing for re-election, so she can spout all the nonsense she wants between now and May without worrying about losing votes. If in doing so she alienates potential SNP voters, well that’s fine by me.
https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/maree-todd-confirmed-as-snp-candidate-for-caithness-sutherland-and-ross-215317/
I suspect a lot of the anger &c exhibited by the pronouns people comes from cognitive dissonance. We instinctively know the difference between men and women – I doubt that Gail MacDonald (as she then was) made many mistakes on that score when she was behind the counter at Boots the Chemist (her first job, according to her Who’s Who entry).
The dopey Christiany preachery makes it even more obvious that his argument for pronouns is just Pascal’s Wager. The difference is only that eternal torment is replaced with emotional blackmail.
Pascal’s Wager crossed with Shakespeare’s sonnet – I have a feeling the goal was to echo the resonance of the “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment” one, which features a lot of “love is” statements.
Also in most Christian weddings.
Thanks, Roj. Now I can’t get those eyes out of my thoughts. Not just the eyes of the dog (horrifying sight to see an abused dog), but the eyes of the woman and child. I spent lots of time getting those eyes out of my mirror, now I gotta work to get ’em out of my brain.
Of course, if that helps keep me from falling for the nonsense the trans cult is peddling, well, good. Not that there was much danger of that, but just in case.