Posts Tagged ‘transgenderism’


You've seen it before, but it's appropriate... fark.com

I am now pretty much convinced that the Calvinists4Conservatism blog is a parody; it claims: ‘We believe in geocentrism and a flat, circular Earth with the North Pole as its center, just as the earliest Christians did.’ Fundamentalism is crazy, but surely it can’t be that crazy. Whether the site is a parody or not is extremely dubious, but it’s still a hate-filled and dangerous resource. The same goes for the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old-Testament Morality (SCROTM?! it must be a joke) and no doubt several others. There is very little clever about satire if it never reflects upon the people it intends to satirise. Whether these sites are bona fide or not, the opinions they espouse / satirise are damaging and dangerous. And making ‘jokes’ about stoning, if they are intended to be jokes, is particularly disgusting in consideration of the fact that this abhorrent practice still continues. Yep, I’m pretty sure this site is a satire. But it’s still irresponsible, defamatory, and if it is manned by one person, I dread to imagine what his life is like.
Since my earlier post, I’ve been reading a bit more of the hateful absurdity being spouted at the Calvinists4Conservatism blog, which, although it claims not to be satirical, is certainly a joke – or would be one if it wasn’t so terrifying. Am I missing something with this blog; is it already infamous, has it been exposed as a satire, or are people simply unaware of it? It is full of misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and otherwise disgusting content, and whilst I suspect that a dialogue with the writer would be fruitless, at least I can discuss here the dangerous nonsense which is being transcribed on the site, whether or not it is intended to be ‘ironic’. In its reluctance to censor, does WordPress really allow content such as this, or is it merely that those concerned are unaware of the blog? Despite an avoidance of censorship, surely it must be drawn to the attention of the complaints team that this blog is inciting hatred.

So, for a little proof… I have already mentioned the author’s abhorrent statements about Stu Rasmussen, the transgender Mayor who was elected in Oregon, and who is apparently spearheading a ‘Fascist Communist Trannie Theocracy’ and should therefore be stoned. This is no joke, whether or not it is intended to be satirical.

Referring to the shameful success of Proposition 8, the author states that: ‘Hopefully, we will be able to return to the REAL definition of traditional marriage: a contract between a man and his concubine’s father. Hopefully, we can also fully protect marriage, by executing homosexuals.’ How very progressive.

But, this post, ‘A Truly Terrifying Vision of the Future’, was by far my favourite, if such a term can be used, for the sheer detail of its paranoid inanity. Even if this is intended to be satirical, it is revelatory of a very disturbed pysche. The author hypothesises a future under a liberal government, which he fails will not fulfil his special remit for dealing with homosexuals, who should apparently be ‘quarantined and stoned.’ Let’s see what he predicts. Apparently, to educate schoolchildren that homosexuality is NOT abhorrent will result in the following: ‘…bullies will now be able to sodomize our children on the swings and face little to no reprimand for doing so. Our children will be encouraged to get a sex change if they want to; sex change operations will be performed by the school nurses, and they will be forced to experiment with a condom in forced sex with an older, pedophilic teacher.’ Yes, that will be a logical conclusion to a programme of sexual education which does not intend to instill shame and self-loathing into those children who will be non-heterosexual. But I have no doubt that this author subscribes (or is pretending to subscribe) to the belief that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and that the suppression of natural desires can be encouraged with a healthy dose of fire and brimstone.

This diatribe becomes even more bizarre: ‘According to homosexuals, if a child wants to profess Christianity, he or she should be placed in ‘time out’ until he or she renounces Christianity. Children will now be forced to be raised by people that are likely to get AIDS, more likely to separate, and more likely to be suddenly smitten by the LORD.’ Oh, is this a doctrine which is adopted by all homosexuals? I wonder at which point they are granted access to that. I’ll have to ask one of my homosexual Christian friends, who would be surprised to hear about it, as I think they missed out on that… Perhaps it is part of the graduation ceremony at the Sodomy Academy. My favourite part, though, has got to be ‘smitten by the LORD,‘ which, in this context, looks like a bit of a Freudian slip. Purple-faced, and, I speculate, furiously-masturbating man of God (whether you’re ‘joking’ or not), I think you would have been better off using ‘smote’, to avoid the terrifying implication that all of these disease-ridden, child-cannibalising degenerates are developing unhealthy designs on the Celestial Master.

It continues: ‘Homosexuals are far more expensive to care for than heterosexuals’ and are unable to work since they are all ‘too busy masturbating.’ Sounds okay to me. ‘Muuuuum, can I get a homosexual?’ ‘No, Billy, they’re too expensive, and they need all those accessories. Leather chaps and George Michael CDs / Birkenstocks and Murray’s Pomade don’t come cheap, and you know who’d end up looking after his / her Chihuahua / German Shepherd. No, you can have a sugar glider or a Madagascar Day Gecko.’

Now the author’s ‘satirical’ fantasy is getting a little out of control, and he whips himself up into a frenzy: ‘We ought to respect the rights of doctors to avoid checking a homosexual’s private organs, since in a sensible society, administering towards a patient of the opposite sex would be punished by death, due to its deviancy. No person should have to examine the genitalia of a homosexual that is likely masturbating towards them, or have to pluck off the butt plugs of a lesbian.’  None of this makes any sense. Is the author implying that homosexual men and women are of the ‘opposite sex’ to non-homosexual men and women? And is he suggesting that we execute all male gynaecologicists? And those pesky gays just won’t give up the masturbating, not even to get their blood pressure checked. I wish my trips to the GP were as much fun. Oh, and ‘butt plugs’? Really, plural?

Next, ‘group masturbation will be forced in churches under a homosexual proletariat.’  What an interesting image… I think you came up with that one all by yourself. Oh, and any child carrying a copy of the Bible will be tortured. And new babies will be raised in vast test tubes. And ‘[a]ny nurse that doesn’t deliver an abortion will forcibly be stripped of her job, and then continually raped by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and their ‘human’ clones until a baby is conceived, after which it will be partially aborted until the woman professes respect for abortion.’  Doctors will be forcibly infected with sexually-transmitted diseases and will be required to infect their patients.

The whole thing spirals into completely insanity to the point that I’m sure the author realises the ridiculousness of what he is saying and must surely realise how dangerous it is, whether or not he intends it to be satirical. More choice visions of the future include the genital-exposing Burka for women and the abolition of any energy sources apart from ‘Hippie’ ones such as wind and solar power (gee, imagine that). However, one of the best quotes from the whole diatribe is the fear that ‘[t]he nation will be ‘forced to worship at the altar of homosexuality.’ Imagine what that would look like… the altar of homosexuality. Mr. Calvinist or Fake-Calvinist, if you read this, and I hope you do, you are utterly obsessed with homosexual intercourse and paedophilia; although that is no surprise from someone who espouses / pretends to espouse a religion which focuses upon the nonsense concepts of ‘original sin’ and ‘total depravity.’ In the movie Fetishes by Nick Broomfield (I’m sure you’ve seen it), one of the clients at the New York S/m parlour remarks that ‘fetishes are the eroticization of the worst thing you can ever imagine happening to you.’ This writing can be considered as indicative of a severe sodomy fetish, which is compounded by your suffering from androphobia (fear of men), contreltophobia (fear of sexual abuse), cypridophobia (fear of venereal disease), genophobia (fear of sex), haphephobia (fear of being touched), homophobia (goes without saying), iatrophobia (fear of doctors), ithyphallophobia (fear of the erect penis), paraphobia (fear of perversion), and virginitiphobia (fear of rape). Take three poppers and call me in the morning.

I’d continue, but I’m suffering agateophobia (fear of the insane). At least William S. Burroughs had several drug addictions to justify his sex-obsessed ramblings. You know, the more I read about homosexuality from its detractors, the more fun it sounds.


Read Full Post »



So, as many bloggers (Cosmodaddy, Bamboo Nation)have already written, Proposition 8 has passed. It’s officially sacred and sanctified for Elizabeth Taylor to marry eight times, and for Britney Spears to have a drunken Las Vegas wedding with an old friend; but not for a non-heterosexual couple in a loving and enduring relationship to achieve the union they wish. Hard to believe that the people have determined this in the same week that they have moved America so far forward by electing Barack Obama. Nevertheless, some interesting progress was made this week in Silverton, Oregon, where Stu Rasmussen has been elected as America’s first transgender mayor.

In this article, Rasmussen is termed a ‘transgender man’ and is referred to as ‘he’; now, normally, as every good gender rebel knows, a male-to-female transgendered or transsexual person, regardless of their decision to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, should be referred to with female pronouns. There is also the possibility of using gender neutral pronous; however, even though language has very slowly been evolving away from gender-restrictive terms since the eighteenth century, the use of ‘sie’, ‘hir’ and ‘xe’ might be counter-productive as it explodes the brains of those who still think baby boys should be swathed in blue and baby girls in pink.

Anyway; what’s interesting about Rasmussen is that he does not class himself as a transsexual woman, but rather refers to himself as ‘he’ and considers himself ‘a heterosexual male… [who likes] to look like a female.’ This would imply that he is a transvestite, but he does not follow the remit of transvestism defined by Magnus Hirschfield, who considered it a paraphilia. Arguably, images of male transvestites have become more prevalent in recent years, although they are usually restricted to comedy; the concept of female transvestism is still largely unknown, perhaps because there are less restrictions placed on female who wish to wear ‘male’ clothing, and so less likelihood that females will fetishise this taboo. The difference between everyday transvestism and sexually-motivated fetishistic transvestism is now more widely understood. Although Hirschfield acknowledged that transvestism and transgenderism or transsexualism were by no means mutually exclusive, Rasmussen, who has had breast implants, has certainly gone a step further than say, Eddie Izzard, who also identifies as male but enjoys wearing women’s clothing. It could have followed, therefore, that Rasmussen would be too much of an anomaly to be accepted by the voting public, as he is not a transsexual but a transgendered or gender variant person. Similar apprehensions might have been associated with, for instance, Thomas Beattie, who is arguably the world’s most well-known transsexual man but who made the decision to carry a child. And, although Beattie was not the world’s first pregnant ‘man’, he is one of only a small minority of male transsexuals who have carried children (the term ‘mothered’ is scarcely appropriate). Some of the negative reaction to Beattie seemed to suggest that it would perhaps be easier for the world to have more ‘conventional’ images of transgendered and transsexual men and women to follow, before embracing the vast spectrum of gender variance. However, the election of Stu Rasmussen proves that considerable progress, in this respect, is already being made.

And now, apologies in advance for a rant. But still, there are some dark crevices where the torch of enlightenment just doesn’t shine. The only other WordPress entry that I have yet found on Rasmussen is this one from the vile everything-phobic Calvinists 4 Conservatism blog, which is apparently dedicated to ‘Making Palin President’. At first, I assumed that this blog was a satirical joke, but reading through some of the previous entries, I have the depressing sense that actually it is very real indeed. If it’s a parody, it’s a very dedicated one. Of course, inevitably, the author has chosen to reinforce his disgust by quoting only the negative comments left on the original KGW News article, in the hope of proving that all America shares his bigotry. No mention is made whatsoever of Rasmussen’s intentions for the town, nor the fact that this marks his third election as Mayor. The sucess of one transgendered person is apparently sufficient to prove that ‘trannies are taking over’, and Rasmussen’s gender identity is apparently proof that he intends to install a ‘full scale brainwashing program’. The author also suggests that Rasmussen will be distracted from his duty by shopping for shoes, which is pretty funny for a blog supporting reverse-Robin Hood Palin, she of the grossly inflated head clothing budget. Isn’t there a regulation on WordPress against this hateful speech, especially when a blog suggests the revocation of female suffrage (which is also… pretty funny for a blog supporting Palin) and hopes that the town concerned will stone its governor? Of course, the real motivation behind this diatribe is that special strand of Christianity, the religion which loves everyone. Now, I want to point out that I hold no bigotry towards religion, or I would have no right to criticise anyone for their own prejudices. But this exclusivist, fundamental Christianity, I am glad to say I will never understand. How is it that we have all been made in God’s image, but yet Rasmussen and billions of others have slipped through the net, resembling neither Adam nor his rib? Oh… because we / they all support the ‘Dark Lord’, of course, and are condemned, in which case ‘Hell’ sounds a lot more fun than ‘Heaven’. But how do we know any more, in this world of infinite variance, who is damned and who is saved? Shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, all together now: ‘Jesus loves me, this I know. Because the Bible tells me so.’

Read Full Post »