The Patriarchal Intent and Effect (i.e. The Purpose) of Transgenderism January 25, 2013Posted by FCM in international, meta, politics, pop culture, rape, trans.
Tags: orwell, patriarchal censorship, speech, you tube
the video the transactivists are apparently trying to censor/silence:
like all man-made social processes and systems, we must assume that trannyism — and the social, legal and medical implications of trannyism — serves a patriarchal purpose. that is, that the intent and effect of trannyism as a social phenomenon is to ultimately benefit men at womens expense. intent can be proven circumstantially of course — even in the case of unanticipated side effects, once the previously-unknown or unknowable result becomes known, if one doesnt like the outcome, one is free to stop reproducing it. and obviously if one continues to produce the now-known, now-anticipated result, its because one likes it, needs it, wants it, benefits from it.
in other words, the intent can be deduced from the result — to understand what was intended, you need only examine the end effect, especially when that end-effect is reproduced again and again and again and again. and such is the case with transgender. and i think enough time has gone by, from the beginning of modern trannyism until now, that we can identify and examine its patriarchal intent and effect. what has been the point of all this?
for the sake of expediency, and because they are related, lets review the effect of liberal feminist equality-activating while we are at it — and this includes allegedly radical feminists who build theory and practice around the equation women = men and men = women in the various ways they do, whether purposely or accidentally. for example, the oft-repeated “womens sex role under patriarchy as fuckholes and slaves isnt our natural state, therefore mens sex role as rapists and slaveowners isnt natural to men either.” srsly, please stop saying that.
thanks to equality-activating, feminist consciousness-raising — whereby feminists have met for decades in women-only space to discuss our “personal” and understand that our personal is political — is now illegal in many places. because it is discriminatory against men. mkay? its illegal. the tool that women have reported was the single most effective in our feminist toolshed for understanding sexual politics, and the mechanisms of male interpersonal and institutional power and therefore of womens oppression by men, and meeting and be-friending women for that matter, and be-ing able to be together, unshaven if we wanted to, and for once in our fucking lives not having to worry about dick-pleasing the dick-people — this could land us in jail (as rape-fodder) or leave us open to civil liability stripping us of financial security, where financially destitute women under patriarchy are — you guessed it — rape fodder.
in short, our previously female-only safe space functions as the queue to a raperoom now — rape via jail or poverty — because of equality-activating which has made it illegal to discriminate against men based on sex. i understand that we might notve seen that one coming — its breathtakingly dastardly afterall. but it happened.
in fact, the only way to do this “right” is to let men in — especially predatory men who wont hear our “no” and who invoke the misogynist legal system to bypass our consent. our newly defiled female-only-safe-space-which-includes-men-now is the raperoom proper — because predatory men are there, and they have complete power and we dont. the threat of rape is real and imminent — if we do it right, following mens rules to the letter, the rape-threat is not symbolic, or even attenuated at all. the rapists are really, actually there, in the flesh as it were. get it?
and thanks in particular to trannyism, in certain places in the world, women can no longer publicly discuss female biology because its transphobic. we can no longer publicly say that females are uniquely oppressed by males, and that womens oppression globally is directly related to males exploiting female reproductive biology through mandatory intercourse and rape — even though that is true. this is radfem 101 — it is the essence of sexual politics, and the only truly rigorous, honest and revolutionary discourse that has ever existed anywhere at any time, because it isolates and examines the mechanisms of male power and of womens oppression by men. discussing sexual politics is illegal now.
we can still mention fucking and rape of course, as long as we cast them in a depoliticized (favorable) light.
and because of legal protections for transgendered males, we can no longer publicly organize in women-only spaces that exclude transgendered males; and when seeking public services such as shelters and rape-crisis services, in some places, women have no choice but to submit to cohabitating with and being thought-policed and reprogrammed (therapized) by men who have everything to gain from thought-policing and reprogramming women. all of this due to laws designed to protect transgendered persons — or so they say.
and as often happens around the same time legal changes take hold, like oh say civil rights protections for american blacks (black males) making black males more or less ethically equal to white males now, (and where racism against black males is unethical) our ethics around “sex-discrimination” have changed too, and the result is that we cant “ethically” discriminate against men in private either, in our private spaces and even in the privacy of our own minds. we are expected to thought-police ourselves, censor ourselves. this is the worst kind of totalitarian oppression — the extreme controls on persons in public and private is the thrust of a totalitarian regime so well-described by orwell in 1984.
between equality-activism and trannyism, the effect has been to render radical feminism — and only radical feminism, which includes both consciousness-raising in female-only space and discussing sexual politics including the politics of reproductive biology — both illegal and unethical, in certain places of the world. more importantly, its made it increasingly dangerous to *be* or to practice radical feminism, putting women who do it at increased risk of being raped by men. raped, in particular, see? this was deliberate of course.
in short, legal protections for males — and in particular, criminalizing or penalizing women for discriminating against men — puts women at increased risk of being raped by men. savvy? it really couldnt be more obvious. thats what trannyism does, and therefore we can (must) conclude that thats what trannyism is for. its also why equality-activating has been allowed for as long and to the extent it has been.
it is in this context too that we must examine the overtly rapey behavior of transgendered persons individually. it is all connected, where the patriarchal purpose and effect of trannyism as a whole and in its individual parts *is* rape, and womens increased vulnerability to being raped by men — and being forbidden to talk *or think* about what rape means politically.
as a political strategy, to maintain the historical record of our work, our understanding and our resistance via our archives, i agree with the vidder above that “mirroring” trans-critical videos and distributing them widely is probably a good idea. that is all.