That’s one way of looking at it.
But it’s the wrong way. It’s not that we lacked the language and understanding of a truth, it’s that we hadn’t been bombarded with the rhetoric and bullying of a stupid ideology.
“Trans identities” are not a scientific discovery, they’re a pseudo-official name for a type of fantasy.
The fact that the ideology of “trans identities” is younger than the lack of the ideology of “trans identities” does not mean that the ideology is truth. Lots of things are young and new and also bullshit. It’s a delusion to think that knowledge and understanding always and everywhere improve over time. People in the 80s didn’t have QAnon, either, and that didn’t make them worse off.
Comments
21 responses to “The arrow of progress”
Hell, we’re still fighting against things that are old and bullshit, like astrology and gender stereotypes, no need to pile on more.
Yeah, they might have been Mormon, too, so maybe the church should posthumously baptize them into the faith.
Don’t go around claiming people were trans who cannot affirm or deny for themselves.
They have been doing this to historical figures for a while, particularly women who dressed as men to survive (or because they wanted to). Sort of retconning them into trans heroes, instead of “merely” gay or simply non-conforming for whatever reason.
By the same argument, one can argue that the vast majority of murder victims today are actually trans people that aren’t “out”, perhaps even trans people that (still! OMG!) don’t have the language or understanding to label themselves as such.
In 2020 in the US, 19,000 people died in shootings or other gun-related violence. I think that we can safely assume that at least 18,500 of them were closeted trans. See, the math works! The vast majority of murder victims are trans, and therefore cis people have privilege!
Then there’s the argument that all TERFs are actually transmen in denial. (There goes the argument that only you get to define what gender you are.)
Transphobia through the ages, pfft. Homophobia covered that territory back in the 80’s, but I’m sure the trans cult wants to appropriate it’s fair share. There were crossdressers and transsexuals in the 80’s. Some of us older folks who were alive and witnessed them back then can attest to that. Just because the trans cult is creating it’s own new dialect doesn’t mean anything has changed, except that recruiting, grooming, and promoting of it to children was not tolerated. Were these “historians” even alive then? :P
GW @5 It sure does seem sometimes like the trans cult has it’s own trans binary, either you’re trans or transphobic. And they want us to accept a ‘spectrum’… :P
I think that you can be nonbinary and still not transphobic. You can probably also be nonbinary and transphobic.
So maybe the categories are:
CIS PEOPLE — Always transphobic. “Their cis social conditioning which begins at birth and never ends permits nothing else.” (here; although perhaps that’s only cis women. Presumably cis men don’t need to earn or achieve manhood, since manhood, unlike womanhood, isn’t something that needs to be “earned” or “achieved”. Right?)
TRANSPHOBIC NON-BINARY “FOLKS”
NON-TRANSPHOBIC NON-BINARY “FOLKS”
TRANS PEOPLE
I’d gotten the impression that the transsexuals of the 70s and 80s were just a subtype of gay man, an overenthusiastic drag queen if you will. I’m sure they suffered just as much…
But they share about as much DNA with modern trans”folx” as that mob at the Capitol did with Thomas Jefferson and friends.
I just looked up the spelling “folx”.
https://forfolxsake.com/what-does-the-term-folx-mean/#:~:text=%22Folx%22%20is%20an%20alternative%20spelling,indicate%20inclusion%20of%20marginalized%20groups.
How can these people take themselves seriously? Putting an X in a word makes it more inclusive? Wxy dxn’t wxe jxst pxt oxne ixn evxry wxrd?
GWX – but not in x-ray or xylophone, probably. Because reasons. So we would have -ray and ylophone.
Nice. Maybe we can just call them “inclusive-ray” and “inclusive phone”!
GW – you’re being silly now. You’re not supposed to add an x to words, that would be ridiculous. You are meant to replaxe oxe letxer.
For maximum inclusiveness, clearly we must replace ALL letters with x. Xxxx xxxx xxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx, X xx xxxx.
The News for Parrots…The News for Wombats.
Holms, I’m guessing “I am sure” for the last part of that sentence.
I just read that “article” on the spelling of folx and now I’m wondering why they haven’t noticed how exclusionary the word “people” is.
So when Charles Manson and his cult members scratched those ‘X’s into their foreheads, they were only signalling inclusivity?
#16
“This will not cause any confusion whatsoever, I am sure”
:O
I am mildly embarrassed by how much time I spent going “when then they that will this” etc.
No doubt!
Manson’s cult killed indiscriminately, so yeah.