Yeah, what I mentioned on the show today. It is this kind of thinking that is stewed from the same goo vat that is giving us – we have a beta male over at a Feminist blog believing that sex is not determined by your chromosomes. Can we say “Leftism ideology runs amok in the pursuit of abject and total relativism”?. A couple of absolutely unhinged (or is that unfathomable?) snippets from Everyday Feminism:
Here Are 20 Examples of Cissexism That We’ve Probably All Committed at Some Point
That’s just the title – go ahead and tell me if you’re not hep (is “hep” still hep?) on the PC lexicon, what is Cissexism?
Cissexism is pretty much unchecked cis privilege or an otherwise shoddy awareness of the social monopoly on binary gender.
Yeah unfathomable to the regular Joe or Jane. Or better put, who really cares except from those subject to the absolute tiniest of First World problems (and yes, I am of the stance that stuff like this registers as an asterick (if that) with me. Maybe Mike’s “sub-asterick” from this morning’s GrokTALK! is more like it).
Now, to clarify: Cissexism isn’t necessarily a mindset that a person holds with either maliciousness or awareness. You may have no clue you’re cissexist.
Of COURSE – how lunkheaded am I? once again with have the “I KNOW that you have it – you must prove to me that you don’t” logic that the PC sycophants employ to win the Kobiashi Maru they shove you into. And then beta male dives into the swamp:
1. Believing That XX and XY Actually Mean Something
Boom. Let’s start with one of my favorites, if only because it tends to ignite passions the fastest.
No, it starts the brain with education starting to process such an inane statement. Now, he blows some smoke up our rears with a small grain of truth:
Now, to be fair, XX and XY chromosome pairs do mean something: a general idea of future conditions a person may or may not develop that are directly due to those chromosomal pairings.
A general idea? Yes, nurture can compensate or channel a lot but the more we look, the more we are finding out that biology / chemistry / nature DOES play a role – a big one. But notice that he attempts the “wool over the eyes” after the smoke up the butt:
They do not, however, concretely stand for any of the following: indicating a person’s intelligence, physical abilities, sexual orientation, development during puberty, appearance or make of genitals, or what level of bodily production of which sex hormones.
In short, XY does not indicate a biological man and XX does not indicate a biological woman.
Er, yes, it does. No, we do not know if there is a gene being expresses or suppressed that accounts for sexual orientation. But the others? Most certainly genetic expressions DO play a role, some in major ways, the things he enumerates. No amount of wishing is going to change the “appearance or make of genitals” – that is set by your genes. Ditto your hormonal levels and when puberty hits (gee, ever hear of late development?).
Sure, there are some outliers that he uses – typical liberal logic of disproving the normal by using the small exceptions. And that is the problem that we, as conservatives, must divine: recognize that the Left ALWAYS runs to the extreme cliff in order to hold their ground and ignore the vast rest of the problem domain that doesn’t fit their narrative or conclusions. For a great example, listen to the second hour of GrokTALK! as Kimberly led the discussion concerning heroin overdoses here in NH and the absolute willingness for the Progressives always willing to punish the majority simply to “free” the victims from consequences of their own devices (and yes, I am with the cohort that says that putting that needle into your body that first time is a personal and self-responsible decision on your part to do exactly that – why do YOU and your Progressive apologists adamant that I am (and must be) part of YOUR problem?
After all, having my male chromosomes all set Rightly, I’ll fight that liberal premise that I am at fault.
