web analytics

Poor, Poor, JK Rowling and her Rousing TERFS

Well, well, Rowling is catching hell for defending “the right of a woman to express her opinion about sex and gender without losing her job.”

The right of a woman?  What about a man?  Is there a “right of a man” to express an opinion about sex and gender without losing their jobs?  Or is it only women?  Or, perhaps only ‘women’?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The idea that “there are two sexes and that sex is immutable” is evidently, not “worthy of respect in a democratic society.”  (per the Judge, page 24).

Of course, what Rowling is experiencing, along with many other “TERFs”, is indeed thoroughly toxic to a ‘democratic society.’  Nonetheless, it is a delicious to see smug progressive types getting a taste of what they’ve been giving for quite a few years.  It is as delicious as watching Nancy Pelosi defend her bid to be Speaker of the House by accusing her opponents as being ‘sexist’ (backed up by fellow progs), only to later have folks like AoC accuse her of being a racist.  Not to mention the accusation that the entire Democrat base are bigots, as the explanation for why Kamala Harris dropped out of running for president… comments like the lack of support showing ‘America isn’t ready for a black woman to be president’ fail to take into account the fact that Harris dropped out of the DEMOCRAT primary.

Kamala HarrisBut honestly, I think its a little funny to view Kamala Harris as a ‘black’ person, anyway.  She seems to be in the category of Soledad O’brien, who I honestly would not have thought was a ‘person of color’ until I was asked to squint real hard.  Makes you think of the ol’ ‘White Latino’ thing, right?

soledad and zimmermanIn the era of white women identifying as a black woman, it appears that in actuality, the reality of a person’s race–or gender–is irrelevant, regardless of all the heat surrounding these discussions.  What matters is who can best use race, gender, etc, as a weapon more effectively.  At present, the ‘oppressed’ group du juor are the trans people, but their time, too, will pass.  Replaced by who?  I don’t know.  The Furries?  Cyborgs?

Another topic for another day, but sure to be entertaining as hell, right up to the point they start murdering people in their beds for being ‘bigots.’  Where ‘they’ could be the activists themselves, or perhaps even the government, acting in their stead.   So, enjoy it while you can.

Of course, conservatives already know all about this.  Who can forget every criticism of Obama being chalked up to simple racism?  Or folks like Brendan Eich, who I don’t think actually was a conservative, but lost his job for having the audacity of opposing gay marriage?  In the spirit of “A conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged,” I wonder which way he’s leaning these days.

The thing is that the whole trans vs. TERF thing is just the next step on a continuum proceeding from the same principles–and tactics–that percolated through the ‘gay marriage’ debate.  Feminists themselves (Eg, Kate Millet) in the 1960s and 1970s ‘normalized’ this very behavior using the EXACT same modes of thought now being used against them.  For example, who can forget that the reason why the American Psychiatry Association removed homosexuality from the DSM is because a large number of gay activists violently stormed into their meetings in 1970s; forthwith, on an entirely sober medical judgment (ie, wherein it was determined that, from a purely medical perspective, being opposed to homosexuality could get you maimed, or worse), took ‘action’ to normalize homosexuality.

“This is what democracy looks like.”

Well, no.  That is not ‘democracy.’  It is tyranny and totalitarianism, almost by definition.  If you cannot have your own opinions about all things and aren’t able to say them, how is that not tyranny and totalitarianism?

To this date, the progressive’s answer to that question has basically been to say that its only CERTAIN things you can’t have your own opinions on, and anyway, no one is saying you can’t say them, just that ‘free speech’ does not mean ‘free of consequences.’  Oh, yea, and by the way, you can have your own unexpressed opinion, but if you dare to formulate that opinion into legislation… ie., what in some contexts we would call ‘self-government’, we’re going to have to hurt you.  Economically, if you are lucky.  But we reserve the right to show you a little more “this is what democracy looks like” until you get the message.

And then one day, the grounds shifts underneath.  Suddenly, it is YOU who cannot have your own opinions, and hell no, you can’t say them ‘free of consequences.’  I mean, who could possibly have seen such an eventuality?  Only conservatives, apparently.  For example, me.

For decades, conservatives have consoled themselves with a bit of dark humor about how the ‘left always eats itself.’   Whenever you have a ‘principle’ which is no principle at all, but merely a blunt instrument for obtaining power, you can expect that someone else may eventually lay hands on that instrument.  I think it is revealing that the ‘left’ has yet to understand this and appreciate the fact.   If you talk to a leftist about this, they will always find ways to rationalize the restriction of speech.  They may quibble about where to draw the line, but they always think its appropriate to draw lines.  That sentiment is, at its core, pure unadulterated totalitarianism, and no matter how much they try to dress it up and pat themselves on the back for being a ‘good person’ (by which they mean, better than you), its the stuff of bloodshed and murder, if allowed to proceed to its natural end.

It may be possible to introduce ACTUAL PRINCIPLE into the discussion about limiting ‘free speech’ but the left is nowhere near being capable of doing that.  At present, its all a discussion about who gets to wield the blunt instrument next, akin to my complaint about how some people want to have a reasoned conversation about how best to skin a baby alive.  Ie, anyone who can have a ‘reasoned conversation’ about whose turn is it to have the hammer is a sicko.  Having a ‘reasoned conversation’ about who gets to speak about what things is participating in their depravity.  It is the sort of thing that should arouse righteous anger, not high-minded ‘thoughtful’ dialog.  In a ‘civil’ conversation about who gets to speak about what, there won’t be as much blood as if you were skinning babies alive, thankfully, but the end game might be just as bad:

I fear we are rapidly reaching the point where positions are irrevocably hardened, and it will no longer be possible to sort out differences of opinions by dialog or elections, leaving only sheer violence as the mechanism to resolve such things.

In the case of the trans debate, we’ve reached a moment where people advancing demonstrably unreal things reached a limit where even fellow nutjobs like Rowling and other TERFS sense the disconnect with the world as it really is.   They were already disconnected from the world as it really was when it came to feminism and homosexuality (Rowling being the one who tried to smuggle in support for gays by post hoc statements that Dumbledore was gay), and gay marriage.  But the degree and kind of unreality these things posed were not quite as self-evident as the unreality of the trans-movement.   But only just barely.  It is encouraging, in a way, that even ‘liberal’ progressives are starting to take a beating, because it might be the only thing that could awaken them to their own malicious worldview which helped bring us to this point in the first place.

But I wouldn’t count on it.

What has transpired in the last five years–and is still transpiring–is the kind of thing which forces a ‘hardening.’  Either you recognize that setting yourself up as an arbiter over what kinds of speech will be free is totalitarian, or you don’t.  If you don’t recognize it, then you will be forced to commit yourselves to rather meekly engaging in arguments like “Well, I don’t agree with such and such but…” which validates and reinforces the very trends you say you don’t ‘agree with.’  What is needed, and needed on a vast scale, is what Christianity calls ‘repentance.’

Repentance, in Christian terms, is not merely saying you are wrong, or you were mistaken.  It comes from a Greek word which suggests “to change your mind.”  In other words, ‘repentance’ represents a repudiation of one way of thinking and re-orienting towards an entirely different way of thinking.  New wine cannot go in old wine skins.  Being sorry for a thing you fully intend to do again–or are incapable of not doing again–is not repentance.  Repentance means recognizing where you went wrong in the first place and then setting your mind towards not committing the same errors.  Forgiveness precedes and follows true repentance.

In her ‘tweet’ Rowling says,

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?

According to the ‘left’ you were considered veritable Hitlers if you objected to the second and third item, and Rowling probably would have joined in.  I haven’t kept up to date on her views well enough to know for sure, but having read widely of these nutjobs for a long while, you can be sure that there are many a TERF who would have.  But now we get to the fifth item, and the shoe is on the other foot.  What should happen is the entire mode of thought which made the second and third items fair game for democracy-killing slander should have been repudiated when suddenly revealed for what it is when manifested in her own experience to stating the fifth item.  Will this happen?  Of course not, and therein lies the problem.  She still hasn’t put her finger on the real ‘sin,’ which happens to be the very one she herself is engaging in, just at a different point.

It is a good sign that there are TERFs.  It means that even the tyrants are being challenged to reconsider their own worldview.  But I am doubtful it will be enough, and I rather think these small positive signs don’t amount to much when laid against the violently anti-democratic trends we’ve seen by supposed ‘Democrats’ or ‘democrats’ when faced with pretty bold challenges to their authority.  And yes, when I say ‘authority,’ that’s exactly the word I mean.

The fallout of the Trump election is a perfect case in point.  Brexit being another.  The bottom line is that ‘democracy’ only ‘works’ if the losers are willing to lose graciously.  ‘Democracy’ represents a bargain of sorts.  In the old days, disagreements were worked out by coups, assassinations, wars, and the like.  These tended to spiral into vicious circles, in which victory was often temporary, and the next day it was your own head on the block.  The ‘bargain’ of democracy is that, as shitty as some things are that people want to do, compared to having death squads and revolutions, its better to let people get those shitty things, and work to change minds, etc, for the day when you yourself have the support to reverse it via genuinely ‘democratic’ means.

Our utterly ignorant populace knows nothing about how things used to be and operates on the utterly stupid presumption that we are ‘civilized’ now and we need not worry about such things ever happening.  You can subvert elections and elected officials via any means necessary, if it is for a ‘good cause.’  You can pull at every thread, because our society is so robust, it could not POSSIBLY unravel.  And so they pull and pull and pull and pull, and then one day there are things called TERFs which are hounded and harassed into oblivion?  And who will be next?

There is no question in my mind that the true threat to freedom and liberty is firmly ensconced on the ‘left.’  I’m not saying it is impossible that tyranny and totalitarian can emerge on the ‘right’ (how could I believe that while writing the paragraph above?), but all evidence–of the real world sort, not the “oh, but I had good intentions and i’m so sorry I tried to destroy your entire well being, Mr. Kavanaugh” sort–is that it is the ‘left’ which poses the acute danger to ‘democracy.’

Even as I speak, there are hapless elites searching for any possible way to stop Brexit after the conservatives battered Labour and the Lib-Dems.  They say things like, “Well, if you add up the anti-brexit votes, its still more than those who voted for the pro-brexit parties.”  So you see, it is THEY who are proceeding in a ‘democratic’ fashion.  This sentiment is very much like the response to Trump’s election, in which he won fair and square according to the rules, but did not win the ‘popular vote.’  This may be annoying, I will concede, but to them this was an invitation to engage in just about every vile behavior in human record.  The only thing left for them to do is wide scale political violence.  My fear is that there are increasing numbers of people who are coming to that conclusion, and are not repulsed by it.   We call these people ‘progressives.’

The reason why I am laying out the last few paragraphs here is not to insult the ‘left’ for no good reason.  It is, perhaps, a bid to shame them.  But really, the point that I’m going for is that there isn’t anything conservatives can do about this.  This is a problem within ‘progressivism’ and only progressives can fix it.  Conservatives have been on the receiving end of it and generally, on a wide view, they’ve basically lost.  (It may not seem like it to a liberal progressive, but its true, as time will show.)  What is required is for the ‘progressives’ to get their own house in order.

It’s time the ‘left’ confronts its own totalitarian instinct and stops coddling their toxic beliefs and recognizes what they really amount to.  Is it possible to be a ‘leftist’ who is not also a tyrant in waiting?  I’d like to think so.  But now is the moment of demonstration.  If leftists don’t, or won’t, restrain and redirect their fellow travels, its all of us who will have to pay.

First they came for the Republicans, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Republican.

Then they came for the white Christian males, and I did not speak out—because I was not one of those Goddam racist mofos.

Then they came for the feminists, and I did not speak out—because I generally accepted their principles, I just thought maybe they went “a little too far.”

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

JK Rowling
gender
feminists
Share

1 comment

    • Ajit on December 22, 2019 at 11:37 pm

    He who digs a pit will fall into it, and he who rolls a stone will have it roll back on him – Proverbs 26:27
    Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap – Galatians 6:7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

3 × 4 =