Tag Archives: transgenders

It’s “violence” to mispronounce someone’s name, by Simon Black

Here is Simon Black’s weekly serving of hard to believe but true stories from the past week. From Black at sovereignman.com:

Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? You might want to grab a drink for this one… or take a moment to listen to some soothing meditation music.

Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, finances, and possibly your blood pressure.

It’s “violence” to mispronounce someone’s name

Let me ask you a question– how do you pronounce the name “Shea” ?

My gut would be “Shay”. Or perhaps “Shay-uh”.

Well, for at least one person, a Ms. Shea Diamond, the name is pronounced “Shee-uh”. Easy mistake to make.

Continue reading

Who Precisely Are “the Vulnerable”? by Paul Craig Roberts

Anyone can declare him or herself anything he or she wants, and then declare him or herself a victim. However, only certain claims to victimhood shall be recognized. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

Some readers, both male and female, wondered why I came to the defense of feminist Laura Tanner ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/07/17/free-speech-no-longer-exists-in-us-universities/ ).  Why not, I was asked, let a MeTwo babe experience the name-calling and stress  that feminists dish out to men and “women apologists for men”?

Justice is part of the answer.  Another part of the answer is that “Western civilization” is creating new victim groups so rapidly that older victim groups are becoming victims of the new.  The Tanner case is a case in which a feminist “victim” of male misogyny hasn’t the clout of a transgender advocate.  It is not clear whether Tanner’s persecutor, Kremina Youssef, is a transgender or just an advocate for transgender “victims.”

Regardless, it is Laura whose career is on the line for expressing an opinion, not the career of Kremina for expressing her opinion. 

The older terms “privileged minority” and “preferred minority”  are giving way to “vulnerable minority.”  The older terms had an honesty whereas the “vulnerable” designation resides in a lie. 

Those who are said to be “vulnerable” actually have all the power. Tanner, who expressed her opinion outside the university that it is not possible to be born into the wrong body and, therefore, a person in a male body is a male, has discovered that her free speech rights are null and void because Youssef is distressed.  It is Tanner, not Youssef, who is vulnerable.

Continue reading

Lost in Translation, by James Howard Kunstler

The transgenders are mad at the Trump administration. Take a number. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

Saturdays, when fewer eyeballs see the paper, The New York Times likes to publish its most extreme ventures into social unreality. Last week’s prank was the story at the top of page one that declared: #WontBeErased: Transgender People and Allies Mobilize Against Trump Administration Proposal. (The accompanying photo featured a rainbow flag, of course, denoting that there was a pot-of-gold awaiting true believers.) This was a response to a Trump administration policy memo calling for “strict definition of gender based on a person’s genitalia at birth,” The Times said.

The dishonesty at work here ought to impress those observing the slow-motion collapse of culture in the USA. The political Left has taken its lessons in the abuse of language straight from the campus “post-structuralist” workshops, where novelties of narcissism get churned out by striving grad students in the ceaseless pursuit of cutting edge prestige (and academic career advancement). The game is to produce a never-ending chain of self-referential, status-enhancing world-views as a replacement for consensual reality. The more “marginalized” one can claim to be, the more deserving of high status (including tenure, grants for attending echo-chamber conferences and symposia, and a claque of attending assistants to actually teach those pain-in-the-ass classes). The goal is to get to feel special, and especially deserving of special privileges based on special grievances.

Continue reading

We Need Separation Of Bathroom & State, by Roy Cordato

Roy Cordato does a masterful job of illustrating the rights at issue in the North Carolina bathroom debate. From Cordato at mises.org:

The saga of the so-called Charlotte bathroom ordinance — and the state of North Carolina’s response to it — has taken on a life of its own. At the national level leftists are accusing North Carolina of bigotry while, in the name of tolerance, a growing list of performers and businesses are boycotting the state. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it.

In late February the Charlotte, North Carolina, city council passed an “antidiscrimination” law, scheduled to go into effect on April 1. It was aimed at protecting what, in the view of the city council, are the rights of those in the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. The centerpiece of this law was a provision that prohibits businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from segregating usage of those facilities by gender, biologically defined. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. (Note, no proof was required.)

Much of the criticism of the Charlotte bill was centered around two issues: the religious freedom of business owners and the privacy rights of people, particularly women, using public bathroom and shower facilities. Most of the vocal opposition to the ordinance came from religious organizations and advocacy groups that focused on traditional values. As argued by John Rustin, President of the Family Policy Council:

Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners and others either to conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business.

Private Property, Not Religion, Is the Key

While religious liberty is an important concern, the issue is much broader. This ordinance was an assault on the rights of private property owners and economic freedom, regardless of one’s religious beliefs.

The primary targets of the Charlotte ordinance were privately owned businesses that offer bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, etc., for their customer’s convenience. The decision of how to structure access to these facilities may, for some, be based on their religious beliefs but for many others it is a secular business decision. Their goal is customer satisfaction driven by the desire to make a profit and earn a living. The property that they use is privately owned, the investments that they make come from private funds, and those who reap the rewards or suffer the losses are private entrepreneurs. The bathrooms in their establishments are part of the product that they provide.

In a free society based on property rights and free markets, as all free societies must be, a privately owned business would have the right to decide whether or not it wants separate bathrooms strictly for men and women biologically defined, bathrooms for men and women subjectively or psychologically defined, completely gender neutral bathrooms with no labels on the doors, or no bathrooms at all.

To continue reading: We Need Separation of Bathroom and State