Support Exulansic one-time or recurring at:
ko-fi.com/exulansic
paypal.me/exulansic
exulansic.substack.com
MERCH
https://skullprint.co.uk/shop/ols/products/exulansic-c-t-shirt
exulansic.sellfy.store
Instagram @exulansic
Tiktok@exulansicbeta
Twitter @ttexulansic
Facebook: To Exulansic
Transcript:
“If you don’t think we still need pride, you’re not paying attention!” The form of it! Just the utter form of it. “If you don’t think we still need pride, you’re not paying attention.” So that implies that there was a time that I thought we did need pride, and then that changed. Why would it change? Would it spontaneously change, or would it change because I was attending in some way? Okay, let’s keep going.
“More people coming out as trans, means more people are waking up. Cis, binary gender is a socially constructed fallacy.” What? Okay that seems a little bit counter to your aims as ideologues, because you want us to embrace this idea that cis is not a slur. I’ve only been saying for over a year now that cis is a slur. It’s clearly a slur. But now our genders are socially constructed fallacies. Your genders are not, though. Even though supposedly, cis and trans women are both women. We have the same gender. So why is it a socially constructed fallacy when it’s mine? You wanna explain that?
“Approximately 1.6 million people over 13 identify as transgender in the United States.” Which as they’ve already admitted, conceded, that identifying as trans coincides with waking up to some idea that a binary gender - so not just you, but society’s whole ideas about gender, that all those genders of most people - because most people are cis, right? Isn’t that the idea? - are a fallacy in some way. So there is a conscious revelation that is happening that is leading to people coming out as trans, and that revelation is not that they’re the other gender, that revelation is that gender is bullshit in some way unless it’s trans. That’s the only legitimate way to exist now as a gender. Who saw that coming? I did.
“An increase in visibility has statistically allowed more queer people to publicly embrace who they are.” I don’t even understand what that means. It’s word salad. I think that they mean that “monkey see, monkey do.” Hopefully that clarifies the point that they are conceding here, which is that it’s a fad. It is a fad that has taken off because everyone sees all the other people doing it. And it looks fun. It looks cool. Look at all the attention they’re getting. Look at all the validation they’re getting. Look at how doors just open for them. I want that too. I want that for me.
“And simultaneously makes room for queerphobes to call our identities “a trend.”” You just established that it’s a trend. There’s a trend where more and more of them are appearing, and it’s not because people are feeling like it’s legitimate to come out, it’s because they are realizing that other people’s understanding of hte world is wrong. And their new understanding, that they’ve adopted socially from other people in this ideological awakening, one might call it. It seems like people are awakening to things. Has that ever happened before? Have we had any great awakenings in American history before?
“In the early 1700s, worshippers of all denominations worried that religious piety was eroding in the colonies. By the early 18th century, religion has really fallen off in new england. The congregations are largely female. The churches are half-empty. It’s no longer the kind of place that we associate with Puritanism, and you begin to get these movements. Several religious revivals swept through the colonies in the 1730s and the 1740s. Known as the “Great Awakening,” this religious fire was sparked in part by traveling ministers from England. What’s beginning to happen is that you begin to get a few preachers who are preaching in a much more emotional style, and then there’s also these people who come in from Europe. George Whitefield is one - who travel throughout the colonies and preach in this very emotional style. And suddenly, people are very interested in religion. Whitefield delivered his powerful sermons outdoors, to thousands of listeners. It becomes a kind of mass movement in various locations and you get not only George Whitefield, but then American ministers. Some of them become what they call itinerants, meaning they travel around. And so they start holding their meetings out in open fields and the effect is really amazing. But now people are out in these fields where everyone is jostling together and there’s no hierarchy and everybody is equally important. Colonial ministers like Jonathan Edwards soon followed in Whitefield’s footsteps. One sermon, called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” implored colonists to repent and threatened them with horrifying depictions of hell. Other ministers encouraged colonists to break away from the past and begin again in the eyes of god. These great awakening sermons appealed most to those who were struggling: sons denied an inheritance, women who didn’t have equal rights, and the poor. Ministers of established churches accused these new evangelizers of sowing disrespect and disorder. The so-called old lights, the people who wanted to stay with traditional ways, and the new lights, the people who were in favor of the awakening, would split. And the new lights often would go out and build their own separate church with their own congregation. Different religious sects sprouted in the American colonies, including the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches. The revivals of the great awakening weakened the hold of older Puritan denominations, and gave America more religious diversity than ever before.”
I got annoyed at first because I thought that he was literally overlooking every single religious branch in the United States prior to colonization, and contemporary to colonization, and surviving colonization - just kidding, colonization didn’t end. But I looked it up. It turns out, a diversity is just the mass noun for Christian denominations. So you would say a “pod of whales,” a “murder of crows,” a “herd of cattle,” and a “diversity of Christianities.”
“When queerness is labeled a trend, it becomes a weapon aimed to degrade the integrity of very real queer people.” That’s what we call a misplaced modifier. The referent of “it” is unclear now because, is it referring to labeling of queerness as a trend, or is it referring to queerness? Because “when queerness is labeled a trend, it becomes a weapon,” “it” should refer grammatically to queerness, but the speaker wants it to refer to “when queerness is labeled a trend.” “When Molly goes to the store, she likes to wear her coat.” The “she” refers back to Molly, not to the event of MOlly going to the store. So “it” should refer back to the noun head - noun phrase head, there - and not to the entire event. So they are claiming that we are labeling it as a trend not to be descriptive, but because we want to hurt them in some way. And that’s a bit paranoid.
“Until trans kids have their right to healthcare” - what more is needed to ensure their right to healthcare? What they mean is their right to be sterilized as children. I don’t believe children should have the right to be sterilized. They are saying the mentally ill should have the right to self-harm with the help of anesthesiologists and surgeons. I don’t believe mentally ill people should have the right to self-harm with the help of anesthesiologists and surgeons.
“Until queer folks stop dying from aids.” Eff the heteros, I guess. They can die from all the AIDS, forever. Until black trans women are protected - just them, only them specifically - we still need pride. How we gonna get from point A to point B. I don’t think it’s homophobia that causes a human being to die from a virus today. You can make the argument that everyone who dies is dying as a result in part of the homophobia of the reagan administration, but not having gotten rid of the HIV pandemic yet does not mean that every time a queer person gets AIDS, Pride gets its permits.
“No one is influencing your child to be queer.” They’re called social media influencers. They’re called that for a reason!
“If your child is queer, they will realize that on their own regardless. “ These are unrelated. It doesn’t actually connect that if your child is queer, they will realize it on their own regardless. Logically that could be true. That does not mean that no one is influencing your child to be queer. It doesn’t mean that if your child comes out as queer, they would have influenced it on their own regardless. “If A, then B” is the structure that’s logically valid, and this is affirming the consequent of saying, “B,” and therefore trying to conclude something. And you can’t conclude something from affirming the consequent because other things logically could have led to that consequent.
“To think of queerness as something a person can be influenced to become implies that being queer is inherently negative.” If I say that joining the army is something a person can be influenced to do, does that mean I’m saying that being in the Army is inherently negative. Okay substitute swim team. If I say that joining a swim team - oh shoot, have they ruined that too? If I say that buying 2% milk - oh, I just can’t. You’re right. He’s got me. He’s got me. Nothing anyone can be influenced to do is ever positive. You’ve convinced me by my own lack of counter-example.
What did I just see?
Share this post