(no subject)

[axeslade]

Hey guys. If any of you read Bilerico Project...stop.

"No" to the notion of transgender

Do I even need to explain what's so wrong with this?

ETA: It's been pulled...but they've said these things before about other missteps they've made regarding trans/gender variant folk. We'll see where this goes.

This quote, from the (currently latest) comment on that, pretty well sums up my feelings right now.

Translation: The Bilerico team doesn't give a rats ass, but we got caught and we'd like to pretend this never happened even tho we really don't know what we did wrong. But those trannies sure are uppity. Gosh gee willickers.

PS please don't contact our advertisers telling them we're a hate site.

Comments

[merry-treat.livejournal.com]

I wonder what he would say if someone told him that it happens with animals, as well.

We had two cats, at different times. One was male, one was female. However, guess what was discovered when we took them to the vet to get fixed? Yup, they were biologically the opposite gender from what they acted like. The vet called in both situations to make sure we'd brought her the right cats. Even after the procedures were complete, they were still mentally the opposite gender. You'd never guess, unless we told you.

That pretty much blows this guy's idea out of the water.

This moron doesn't know what he's talking about, and it didn't inspire me to delve further into this blog of his.

Hugs.

[axeslade.livejournal.com]

Well, 'tis not his blog. It's a general gay blog, but yeah. He's a new contributor, this was his first post, and this site has a poor history of things dealing with transfolk. This was their last strike for me.

[stuffphile.livejournal.com]

Yeesh. What as asshat. I see that the site that published this have posted a disclaimer, where they mention some of their contributors also found the piece, "offensive or needlessly coarse". Nobody's mentioning finding the piece too stupid to live, or riddled with logic!fail.

As far as I can tell, it was only Gold's idea to reduce the question of whether GID is real to a question of "are there such things as male and female personalities?". He has no proof that it can really be determined by such a question, and the answer he gives seems to be only his own opinion. He provides no proof that's correct, either.

He, apparently, knows more than all of the medical professionals who have been researching GID and assisting those with it for all these years. Just because he does

So, I do wonder why the site would post that or keep it up. I feel like I should be supportive of free speech for people even with opposing views to mine, but... ugh. Can't unpopular speech at least have a shred of reasoning behind it, before they inflict it on everyone? x.x

[axeslade.livejournal.com]

So, I do wonder why the site would post that or keep it up. I feel like I should be supportive of free speech for people even with opposing views to mine, but... ugh.

See, I've had differing views from many contributors on this site. But none of them have basically said what amounts to 'you're deluded and you're really a female and you should keep all your bits even if they make you suicidal, because...um...I said so'

I believe there's a really big difference between, say, having a post taking a side on the whole nature/nurture thing, and telling a good chunk of your readership (and other contributors) that their identity is invalid.