The Last Psychiatrist has an interesting read about a woman claiming to be a man playing on George Washington University's woman's basketball team.
![[Image: first-transgender-basketbal__oPt.jpg]](http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/first-transgender-basketbal__oPt.jpg)
This story is about a woman, with no hormone treatment or anything, that has decided that she is a man and wants everybody to treat her as such.
TLP points out, here, is that the story is really a non-story because it is in the media and the media is using transsexuality as a way of reinforcing their role as the decider. Of social mores, science - everything. He notes that the story is framed as putting you 100% on the defensive if you question the narrative as spun by them.
He mentions that "The Situation" - of Jersey Shore fame - made out with a tranny. He felt betrayed because he consented to kissing a woman, not a man posing as a female. Of course, GLAAD denounced the situation, ripping back control of the definition of transgender issues back from real, concrete definitions and tossing back to the authority figures in the media who will, presumably, game the "definition" in their favor.
While he doesn't explicitly state it, what is supremely confusing - and is explained by narcissism - is what exactly transgenderism means. The comments flesh out the narcissism behind the issue.
I will not be breaking down the exchanges, but one commenter, named destlund, took strong issue with TLP's analysis. He ignored the authoritarianism behind the whole issue, implicitly admitting he only gives a damn if authority figures don't do what he wants, and in his first comment invokes Butlerian analysis of gender: that is nothing more than a performance. He eventually admits that he is an effeminate gay man.
The inherent problem with sort of analysis is that is it is firmly born out of narcissism. Instead of drawing conclusions from statistics, observations of people who are not you, destlund starts from himself and multiplies by 7 billion. Instead of understanding most people do NOT have issues related to their gender (to be sure, the Millennial generation has issues because of feminism), destlund ports his personal issues out to people at large and then pretends his biological state is socially constructed.
Once again, as TLP pointed out, this is highly confusing. destlund claims to be born biologically gay, talks about the horrid oppression that was visited upon him and then claims personal approaches to his sex expression are socially constructed. Huh? Have I drank that much Sailor Jerry tonight?
No, he needs to twist the narrative in order to slake his own narcissism. destlund thinks that if authority figures change their tune on homosexuality and transsexuality, then he will finally get what he claims to want - personal happiness. No, what he wants is approval from authority figures and, as such, will always be unhappy because said desire is narcissistic and will always result in his self-esteem riding on every news story, every video clip, everything. That is what is like to be a narcissist - constant insecurity about your identity that need to be validated by others.
destlund goes on to opine that he wants to live in a world that uses non-gendered pronouns. Silly man. Authority figures draining the world of masculinity and femininity will do NOTHING to shore up your self-esteem - only you can do that throw a real, substantive valuation of yourself and valuing yourself apart from other's approval. In fact, it will make his internal worsen as the day begins to encroach that he will face to face himself in the mirror - warts and all. He doesn't see that when he looks the mirror - he either sees a horribly oppressed victim or an absolutely awesome hero.
Consider this comment by commenter mysteriously named anonymous:
Inadvertently, this comment blows the discussion wide open and reinserts why this discussion is inherently ridiculous - we are only debating whether men can be born in women's bodies precisely because the parameters of debate have been determined by authority figures.
![[Image: Laura-Jane-Grace-009.jpg]](https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/7/20/1342797724706/Laura-Jane-Grace-009.jpg)
Consider: if destlund is right, and everything related to masculinity and femininity is just a construction, than an interesting situation emerges: do we accept transgenders because they were born that way or because they chose to transition? Of course, that ISN'T a question, as we have to accept their "choice" 100% of time or we are misogynistic or transphobic.
What the commenter highlights above is the inherent bizarre nature of this situation: can I be a black person in a white person's body? According to destlund's analysis, race and sex/gender are all simply constructions. People should be free to identity as they wish. Alright, then - I am transitioning to being a black person tomorrow. Don't get mad when I use that to my advantage in the college admissions process - its not about you, but about my repressed identity as a black person. Sure, I may never undergo the skin color transition, but don't you EVER tell me that my decisions about my body are not mine to make. I AM black.
This debate isn't about sex, race, transsexuality or anything like that. It is about the relationship between authority figures, our own narcissism and our delusions about the "decisions" we make as humans. So preoccupied with our own inability to properly value ourselves, we invent these fictitious narratives about ourselves that allow us to insert ourselves in other's realities. I recall reading a blog post about a man transitioning into a woman and recalling about he was realizing how oppressed women were and how dangerous it was to just walk around in society and be female. In the same article, he recalled how when he was "just" a male he never felt threatened when some random dude grabbed his ass or touched him non-consensually.
What he didn't realize is that was acceding to the narrative the women have it worse than men in society, most specifically the hyped-up fear of male desire. When he was a gay man, he was indifferent to male desire. Yet, suddenly, as a "straight woman" he was terrified of male sexuality. You could advance the argument that much, much more men are heterosexual but that ignores the fact he was completely comfortable with men expressing their sexuality onto men, not so when they were expressing it onto women.
The whole trainwreck of this discussion is completely bound up in the fact the terms are so authoritatively controlled by the media. We don't think that gay people can be born in straight people's bodies, only that men can be born in women's bodies. People would likely reply, "Well if you that is true, then submit a scientific paper to a university and see if it gets peer reviewed." Narcissism on narcissism. You aren't a scientist, why to you believe that transgenderism is real? Because you have been told by the true deciders - the media, not scientists. Who gives a shit about peer review? If a paper about the inferiority of gay parenting got peer reviewed, you wouldn't dispute the validity, you would turn to a higher authority - NYT, Jezebel or whatever outlet you prefer.
This whole non-debate is infuriating because it expressly denies any real expression of thought. However, that is the reality. TLP closes with that he has enough rum to drink this all away. A long-term joke on the blog as alcoholism is narcissistic, but is true in the sense observant people kowtow to the system not by being active narcissistic participants, but as narcissistic outsiders.
This story is about a woman, with no hormone treatment or anything, that has decided that she is a man and wants everybody to treat her as such.
TLP points out, here, is that the story is really a non-story because it is in the media and the media is using transsexuality as a way of reinforcing their role as the decider. Of social mores, science - everything. He notes that the story is framed as putting you 100% on the defensive if you question the narrative as spun by them.
He mentions that "The Situation" - of Jersey Shore fame - made out with a tranny. He felt betrayed because he consented to kissing a woman, not a man posing as a female. Of course, GLAAD denounced the situation, ripping back control of the definition of transgender issues back from real, concrete definitions and tossing back to the authority figures in the media who will, presumably, game the "definition" in their favor.
While he doesn't explicitly state it, what is supremely confusing - and is explained by narcissism - is what exactly transgenderism means. The comments flesh out the narcissism behind the issue.
I will not be breaking down the exchanges, but one commenter, named destlund, took strong issue with TLP's analysis. He ignored the authoritarianism behind the whole issue, implicitly admitting he only gives a damn if authority figures don't do what he wants, and in his first comment invokes Butlerian analysis of gender: that is nothing more than a performance. He eventually admits that he is an effeminate gay man.
The inherent problem with sort of analysis is that is it is firmly born out of narcissism. Instead of drawing conclusions from statistics, observations of people who are not you, destlund starts from himself and multiplies by 7 billion. Instead of understanding most people do NOT have issues related to their gender (to be sure, the Millennial generation has issues because of feminism), destlund ports his personal issues out to people at large and then pretends his biological state is socially constructed.
Once again, as TLP pointed out, this is highly confusing. destlund claims to be born biologically gay, talks about the horrid oppression that was visited upon him and then claims personal approaches to his sex expression are socially constructed. Huh? Have I drank that much Sailor Jerry tonight?
No, he needs to twist the narrative in order to slake his own narcissism. destlund thinks that if authority figures change their tune on homosexuality and transsexuality, then he will finally get what he claims to want - personal happiness. No, what he wants is approval from authority figures and, as such, will always be unhappy because said desire is narcissistic and will always result in his self-esteem riding on every news story, every video clip, everything. That is what is like to be a narcissist - constant insecurity about your identity that need to be validated by others.
destlund goes on to opine that he wants to live in a world that uses non-gendered pronouns. Silly man. Authority figures draining the world of masculinity and femininity will do NOTHING to shore up your self-esteem - only you can do that throw a real, substantive valuation of yourself and valuing yourself apart from other's approval. In fact, it will make his internal worsen as the day begins to encroach that he will face to face himself in the mirror - warts and all. He doesn't see that when he looks the mirror - he either sees a horribly oppressed victim or an absolutely awesome hero.
Consider this comment by commenter mysteriously named anonymous:
Quote:Quote:
Exactly. You ARE gay. You didn't choose it, and you can't change it. But imagine a future world where you can have surgery to change your sexual orientation! Transitioning is a long, difficult process, but for whatever reason, you feel that you're actually a heterosexual man stuck in a homosexual body/brain.
You tell everyone the embarassing truth- even though you were born gay, you've never felt entirely comfortable with it, and you want to transition.
Should your friends start calling you straight?
Your mom?
Your teachers?
Inadvertently, this comment blows the discussion wide open and reinserts why this discussion is inherently ridiculous - we are only debating whether men can be born in women's bodies precisely because the parameters of debate have been determined by authority figures.
Consider: if destlund is right, and everything related to masculinity and femininity is just a construction, than an interesting situation emerges: do we accept transgenders because they were born that way or because they chose to transition? Of course, that ISN'T a question, as we have to accept their "choice" 100% of time or we are misogynistic or transphobic.
What the commenter highlights above is the inherent bizarre nature of this situation: can I be a black person in a white person's body? According to destlund's analysis, race and sex/gender are all simply constructions. People should be free to identity as they wish. Alright, then - I am transitioning to being a black person tomorrow. Don't get mad when I use that to my advantage in the college admissions process - its not about you, but about my repressed identity as a black person. Sure, I may never undergo the skin color transition, but don't you EVER tell me that my decisions about my body are not mine to make. I AM black.
This debate isn't about sex, race, transsexuality or anything like that. It is about the relationship between authority figures, our own narcissism and our delusions about the "decisions" we make as humans. So preoccupied with our own inability to properly value ourselves, we invent these fictitious narratives about ourselves that allow us to insert ourselves in other's realities. I recall reading a blog post about a man transitioning into a woman and recalling about he was realizing how oppressed women were and how dangerous it was to just walk around in society and be female. In the same article, he recalled how when he was "just" a male he never felt threatened when some random dude grabbed his ass or touched him non-consensually.
What he didn't realize is that was acceding to the narrative the women have it worse than men in society, most specifically the hyped-up fear of male desire. When he was a gay man, he was indifferent to male desire. Yet, suddenly, as a "straight woman" he was terrified of male sexuality. You could advance the argument that much, much more men are heterosexual but that ignores the fact he was completely comfortable with men expressing their sexuality onto men, not so when they were expressing it onto women.
The whole trainwreck of this discussion is completely bound up in the fact the terms are so authoritatively controlled by the media. We don't think that gay people can be born in straight people's bodies, only that men can be born in women's bodies. People would likely reply, "Well if you that is true, then submit a scientific paper to a university and see if it gets peer reviewed." Narcissism on narcissism. You aren't a scientist, why to you believe that transgenderism is real? Because you have been told by the true deciders - the media, not scientists. Who gives a shit about peer review? If a paper about the inferiority of gay parenting got peer reviewed, you wouldn't dispute the validity, you would turn to a higher authority - NYT, Jezebel or whatever outlet you prefer.
This whole non-debate is infuriating because it expressly denies any real expression of thought. However, that is the reality. TLP closes with that he has enough rum to drink this all away. A long-term joke on the blog as alcoholism is narcissistic, but is true in the sense observant people kowtow to the system not by being active narcissistic participants, but as narcissistic outsiders.
