Oh wait hold the phone we have to stop being pleased that Kamala Harris is VP. It’s transphobic to be pleased! Stop it at once or I’ll tell the authorities.
Maybe it’s satire. Is there any chance it’s satire?
Oh wait hold the phone we have to stop being pleased that Kamala Harris is VP. It’s transphobic to be pleased! Stop it at once or I’ll tell the authorities.
Maybe it’s satire. Is there any chance it’s satire?
Comments
24 responses to “Super yucky”
Yeah, I strongly suspect satire. The fact that the name is redacted (in the original tweet, not by OB) so that there’s no way to verify who said this or what their intentions were, means I see no reason to take it seriously.
I’m pretty sure I made a satirical comment here along those same lines not too long ago. Not that I’m suggesting it was copied — it’s a pretty obvious joke.
It might be satire, but almost certainly not. Even if it is, Popehat’s rule of goats probably applies.
Whatever is is, it’s mind numbingly stupid, as well as poorly written.
Hold everything! I’ve got it!
All the author of the above has to do is wander round in public with his/ her/ its donger hanging out, with a label on it that says (with arrows pointing to it) THIS IS A FEMALE DONGER. THERE FOUR i AM A FEMALE. Alternatively, the sign could say I AM A FEMALE. THERE FOUR THIS IS A FEMALE DONGER.!
Yet again, he/ she /it (delete whichever is inapplicable) could amble off into the sunset proclaiming as he/ she/ it went THIS IS A FEMALE DONGER. THERE FOUR i AM A FEMALE AND AS I AM A FEMALE THERE FOUR THIS IS A FEMALE DONGER, AND THERE FOUR I AM A FEMALE …. (ETC)
Trying to be as helpful as possible in this worthy cause, I would also suggest that he /she/ it could paint the donger with fluoescent paint and hang some low voltage LED spotlamps off his/ he/ its belt to light said donger and sign up at night..
Could get him all the attention he/ she/ it seeks, and more.
There four is going to live forever, isn’t it.
(It was why I wondered if it could be satire.)
I think that “there four” is simply a result of speech-to-text.
Oh I always forget about that. Such a silly technology (except for people with disabilities).
Does speech to text strip out apostrophes?
i dont no. [sic]
The text strikes me as a right-winger attempting to use perceived language and arguments of the left to press a right-wing position. The position, in this case, is to stop making a big deal about KH being female. There are entirely too many examples of this kind of using other people’s arguments poorly; they are common in the abortion “debate”, for instance. So, not genuine, not satire, more like mimicry, perhaps?
The fact that we can’t be sure shows just how far things have gone. The poor Onion staff must really have to work to come up with something that is satire anymore.
1. What are the signs (other than “there four”) that are making people so suspicious? The use of “AMAB” seems pretty real.
2. Can we ask the Twitter reposter where they found it?
Is there a clue here about Pence’s constant prattling on about “Mother Pence ” . . .
. . . Cheney, Quayle, Bush, Ford, Rockefeller, Agnew . . .
How big are those closets in the Whitehouse?
Could be some kid who has discovered his/ her/ its sexual identity while still learning his/ her/ its ABC.
It reads as pretty genuine to me. Poe’s law is certainly applicable, but it is not the first time we have seen ‘historical transing’. Hell, we’ve probably all also seen this speech applied to animals – “stop calling your pets boys or girls, they are not able to communicate their identity” sort of thing.
‘Since they are now dead and can’t speak for themselves’…? Uh, didn’t we actually literally just see a former Vice President being inaugurated, in the presence of another former Vice President?
I’m pleased Kamala has been labeled transphobic, now she can shitcan the “she/her” nonsense from her twitter profile. :)
Yeah, it’s either real or an example of Poe’s law. We’ve all seen enough real examples exactly like this to know that it is as good of an example of mindless trans activism as any real one, if it’s fake, and as Holms says, historical trans-ing is indeed a thing.
Anyone who is not advocating for men in women only spaces or women only activities is transphobic, that’s the trans cult dogma. That includes nearly all of us. It’s like the religious types who think we are all subject to their God whether or not we believe in or practice their religion.
Even if it’s sincere, does it matter? I’m not a big fan of “nutpicking,” where you grab a ridiculous comment from some random person and hold it up like it means something.
If this is someone who’s in a position of power, or even someone with some influence or popularity among activists, ok. But I was never impressed when people tried stuff like “hey, here’s a jerkass comment from RandomAtheist6969 on Reddit, this proves atheists are jerkasses,” and I want to be consistent. There’s plenty of ridiculous stuff coming from actual trans activists with followings; no need to go digging for it.
Fair point. It grabbed my attention when I happened to see it (one does happen to see things on Twitter, because it all depends on what the algorithm shows you) because of the “let’s deny women something” pattern it fits. That pattern irritates me quite a lot.
Screechy, I think this does matter. (And maybe they weren’t digging for it; maybe it showed up in their Twitter feed. I don’t know how it works, because I’m not on Twitter.)
Why I think it matters: Because if this is sincere, it is an attempt to rip a historic moment from women. It is an attempt to deny us the history-making moment of finally having a woman VP, while trying to force us to accept that men VPs who lived as men, worked as men, had male privilege out the wazoo, might…might, mind you, because we don’t know, and have literally not one shred of evidence to support such a claim…prefer to be a woman.
Because if it is sincere (and possibly if it isn’t), it is likely to catch on and spread, and become a new meme, and be weaponized against women who want to celebrate the first time we have seen a woman attain the second highest role in the executive branch. This is a moment we are savoring, and they are telling us not to savor it, because some man somewhere might think differently. Some man (let’s say John Nance Garner just for kicks) might prefer to be Jane Nancy Garner, so we can, without proof, remove the joy and pleasure women take in having a woman attain this status.
They are trying to take away not only our present and our future, but our past; whether this tweet is sincere or not, there have been numerous cases of “transing” historical figures. Now they want to erase women not only into perpetuity going forward, they are trying to erase us going backward. This is just an extension of the idea that sex (not the act, but the category) was invented by western imperialists.
I for one do not wish to see delusional males stealing my past, my present, or my future. I am a woman, goddamit, not a “uterus-haver” or a “front hole” or a “not man”. Nor am I a “cis” woman. I am a woman. I wish to claim the history of my sex (to the extent that we can know it) without having a bunch of men in dresses decide who is and isn’t (or was and wasn’t) a woman.
Sure as hell it matters.
Ikn, I don’t know if you intended to channel Helen Reddy in the last paragraph, but now that song is stuck in my head. ;)
And that was a damn good song.
twiliter, I did not, but you’re welcome anyway.