This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we discover that feminism is evolving into new ways to try and demonise and oppress the average members in society. Admittedly this article was written last year, but I happened to stumble upon this pile of bollocks by chance, which turned out to be an unfortunate occurrence.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/
__________________________________________________________________________________
Just when you thought you'd heard everything they come up with, 'cissexism' manages to be the new low. Have you honestly ever heard of such a stupid way to criticise the lives of ordinary people? Does it not occur to people that that the reason we might live in a society that assumes gender based on genitals is become the vast majority of people aren't transsexuals, and that actually genitals are a fucking accurate indicator? How much of a massive idiot do you have to be to think that genitals aren't a good indication on the gender of a person? As physical features go it's a pretty handy guide to what gender a person might be, so I don't know if the author wants everyone to have their hormones or chromosomes sampled, but if it's alright with me I'd rather live in a judgmental world. What hellish world would we live in if this 'cissexism' was taken seriously? The whole concept of biological sex would just be thrown out the window, which is a fucking dumb thing to try and remove.
But that wasn't enough for this author, who apparently believes that babies will have the ability to distinguish what gender they are even before they have any idea what the concept is. How dare doctors try and determine the gender of the baby just by looking at the genitals. No, the correct way to do it should be by asking the fucking baby who's yet to develop the ability to even speak. That's right doctors, forget all that biology stuff in your degree, it's the sociological aspects of childbirth that are most important. In my opinion there simply isn't a way to naturally change your gender since it's impossible to modify the set of chromosomes your parents gave you during development. I have nothing against people wanting to identify themselves as different genders, but their sex will always be the same, so these societal attitudes towards gender exist for a very valid reason; unlike anything in this article.
Yeah I wonder why society makes 'cissexist' assumptions? Is it because the majority of people identify themselves as the same gender they were conceived as? Surely you must be aware that transgender people do not represent any form of normality, and so it shouldn't be a surprise that 'cisgender' people are logically seen as normal or more natural than their apparently oppressed counterparts. You can't seriously be suggesting that being transsexual is in any way normal, since every bit of factual evidence shows that this section of society is anything but. The same goes with sex changes, which are in no way a natural construct. The desire to change gender is very much natural, but that's not enough reasoning to suggest that this leads to discrimination when you have absolutely no sources to back up society's apparently intrinsic hatred for this section of society.
So now parents aren't even allowed to have a say what gender their child is at birth. What fucking world do you want us to live in? Since when should making polite conversation over what gender the child is be seen as something to frown upon? I don't know if you would prefer if the parents were asked something less 'cissexist', like "has the child got any physical deformities?" But under this hellish system we shouldn't even be allowed to tell other people if our child has got a penis or not. If a woman is allowed to abort the damn thing, why the hell shouldn't she be allowed to determine it's gender? The argument then somehow gets worse by claiming that sonograms can't determine gender. I don't know if you wanted the damn things to predict the future as well, but what they are designed to do is give an indication of what gender your child will be born considering it's an infant coming out of the womb and not a fucking gender studies expert.
In your hellish future we would have to have politically correct sonograms that would have to censor the genitals to the parents because that would be making 'cissexist' assumptions. Not only does that make one of the most exciting parts of childbirth anticlimactic and confusing considering that the majority of names are gender specific, but it's also pretty stupid considering that it's over a baby who can't identify itself as different genders. Being as babies are essentially just shitting machines for the first year or so I think we can forgive the parents for assuming that their child with a knob is a boy. But I'm sure you can see reasoning behind this system of oppressing the majority for the sake of the minority. If you genuinely think that sheltering your child from the concept of gender is a good thing then I'm not sure your offspring will be able to function in the real world. Then again, I'm surprised you have.
Oh no, I hate those assumptions that are based on the truth; what is the world coming too? There may well be a chance that the child will turn out to be transgender, but there's also a chance that it will turn out to be a mass murderer, so should we just imprison it on the spot? What a stupid argument. Imagine the horrific life being this woman's child. She'd tell me as a boy that it was perfectly normal to walk into the ladies toilets and that the women's clothes that I unknowingly chose will not in any way get me bullied at any social gathering. This denial of reality might be justifiable to the author, but what about the others that this madness will unfairly effect? I would recommend that if parents do want to make themselves less 'cissexist' then sterilising yourselves would be my advice. But oh god not women, no saying women need to be sterilised in sexist and oppressive. The white heterosexual male that is myself needs to check his privilege.
That's right, criticise that fucking education system for stupidly trying to teach our kids about safe sex and avoiding STD's. I too don't understand why the curriculum just wouldn't cater for the minority. I have nothing against your ideas being brought up in a sociology class, as nothing in sociology classes is ever taken seriously, but to try and force this sort of nonsense into a factually based subject is a symbol of how stupid this argument is. Biology will factually inform children that men have penises and women have vaginas thanks to centuries of research and common fucking sense, and that will indeed rightfully conflate gender with genitals, because unlike your bullshit this side of the argument is based on facts alone.
With your less 'cissexist' education system children are just going to be alienated by learning from a young age that two reproductive systems exist for either gender, which will in turn lead to a lot of sexually confused adolescents. Not only does this defeat the whole purpose of sex education, but it will also detach children from how their own bodies work, all so you can cater for the possibility that an imaginary child might want to switch genders. Essentially this article is just a big middle finger to the factually based discipline of biology, replacing these facts with illogical feelings. But hey it's not as if life sciences are good for the transsexual community anyway. No, aside from making the process of gender reassignment possible they're all a bunch of 'cissexist' assholes.
'Teaching generalisations can be harmful' No, I can see absolutely nothing hypocritical about that statement. I can't recall one single generalisation in this whole article. Maybe that quote should be altered to 'teaching bollocks can be harmful'; that would be more appropriate for this article. Unfortunately in a scientific argument like this we have to talk about generalisations, and at no point in the article do you ever prove how they can be harmful. Call me blind but I've certainly seen no evidence that telling me I have a penis has been detrimental, nor how that fact is even related to the number of female presidents. Surely that's like comparing apples and oranges. Since when did teaching children about biological theories held for hundreds of years become the same as a current gender related issue about politics? But no apparently these generalisations are harmful, and so sheltering children from the reality is obviously the best method. If you want the instances of females becoming presidents to be higher I can assure you that labeling these generalisations as 'harmful' is not the way forward. I think your version of logic is different to everyone else's darling.
What brilliant factual reasoning we get to end the argument. "Many men can fall pregnant." That may be true if we were talking about pipefish, but unfortunately for you they don't understand gender constructs. The fact is that in a human male that's unfortunately biologically impossible. I don't care how you identify yourself, if you have the visceral organs of a human male then you cannot give birth, nor have you ever been able too. The only way a 'man' can fall pregnant is if they still contained female reproductive organs at the time of conception, but giving birth is still an impossibility, so why the fuck should men have birth rights? I like how this article concludes by trying to claim that sexism is present in the abortion debate, and then blatantly ignores that observation by trying to exclude men who identify themselves as men from the argument. Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical? How dare those selfish men have an opinion? This sort of attitude to the debate might reflect 19th century society, but how could I possibly know that? I'm a white heterosexual man and so therefore can't have an opinion on the matter. Especially as I would try and turn this argument towards a factual debate rather than focus on my feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment