I haven’t watched the video yet, but have read the essay and would like to quote a bit of it: “In today’s society, even in gender critical circles, you are allowed your own personal relationship with the concept of a male woman, but to deny the holy spirit of male womanhood is completely unforgiveable.” A recent clip of a science authority figure in the U.K. gave me the creeps at the end of a clip with him emphatically stating the correct scientific facts, but then using the pronoun “she” in reference to a man in makeup. I couldn’t say it better than you did here - “…personal relationship with the concept of a male woman…” I turned 50 last November and it’s really been driving home the realization of the fact that men don’t acknowledge women’s personhood. They deny it as a group. Germaine Greer is correct in saying that women don’t understand just how much men hate us. Women are not a figment of men’s imagination, and it’s so deeply psychotic to think so that it’s taken quite a while to sink into my sometimes thick head how profoundly twisted it is. Sex objects. They see hair and makeup and think, “woman.” I’ve disturbed more than one man in the last six months by illustrating this for them in a way that I could tell bothered them deeply, as in my experience, many men 40+ cannot tell a sliced-up drugged male in makeup from a female similarly adorned.
Anyway, thank you very much for articulating the statement, “In today’s society, even in gender critical circles, you are allowed your own personal relationship with the concept of a male woman, but to deny the holy spirit of male womanhood is completely unforgiveable.” So twisted and so true. ❤️
Can you please restate or clarify the section below? I’m entirely with you on this essay, and see this is a critical section, but I don’t understand, especially the third sentence regarding the purpose of sex-based rights.
“It is sexual racialism - an attempt to racialize, render appearance-based, femaleness, a functional circumstance. Femaleness is a capacity, not a silhouette. The purpose of sex-based rights to be apart from maleness is to preserve physical and psychological health due to our capacity opposing the potential or realized capacity inherent to maleness.”
Yes, I read that 3 part times and still don't understand. The rest is clear as crystal, beautifully said as usual Exulansic. I've pinned it to my twitter profile this morning. Loved your statement that femals are linked to males by reproduction. It was such a breath of fresh air on the day I'm celebrating my 50th wedding anniversary quietly with my husband (as he's in the middle of treatment) but we will have a family celebration with our two sons and family when that's all done. So I know exactly what a man is! Thanks for your tireless work for us all. ❤️
She is saying they are giving femaleness the "race treatment". Race is based on appearance. Humans invented categories based on how we look. Because it's based on the way someone looks some people believe you could have hundreds or thousands of "races" in sub-saharan Africa due to the great phenotypical variation there is there. Racial segregation is based on the way someone looks. It is wrong because it has no basis. These people are no different, only superficially AND given invented, subjective categories. It is discriminatory. Ex is saying that femaleness isn't a "way you look", femaleness or maleness are not only circumstances we are born into, but ones that have specific, potential purposes/capabilities/functions. As a result female resembles a class like in programming - sort of like a blueprint with certain biological "purposes"/set of potential functions specific and inherent to it. Individuals are instances of their sex class meaning they have capacity to do something, whatever it is, not something superficial like "looking female" or "looking like a woman", which if you say being female is like race you view femaleness and maleness as two drawings on a paper.
Exulansic, could you please comment on the recent NYT article about Marceline Harvey (How Did a Two-Time Killer Get Out to Be Charged Again at Age 83?)?? This person is a serial killer and and self-identified trans woman who was let out of prison twice and then allowed to stay in a women’s shelter despite the fact that the women there were terrified to live with a murderer. He went on to murder and dismember one of these women.
Thank you for calling him "he." The NYT article repeatedly called him "she." There was no comment section or I would have. And somewhat appropo, I just rewatched "Silence of the Lambs." The AGP killer "Buffalo Bill" dance scene is the creepiest bit of cinema I have ever seen. Thanks to Exulansic,
Karen and Kelli Jean, we see these psychos with eyes afresh. They ARE a threat!
I would love for you to do a line-by-line analysis of that interview and all the contained bad arguments. That would be the only way I could tolerate 5 minutes of that smirking ahole. I love your word "cyclepath." Perfect!
I haven’t watched the video yet, but have read the essay and would like to quote a bit of it: “In today’s society, even in gender critical circles, you are allowed your own personal relationship with the concept of a male woman, but to deny the holy spirit of male womanhood is completely unforgiveable.” A recent clip of a science authority figure in the U.K. gave me the creeps at the end of a clip with him emphatically stating the correct scientific facts, but then using the pronoun “she” in reference to a man in makeup. I couldn’t say it better than you did here - “…personal relationship with the concept of a male woman…” I turned 50 last November and it’s really been driving home the realization of the fact that men don’t acknowledge women’s personhood. They deny it as a group. Germaine Greer is correct in saying that women don’t understand just how much men hate us. Women are not a figment of men’s imagination, and it’s so deeply psychotic to think so that it’s taken quite a while to sink into my sometimes thick head how profoundly twisted it is. Sex objects. They see hair and makeup and think, “woman.” I’ve disturbed more than one man in the last six months by illustrating this for them in a way that I could tell bothered them deeply, as in my experience, many men 40+ cannot tell a sliced-up drugged male in makeup from a female similarly adorned.
Anyway, thank you very much for articulating the statement, “In today’s society, even in gender critical circles, you are allowed your own personal relationship with the concept of a male woman, but to deny the holy spirit of male womanhood is completely unforgiveable.” So twisted and so true. ❤️
Can you please restate or clarify the section below? I’m entirely with you on this essay, and see this is a critical section, but I don’t understand, especially the third sentence regarding the purpose of sex-based rights.
“It is sexual racialism - an attempt to racialize, render appearance-based, femaleness, a functional circumstance. Femaleness is a capacity, not a silhouette. The purpose of sex-based rights to be apart from maleness is to preserve physical and psychological health due to our capacity opposing the potential or realized capacity inherent to maleness.”
Yes, I read that 3 part times and still don't understand. The rest is clear as crystal, beautifully said as usual Exulansic. I've pinned it to my twitter profile this morning. Loved your statement that femals are linked to males by reproduction. It was such a breath of fresh air on the day I'm celebrating my 50th wedding anniversary quietly with my husband (as he's in the middle of treatment) but we will have a family celebration with our two sons and family when that's all done. So I know exactly what a man is! Thanks for your tireless work for us all. ❤️
She is saying they are giving femaleness the "race treatment". Race is based on appearance. Humans invented categories based on how we look. Because it's based on the way someone looks some people believe you could have hundreds or thousands of "races" in sub-saharan Africa due to the great phenotypical variation there is there. Racial segregation is based on the way someone looks. It is wrong because it has no basis. These people are no different, only superficially AND given invented, subjective categories. It is discriminatory. Ex is saying that femaleness isn't a "way you look", femaleness or maleness are not only circumstances we are born into, but ones that have specific, potential purposes/capabilities/functions. As a result female resembles a class like in programming - sort of like a blueprint with certain biological "purposes"/set of potential functions specific and inherent to it. Individuals are instances of their sex class meaning they have capacity to do something, whatever it is, not something superficial like "looking female" or "looking like a woman", which if you say being female is like race you view femaleness and maleness as two drawings on a paper.
At the State Fair, can a castrated ram be shown in the ewe class?
NO!
And why not?
FUNCTION….
Exulansic, could you please comment on the recent NYT article about Marceline Harvey (How Did a Two-Time Killer Get Out to Be Charged Again at Age 83?)?? This person is a serial killer and and self-identified trans woman who was let out of prison twice and then allowed to stay in a women’s shelter despite the fact that the women there were terrified to live with a murderer. He went on to murder and dismember one of these women.
Thank you for calling him "he." The NYT article repeatedly called him "she." There was no comment section or I would have. And somewhat appropo, I just rewatched "Silence of the Lambs." The AGP killer "Buffalo Bill" dance scene is the creepiest bit of cinema I have ever seen. Thanks to Exulansic,
Karen and Kelli Jean, we see these psychos with eyes afresh. They ARE a threat!
I would love for you to do a line-by-line analysis of that interview and all the contained bad arguments. That would be the only way I could tolerate 5 minutes of that smirking ahole. I love your word "cyclepath." Perfect!
The video won't play in the uk
I will never forgive Trevor Noah for this.