Opinion of Memphis

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He's not a Todd Akin type, he's a bro who thinks that being politically liberal excuses him from having to develop a personal understanding of people who aren't like him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He's not a Todd Akin type, he's a bro who thinks that being politically liberal excuses him from having to develop a personal understanding of people who aren't like him.

I'm willing to bet that all our well-known nutty Republicans precisely think that being politically conservative excuses them from having to develop a personal understanding of people who aren't like them.

True.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well he's a FF on everything that doesn't have to do with women...

^  Especially religion.

No, he's an HP on that too, unless your sole condition for being an FF on religion is being irreligious and harboring a great deal of unearned self-regard about it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And he only shows the respect for religion and conservatives that they usually deserve, of course.

The fact that you think that is hugely troubling for somebody who, like it or not, is living in a society with people who are otherwise than himself. Read some Levinas or Buber. Do your heart good.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing is, normative male heterosexuality should be critiqued.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing is, normative male heterosexuality should be critiqued.

We're listening.   

There are people here who can do this much better than I can, but the basic takeaway is that it's more than anything else an instrument of control, and a lot of what straight men (and people who aren't straight men, in all fairness) think is a 'natural' or 'normal' aspect of their or others' sexuality is an outgrowth of that dynamic of control. Besides, 'natural' and 'normal' don't actually sum to 'good' anyway; we need an ethic of sexuality that goes beyond construction of naturalness and normality and bears some relation to a comprehensive way of looking at social relationships in general. Me being who I am, I'd prefer if this was informed by some type of not-too-heterodox liberation theology, but that is probably too much to hope for.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good to see you, opebo. How are things?

The thing is, normative male heterosexuality should be critiqued.

There are people here who can do this much better than I can, but the basic takeaway is that it's more than anything else an instrument of control, and a lot of what straight men (and people who aren't straight men, in all fairness) think is a 'natural' or 'normal' aspect of their or others' sexuality is an outgrowth of that dynamic of control. Besides, 'natural' and 'normal' don't actually sum to 'good' anyway; we need an ethic of sexuality that goes beyond construction of naturalness and normality and bears some relation to a comprehensive way of looking at social relationships in general. Me being who I am, I'd prefer if this was informed by some type of not-too-heterodox liberation theology, but that is probably too much to hope for.

What precisely are you talking about?  Outlawing intercourse?

No.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, I'm sure even you are aware that there's a whole cascade of social and ethical order between a sexual free-for-all and banning intercourse. Wanting to go down that cascade from memphis's position doesn't entail wanting to go all the way to the bottom and plunge into the polar sea below.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Maybe position isn't the right word--particularly in a discussion of sexuality, with you of all people, on Atlas Forum. I really should have known better. memphis's mindset, then.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And I'm a fan of its etymology.

Yes. It's an elegant, simple etymology, easy to grasp with minimal Latin and forming an immediate and direct dichotomy. (I'm not sure the concept in question should have such a firm dichotomy--in fact, I'm almost sure it shouldn't--but from a philological perspective it's wonderful.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So a person who is born male, identifies solely as a man and is straight is cisterned. I'm not really sure why this level of categorization is needed or even desired, but I'm sure it has some sort of use in specialized conversation.

Specialized conversation is what we would be having here, in an ideal world.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

memphis, for all our sakes please stop digging yourself deeper.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

memphis, why do you insist on not even pretending to understand trans issues or doing even the basic respect of...ugh, never mind.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you for the advice, but I'm afraid I don't have any size queen jokes or bum-mishap tales. Even so, I assure you I'm considerably campier in real life than I am here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

However, I'm a bit of a stickler regarding baloney. I was the kid in 2nd grade jumping up and down insisting that Santa Claus was not real.

Good to know your smug self-satisfaction isn't a new thing for you, I guess.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, are people not encouraged to point out the obvious any more then?  I mean, we've seen what happens whenever people do that for religious folk and so on, and I guess this is what got memphis his personal lynch mob to start with.  But are we all now to pretend Santa is real just to keep the delusional happy?

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

Actually, the fact that Joe is content to write off anybody who subscribes to notions that don't fit into a strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian [VIENNA CIRCLE-ESQUE. My sincere thanks to Linus Van Pelt for pointing out that this adjective needed to be changed] episteme as 'delusional' and leave it at that is one that he's demonstrated many times.

The case Al mentioned is a pretty good example of why Memphis and his supporters are pretty horrible people.

But I guess in Memphis world view anyone who kills themselves after bullying is just too weak to deserve our sympathy anyway.

You guys have made up so many positions for me lately that it's hard to keep them all straight. I'll have to check with the mob and get back to you.

Not every bias that we have or assumption that we betray is an explicit 'position' of the sort that one can fit into a political manifesto or philosophical tractate. Surely you know at least that much?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, are people not encouraged to point out the obvious any more then?  I mean, we've seen what happens whenever people do that for religious folk and so on, and I guess this is what got memphis his personal lynch mob to start with.  But are we all now to pretend Santa is real just to keep the delusional happy?

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

Actually, the fact that Joe is content to write off anybody who subscribes to notions that don't fit into a strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian episteme as 'delusional' and leave it at that is one that he's demonstrated many times.

The case Al mentioned is a pretty good example of why Memphis and his supporters are pretty horrible people.

But I guess in Memphis world view anyone who kills themselves after bullying is just too weak to deserve our sympathy anyway.

You guys have made up so many positions for me lately that it's hard to keep them all straight. I'll have to check with the mob and get back to you.

Not every bias that we have or assumption that we betray is an explicit 'position' of the sort that one can fit into a political manifesto or philosophical tractate. Surely you know at least that much?

That makes two people who've taken it upon themselves to make the supremely defamatory suggestion that I want people to kill themselves. Any others? Perhaps someone should go for the Full Godwin and declare me pro-Holocaust. It'd be such a shame to waste all that perfectly good demonization

That isn't actually even close to what I said or meant, as you'd know if you weren't so in love with the idea of yourself as a victim. I notice that you have interpolated the word 'inflammatory' into the URL of my post and messed up the coding. I've taken the liberty of removing it and trying to fix the coding. I hope you don't mind.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't tell me about my identity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't tell me about my identity.

You certainly are a snippy one.

Says the preening, self-congratulatory dullard who's made a habit of railroading people's beliefs, personalities, and habits into inane generalizations against their will.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't tell me about my identity.

You certainly are a snippy one.

Says the preening, self-congratulatory dullard who's made a habit of railroading people's beliefs, personalities, and habits into inane generalizations against their will.

Sticks and stones, Mr Nate. Sticks and stones.

It's easy to say that when you have the most insanely overdeveloped immunity to other people's contributions, opinions, and experiences of anybody I've met or heard of this side of Harvard Square. Also, my name is Nathan. Only one friend from high school calls me Nate.

May I ask you a question? Can you commit to not railroading people's beliefs, personalities, and habits into inane generalizations against their will in the future? If not, why not?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Autism: Autism autism autism autism autism, autism autism autism autism autism.

Autism!

What is this post supposed to accomplish?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Autism: Autism autism autism autism autism, autism autism autism autism autism.

Autism!

What is this post supposed to accomplish?

what exactly is several pages of passive aggression and hysterical sjw type posturing supposed to accomplish?

More than whatever adolescent whim possessed you to post that was good for, at least.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Autism: Autism autism autism autism autism, autism autism autism autism autism.

Autism!

What is this post supposed to accomplish?

what exactly is several pages of passive aggression and hysterical sjw type posturing supposed to accomplish?

More than whatever adolescent whim possessed you to post that was good for, at least.

other than coming off as socially maladjusted or engaging in the usual sjw self righteousness i'm not seeing a point. you all basically said all you were going to several pages ago. if all this still offends you so badly still there's something called an ignore button on this site. click it and move on. some of us don't want this place to become more of a hug box, it's stifling enough as it is.

Including coming off as socially maladjusted and engaging in 'the usual sjw self righteousness' I'm not seeing a point to your initial post. The rest of what you say here is duly noted, to the extent that I can parse it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But anyway, a question for Nathan et al: is this how you normally respond to people who refer to trans people negatively? I really hope not, because this is a horrible bandwagon that would only be justifiable if he was, like, a literal Nazi. Someone even implied that he wanted to kill off everyone with a blue avatar earlier! Honestly, what the [Inks]? That's insane.

The answer to your question is, in my case (I'm not sure I appreciate being named before an 'et al' or treated as some sort of coordinator or ringleader), no. He and I have had words before, on multiple subjects, and very rarely good ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People have tried to do that multiple times, both on this occasion and in the past. Perhaps not sufficiently so, or sufficiently gently so, but he's never seemed receptive.

Thank you sincerely for your thoughts. I'm painfully aware of the paradigm you're describing and would hate to think I'm contributing to it, but for my part it's hard to know how exactly to keep in line the levels of sheer frustration that this and other situations in the past have induced in me.

Also, great post BK. I am also trying to understand better what would cause someone to think they are of the wrong gender. Is it based totally on expectations society places on the different genders (and if so, don't the same people say all differences between the genders are made up by society...meaning they are still men?)? Or does it go deeper than that. And if it does, how do they know what it is like to be a woman or a man, if that makes any sense. How do they know they are women if they don't know how a woman thinks like. I probably don't make any sense, but whatever. It seems like just asking questions might get you labeled a bigot by some....

I'd be willing to either discuss this with you or point you to people who more successfully could once matters have cooled a bit (assuming they do).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

(I'm not sure I appreciate being named before an 'et al' or treated as some sort of coordinator or ringleader).

I honestly had no intentions of implying anything of the sort. I figured it was the best way to refer to "Memphis opponents," I was trying to be serious so I didn't want to address you all as the "asexual trans victimologists" and it would have been clunky to list multiple names. In my mind you were the best person to refer to because of the volume of your posts as well as the obvious thought you put in them.

Duly noted, and thank you for taking note of those things. I do take some pride in even my more vituperative or hotheaded posts on this forum.

w/r/t tumblr and "otherkin" and such, I don't really understand why people...idk, care so much. Like I see whole blogs dedicated to attacking them, and I think "does this person really have nothing better to do with their life?". They're just some strange people on the internet saying crazy stuff, no need to pay any more attention to them than the flat earth movement. They're definitely not representative of any larger ideology, and caricaturing everyone who ever uses the term "transphobia" as someone who says stuff like "OMG check ur cisspecies privilege" or "i'm a fat butch queer disabled panracial trigendered otherkin" (as I've often seen done) is a ridiculous strawman. 

Indeed, I would submit that I actually don't like identitarian terms very much--partially for theological reasons, partially because I just think they create questionable false dichotomies a lot of the time--and try to use them in a contingent manner, as a sort of profane 方便, if you will. (I'd rather not, since I'm no bodhisattva, but...)