The New York Times has published an article that starts off like this:
“Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it. …”
Just listen to this … “until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound.” These are the same people who smugly tell us that “race is social construct.”
Rod Dreher has a long take that sheds some light on this poor creature:
“On Chu’s website, he posts a PDF link to a paper he delivered earlier this year at a Columbia University conference. This is the kind of thing they’re talking about at one of America’s great universities. The paper is titled “Did Sissy Porn Make Me Trans?” There are no images, but don’t click through to it and start reading unless you are prepared to go to an extremely dark place. I almost didn’t post this here, but after thinking about it, I concluded that it’s actually vitally important to know.
I’m going to summarize the paper for those who don’t want to read it. Again, I cannot caution you strongly enough about its content, and the pornographic images Chu describes in detail in the paper.
The paper’s title comes from a comment Chu saw on an online forum. “Sissy porn,” we learn from the paper, is a genre in which submissive men are forced to have sex with other men, in such a way that their masculinity is forcibly taken from them. Chu says this genre is also called “forced feminization porn.” Chu says that sissy porn explicitly intends to turn male viewers into transsexuals, in part by “instruct[ing] them to understand their addiction to the genre as constitutive of their own feminization.” …”
In other news, Twitter is now banning people who criticize this madness for “hate speech”:
“Twitter has updated its terms of service to offer greater protection to trans people.
Any user who deliberately targets a trans person (or people) with abuse including misgendering and deadnaming can now be reported and banned from the platform.
The new section of Twitter’s terms of service reads: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanise, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category.
“This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.” …”
What the hell is deadnaming?
“For many — though not all — people who are transgender, undergoing a name change can be an affirming step in the transition process. It can help a person who’s transgender and the people in their lives begin to see them as the gender they know themselves to be. It can also alleviate discomfort that may be associated with one’s old name.
Unfortunately, many people may struggle to adhere to a trans person’s new, affirmed name. In some situations, other people may refuse to acknowledge the change altogether. And in situations that involve government-issued identification, having a legal name that doesn’t align with one’s affirmed name can cause staff and personnel to inadvertently refer to a trans person by the wrong name.
This is what’s referred to as deadnaming. …”
Oh … so like, if I call Emily Gorcenski his real name, which is Edward Gorcenski, I can be banned from Twitter now. I also can’t point out the objective truth that he is still biologically male. Society has to go along with his delusion now and if you object as a social conservative you are a “hater.”
Well, that settles it.
I guess I have no hope of being “mainstream” now as defined by The New York Times and the Twitter Community Guidelines. Strangely, I am okay with that too.