Gender, Reductio ad absurdum

A lot of thoughts congealed into an amusing conclusion in my head recently.  This article of someone standing up to insanity was the catalyst for me writing it down:

Jared Leto came under fire from a heckler Tuesday, who said the Dallas Buyers Club actor didn’t deserve to be honored for his work in the film.

“Trans-misogyny does not deserve an award,” said the unidentified woman, who attended the Santa Barbara International Film Festival’s Virtuosos Award tribute honoring Leto and three others who gave breakthrough performances in 2013.

“What do you mean by that?” Leto asked, to which the heckler said, “You don’t deserve an award for portraying a trans-woman, because you’re a man.”

“Because I’m a man, I don’t deserve to play that part?” Letoasked, rhetorically. “So you would hold a role against someone who happened to be gay or lesbian — they can’t play a straight part?”

Progressive dialogues lean heavily on ambiguity to sign up foot soldiers for a reasonable cause only to send them on campaigns on insanity.  This is how a clueless 20-something in a bar says, “Of course I’m a feminist, feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”  (This is real.  You can even buy a t-shirt)  While this isn’t exactly false, it is an understatement of so many orders of magnitude it is essentially a lie of omission, somewhat like saying a lot of Native Americans got sick when the Europeans arrived.  It’s how the clueless ones end up hopping into bed (ha!  two puns in one night) with the types of females who write things like this and this.

Anyway, I’m getting off topic.

It is common knowledge that it is not allowable to suggest that women necessarily (as a norm) or often (as a description):

  • Have long hair
  • Wear dresses, skirts, or other traditionally feminine clothes
  • Wear makeup
  • Are better or worse suited for certain jobs than men (Double-edged sword.  Feminists will own up to being somehow superior to men, but simultaneously will refuse to admit it lest they be pigeonholed)
  • Tend to be more or less interested in certain things than men

Recently, we have added to this list the insanity of Blank-Slatism taken to an extreme and California passing a bill that allows schoolchildren to use the restroom of their choice.

On top of this, the newest front in The Revolution, “Feminist Intersectionality,” is unfolding much to my amusement.  How far down the rabbit hole have we fallen?

In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. “Given the constant genital policing, you can’t expect trans folks to feel included by an event title focused on a policed, binary genital,” tweeted @DrJaneChi, an abortion and transgender health provider. (She mentioned “internal genitals” as an alternative.) When Plimpton insisted that she would continue to say “vagina,” her feed filled up with indignation. “So you’re really committed to doubling down on using a term that you’ve been told many times is exclusionary & harmful?” asked one self-described intersectional feminist blogger.

Yes, there is a serious debate among the vocal feminist crowd over whether or not it is appropriate to assume the term “vagina” is automatically associated with “women.”

And herein lies my realization:

I could, at any time, without changing my clothes, my appearance, my mannerisms, my legal status, my inner child, my inner self, my sexual orientation, my physical anatomy, literally absolutely nothing whatesoever about myself, then declare myself to be a woman, entirely justified by the criteria of the academics above.  (Which certainly complicates the question of whether my sexual orientation changed, doesn’t it?)  We have really reached the point where gender is the difference between tomato/to-mah-to.

Progressivism requires no parody; it is unbound by reality and certain to contradict itself in hilarious ways over and over again.


2 thoughts on “Gender, Reductio ad absurdum

  1. Pingback: Reading Roundup: 14-02-09 | iParallax

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s