Thursday, March 6, 2014

Homophilic transphobia



That would be the disease afflicting Ellen DeGeneres, who made a transsexual-transgender joke about Liza Minnelli at the Oscars, and who has now incurred the wrath of the transsexual-transgender police, who are a newly deputized contingent of the gaystapo.

She's a gay icon (and I'm a fan-- I like her show!), so she's definitely homophilic, but transphobia is another matter entirely, and I guess homophobia antibodies don't protect against the scourge of transphobia.

I'm trying to keep the whole thing 'straight' in my head.

:)

I guess that little pun is a sign of my heterophilic homo-transgender-transsexual-phobia, but recognizing my deviation at least gives me a leg up on my studies in the re-education camp, to which I'll no doubt be consigned in the near future.

Here's the syllabus, so you too can get some advanced placement credit that will make your stay in the camp less... taxing

19 comments:

  1. This whole movement is about policing people's thoughts. They think it's fine because "homophobia" (whatever that means) is akin to racism, and we've been policing people's thoughts for that thought crime for years.

    In a land of liars, truth is treason.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Torch, if you want to maintain your wilful ignorance stop reading this now.

      Homophobia: Irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture.

      Considering Egnor maintains that homosexual culture is Nazi-like, out to destroy Christianity, and on a path to put him and people like him in concentration camps, He’s definitely a homophobe.


      -KW

      Delete
  2. I thought the joke was highly objectionable... because it wasn't funny.

    Anyway. The link for the 'less taxing' is from 2009. Churches haven't had their tax free status removed, so obviously the petition to do so went absolutely nowhere.

    Question 1 to ban gay marriage in 2009 was passed 53/47. There was another question 1 to allow gay marriage put to the Maine electors in 2012 which passed 53/47.

    Reminds me of the Peter Cook film 'the Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer' in which the elected representatives abrogated their responsibility to legislate and justify their decisions at the next election.

    Australia doesn't have voter initiated 'questions'. We have referenda, initiated by the legislators mainly to change the Constitution, but also to defuse controversial topics. They're not popular, because they're usually rejected.

    And often, they're not binding. In Western Australia, a few years ago there was a referendum to allow Sunday trading, which was rejected following a campaign by the churches, small shops and sporting associations. And which a conservative government subsequently reversed a few years later.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm thinking that 'homophilia' is somewhat like 'hemophilia', both in spelling and in terms of ultimate life outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that hemophilia isn't curable nor a sin.

      Delete
  4. That's true, of course.

    Yet, these intellectually dishonest fools assert that 'homophilia' is almost exactly like 'hemophilia', that it is inborn and morally neutral and suffers no cure, whatsoever -- that is, they assert this sometimes: other times they'll assert, and certainly fantasize, that 'straights' can be ... bent, and in fact that 'straights' are only 'bents' who haven't yet been exposed to the right circumstances that will 'bend' them.

    Isn't it odd? 'Homophilia' is inborn, and is not to judged/condemned in any expression, and cannot be cured, yet "homophobia" is a choice, and a morally wicked one at that, and it can be "cured".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Determinism is for thee, but not for me."

      Delete
    2. Lion when did you decide to be strait? Was it ever something you had to consciously think about? Do you really think you could be attracted to men if you simply made that choice?

      -KW

      -KW

      Delete
    3. Homosexuality is a proclivity and a behavior, not an identity, just as heterosexuality is not an identity.

      People aren't identified by their sexual preferences-- people are just people. People who like oral sex aren't "fellators", etc.

      There's a great essay on this in First Things that I'll post about when I get the chance.

      Delete
    4. "People aren't identified by their sexual preferences-- people are just people."

      As the hilariously disastrous Republican defense of DOMA Supreme Court demonstrated, there's no logical way of defining gay marriage that wouldn't exclude some straight marriages if you're just talking about 'behaviors'.





      Delete
    5. 'Huh?'

      If you're reducing this to a set of 'behaviors', entirely independent of human beings, then there's just no way to distinguish homosexual marriage from some heterosexual ones.

      Again, you're backed into a very silly position, basically denying the existence of homosexuals, or trying to redefine homosexuals as 'what homosexuals do'. It's like saying there are no such things as vegetarians, just people with vegetarian behaviors.

      And are you really only now learning that there are tensions between the communities of gay men, lesbians, transgender people and bisexuals? That being a lesbian doesn't mean you're in the transgender gang?

      As for 'homophobia' ... it's not the issue, here. Some people are scared of flying, it doesn't mean they've banned flying. I think 'homophobia' is a misnomer, I don't think it's about being scared of gay people. There are all sorts of fears on the extremist right, but I think this is a very simple shibboleth issue where society has moved on, you want your religion to have more influence than it does.

      As I say, 'women voter' would have seemed just an unnatural proposition a hundred years ago. There were probably white guys who died very old and still very grumpy about women getting the vote. I'm sure plenty of their granddaughters vote completely oblivious to the fact grandpa thought it was unnatural.

      A hundred years from now, a whole bunch of your descendants will be married to someone of the same gender. And they'll assume you were one of the good guys, and be shocked and a little saddened when they research their family tree. It's the way history goes, I'm afraid.

      Delete
  5. Ellen is funny, joke is sometimes just a joke. Certain people take things too seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lets think about this.
    Its repulsive to see womanhood made into the ELLEN type of thing.
    Its morally and visually and ickey.
    Its not American womanhood but a malfunction.
    Yet we do believe in allowing anyone any good thing or presence in the mutually held nations.
    So its okay for Ellen to be prevalent in entertainment.
    Yet if she uses it to make a moral gay agenda point then SHE has crossed the social contract.
    then all people should oppose any such gay agenda.
    There should be open criticism of Ellen as a celebrity etc if shes pushing the gay thing.
    In deed she is anyways as they always say acceptance of her as a entertainer is acceptance of lesbianism.
    We must demand this not be said or be so or otherwise its Ellen Degenerate (as Falwell said I think once).
    Social contract here and remember we are already allowing a formerly rejected thing.
    There is opportunity here to make a good point.
    Including she should wear a Dress. Not try to take mens identity as her own etc.
    We can accuse as these types teach that one can accuse.
    Yet its all to end up as live and let live.
    They are not doing this by pushing a ugly thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow Robert, It appears that someone snatched you from the '60s and transported you into the future 50 years. I want no part of your social contract. I'll enjoy my liberty and make my own way with like minded people.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      What exactly do you have against apostrophes? Until English is reformed and the apostrophe banished, please use them when necessary. It's "let's" (let us) not "lets".

      Delete
  7. some lintellectually dishonest leftist: "Lion when did you decide to be strait? Was it ever something you had to consciously think about? Do you really think you could be attracted to men if you simply made that choice?"

    Isn't it amusing that this fool imagines I'm going to blubber?

    We're not talking about leftists' intellectual dishonesty on whether sexuality is chosen (*). Rather, we're talking about leftists' intellectual dishonesty with regard to their strange and absurd assertion that "homophilia" is not chosen and therefore may not be judged coupled with their contradictory assertion that "homophobia" *is* chosen and is vilely immoral (even though, by one of their other absurd assertions, there is no such thing as morality.)

    Look, you leftist liars, if "homophiles" cannot be morally judged for their "homophilia", then neither can "homophobes" be judged for their "homophobia". And, since there are vastly more "homophobes" than "homophiles", then Democracy! means that the "homophobes" get to define what is normal ... and acceptable/permissible.

    Really! You fools are so *easy* to run circles around. That's because you're intellectually dishonest.


    (*) Interestingly, when I was a psych major, before switching to something more rational/logical, the Gospel was that *everyone* is essentially "bi-sexual".

    Now, leftists do actually believe this to this day -- which is *why* when they design the "comprehensive sex education" courses for grade-school children, the result is little different from deliberate "grooming" -- but they also find it convenient to assert the opposite with regard to "gays".

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Look, you leftist liars, if "homophiles" cannot be morally judged for their "homophilia", then neither can "homophobes" be judged for their "homophobia"."

    The fact of the matter is that attitudes to homosexuality have radically shifted in a very short number of years. Which suggests that distaste for homosexuals is cultural, not innate.

    You're choosing to live in hatred or fear, and your argument is as stupid as saying that you can't help being racist any more than a black man can help being African American.

    ReplyDelete