Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

San Fransicko elects tranny judge

San Franfreakshow…nuff said.  Story here (hat tip from Moonbattery).  Money excerpt:

Kolakowski began her [sic] transition in 1989, and faced discrimination. Initially, she [sic] was not allowed to take the Bar Exam, and was told that she [sic] was not of sound mind.

Yeah, voluntary genital mutilation tends to bring up questions of mental capacity.  Normal America is kind of funny that way.

Actually, the people at the fishwrap who wrote the story are “not of sound mind” in that the fishwrap keeps referring to the man with feminine pronouns “she” and “her”.  Look, dude was born with a twig and berries, so that doesn’t earn someone a brand spankin’ new gender pronoun, m’kay?

If you’re going to be gay, fine.  No hate from me.  But please, don’t shred your nads and expect me to call you a female.  I mean, if we’re going to go that route, then I expect you to call me a Bengal tiger because I paint myself with black stripes and would really really like demand that you officially recognize me as an authentic Bengal tiger.

Advertisements

November 17, 2010 - Posted by | gay, San Francisco, shameful

13 Comments »

  1. I wish this was ironic or satirical or..or anything other than what it is–which is a sizable portion of offensive hubris and prejudice. Nice to meet your blog! Even nicer to leave it.

    Comment by Jeff | November 18, 2010

  2. Don’t let the door hit you where God split you, Jeff. 😆

    Comment by crushliberalism | November 18, 2010

  3. Wow..drive by Jeff regurgitated the dark-ages era “prejudice” accusation…yawn…forgive me for being bored to tears by the most tired, and worn out default “rebuttal”.
    Seriously, because the guy has his genitalia mutilated, and I refuse to equate that with having his Y chromosomes miraculously removed from his DNA, thus making him a REAL female, then I would be labeled by Jeff’s ilk as “prejudiced”?
    Hmm…I’m prejudiced against WHAT exactly? The truth? Hardly. Just because one’s genitals are butchered, yet cosmetically tidied up afterward, I would simply be HONEST (what’s that, the libs ask?)in refusing to refer to a man as a woman. Look, he’s a DUDE. He’s just a dude who had his equipment butchered and he has cosmetically altered HIS body to RESEMBLE an authentic female.
    Analogy time: I bought a KNOCK-OFF Rolex in NYC. It LOOKS similar to a Rolex. It wasn’t ACTUALLY a Rolex, but I DEMAND that it be called a Rolex. Now…would owners of the real Rolexes out there even consider for a moment that I have a Rolex, even if I demand it? Nope…why? Because though it may LOOK like one, it is just a superficial imitation.
    Same with Trannys. They are KNOCK-OFF females, not genuine. That is not prejudiced one bit.
    Wow….

    Comment by Kevin | November 18, 2010

  4. I refuse to accept the lunacy that is political correctness. You go Kevin! Trannys are female impersonators.

    Comment by Sojournerlove | November 18, 2010

  5. Just calling it like it is. Impostors are impostors…these just happen to be severely, emotionally fragile impostors. But humoring them by deluding them isn’t nice…its SICK. Only a person with sick morals will tell a man that he is a woman…THAT’S mean.

    Comment by Kevin | November 18, 2010

  6. You put a UTERUS in there…THEN I might consider it a female…maybe!

    Comment by Kevin | November 18, 2010

  7. After being notified of several follow-up comments in my e-mail, I checked back to see what sort of discussion I had started, hoping to find something based a little bit more strongly in reality. What I got, unfortunately, was three comments by the same person (a person I might add, with a questionable grasp of how to phrase an argument) eschewing logical thinking in favor of unworkable analogies and misguided thinking.

    Yet, strangely, I feel a need to respond. To you Kevin, and also to the author of this blog, I will show myself capable of something approaching reasonable discourse, and I sure hope you can do the same.

    Kevin, you seem to be under the mistaken notion that by pointing out my accusation of prejudice you have somehow proven it incorrect. Applying the label “dark ages” to it merely served to confuse (I assume you used it to insinuate a term with a long history) instead of clarifying. Except that by a basic definition of prejudice (something freely available to all of us via online dictionaries) the content and rhetoric of this blog post clearly is “a preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable”. In this case, I think we can all agree, it is unfavorable towards transgendered people.

    Kevin, you then go on to say, “because the guy has his genitalia mutilated, and I refuse to equate that with having his Y chromosomes miraculously removed from his DNA, thus making him a REAL female, then I would be labeled by Jeff’s ilk as “prejudiced”?”. This is a little trickier to respond to–there’s a lot to say about several different things within it.

    I think I would start by pointing out (a little bit tongue-in-cheek), that billions of men the world over have had their genitalia mutilated, it’s actually a fairly common procedure–circumcision. Though you are correct (and I say that in an attempt to establish some level of common ground), simply “mutilating” (not the best choice of words, but we can run with it) one’s genitalia does not ipso facto make a person into someone of the opposite sex.

    That is however, a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of a very real process that many people have gone through. Transgendered people do not simply “mutilate” their genitalia, in favor of a new set. The entire process starts with many counseling sessions, therapy, all designed to ensure that this isn’t a misguided idea, but that it is instead a deep-seated issue, not one too be taken lightly at all.

    This is where my claim of prejudice comes into play. Another common definition is, “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason”

    The “without knowledge” part is the most crucial here. You are very blatantly ignoring the actual process involved in officially changing one’s gender. You demean it by casually referencing a simple cutting-off of one’s genitals, when in fact it goes much deeper than that, it is usually a combination of fluid gender roles, fluid gender sexuality, and non-identification of the gender assigned at birth. You are ignoring the years of therapy, the consultations with doctors over and over, the hormonal therapy, the numerous surgeries, all pieces of an intricate procedure designed to “fix” a person to the correct gender that they identify with.

    You, and the author of this blog post, quite simply don’t know the half of it. You are literally denying the basic scientific truth that gender identification can be fluid, and especially when a child is born with two sets of genitalia, it can lead to problems later in life if the doctors choose incorrectly as to what gender to raise them as.

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115274744775305134-d_SKq3_dwVeWH2_85LdpMoT_Y2w_20060811.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

    Semi-relevant.

    ” He’s just a dude who had his equipment butchered and he has cosmetically altered HIS body to RESEMBLE an authentic female.”

    No, she is a woman who was born in a man’s body, and due to the advance of modern science and neurobiology, she was able to transition (with the help of hormonal help and surgical operations) to a body more closely resembling that which she identified with.

    Ooh, you use an analogy, and yours is actually WORSE than the Bengal tiger one from above. Seriously, it’s the same game again, you simply are denying basic science when you equate trans people to something as trivial as wanting to be a tiger, or a Rolex watch.

    It is prejudiced. By the most basic definition it is. It is also offensive, it demeans them by insinuating that the conflict they have lived THEIR ENTIRE LIVES with, is nothing more than going, “I wish I were a tiger, hee hee”.

    If you want to deny the science behind it then this conversation is clearly over.

    Comment by Jeff | November 20, 2010

  8. Jeff, Jeff, Jeff old boy/girl/tranny or whatever: It is obvious that you have run completely out of shit to do.

    You troll a blog named “crushliberalism” and you expect what?

    You write fifteen or so paragraphs of rambling crap in an attempt to change the minds of those who tend to enjoy things like crushing liberalism??

    You need another hobby dude.

    Comment by Lee | November 21, 2010

  9. That’s for sure, Lee. I don’t go over to the Kos kooks’ site expecting to change minds. Then again, I have a life.

    Comment by crushliberalism | November 22, 2010

  10. I’ve never understood when the same people who spend their time running a blog and quite obviously commenting on and linking to other blogs suddenly decide to try and shame someone for posting a “wall of text”.

    For what it’s worth, I’m not here to troll. I found this blog via a different right-wing blog that I frequent, not because I’m a hardcore conservative but because I don’t think I can in good faith make any claims towards knowing a subject until I’ve examined the other sides’ viewpoints.

    Don’t worry Lee, I lead a life with a diverse amount of activities, but yes I am online quite frequently. When you deride me for spending time responding to a blog (that for some reason gets a pass for having spent time blogging in the first place) is irrelevant to the topic at hand and telling of your inability to respond intelligently.

    I certainly don’t expect to change your minds. The name of this blog alone implies that you long ago decided it wasn’t even worth it to imagine anything in your worldview as wrong, but I can still refute the ignorant things you post. The same way I would refute a creationist who believes the earth is only 6000 years old, or how I would refute a person that believes that 9/11 was a government cover-up, or that the moon landing was hoaxed.

    Comment by Jeff | November 23, 2010

  11. I sincerely apologize for my “inability to respond intelligently”, it comes with age I guess.

    As for the moon landing being a hoax, I watched it live and truly believe it happened. The 9/11 attacks were in no way an attack by the US on itself. As for the earths age, I can’t say, I wasn’t there., It’s one of those things one must have faith in. The key word there being faith.

    This entire gaggle begin with your apparent belief in someone’s ability to change their sex simply by stating they are tired of the one they were born with. Since your stand was so adamant, I assume you have a dog in the fight. That being the case, good luck with your addadicktome or vise/versa as the case may be.

    Comment by Lee | November 23, 2010

  12. It’s not a belief when there is hard data supporting the fact that gender identity is not a black and white dichotomy. It’s not a belief when there are many case studies and stories out there proving that it is quite possible to be born as a female while physically looking like a male. Or vice versa.

    It’s science on my side and basic belief on yours.

    I also happen to be male since birth as well as cis, but nice try at guessing.

    Comment by Jeff | November 24, 2010

  13. Romans 9:20
    But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

    Comment by Kevin | March 24, 2011


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: