Given the potential extinction of women's sports, due to participation by chemically or surgically castrated males, we need a third category. Men's sports, women's sports, and nontrans-women's sports. For clarity. The grabbag of "women's" sports is now a sort of middle ground, equal in theory to what "men's" sports should be.
"Men's sports" is something in which reconfigured (biological or born) women (who are allowed to be presumed to be New Men (hominus novi, like Cicero in Classical Rome)) literally NEVER compete. Trans um men NEVER compete against biological men. But they could, they could, if they didn't mind being beaten like a rug in competition. Losing like Custer at Little Bighorn.
Maybe they'd win at billiards, or archery? Maybe they'd dominate. Maybe individuals who are given 10 times their biologically normal baseline of testosterone are given an extraordinary, one might say abnormal, boost in accuracy. Food for thought. An area for post-graduate investigation.
I recently heard vagina-women proposed as a sports-category option, but this won't do. The pubic sac that surgeons construct, for castrated men of a certain identity, is popularly called a "vagina". Any man (or even woman, whatever that is), who's had intimate contact with an actual, evolutionarily-designed vagina would be surprised that this modern surgical artifact is identified as a vagina.
Likewise, ovary-women wouldn't do, first because the trauma of a hysterectomy doesn't make a woman stop being a woman. As for the men, at this point having an ovary transplant or implant is not reportedly a thing. Tranz is about appearances -- silhouettes and superficialities, skin deep.
I'd think of the constructed "vagina" in question as analogous to the way a mucous fistula (the opening for a colostomy bag) is like an anus. It takes the place and does the job, sort of. Operative difference being, a mucous fistula has a metabolic function, whereas the sac vagina, sacgina, is entirely cosmetic. Cosmetic surgery can be absolutely vital, as with catastrophic disfiguration. But the catastrophe should not have been voluntary.
But look at me, there I go again, with my values-laden language and my presumptive morality.
Yes, I am too graphic and offensive, for those who would be offended. Is truth a defense? No, it is an absolute defense. But not an operative one. We modern americans do not have the right to be offensive.
Offendedness is the real point of the First Amendment, as interpreted from the penumbrae of the emanations of the vapor of the supposition of the presumption of the intimation of the miasma of the excrescence of the constitution, by the Court Most Holy and Supreme, more formally known as the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición. (Hyperbole is also an absolute right.)
Like the Sephiroth of the Tree of Life, such emanations are religious. Who knew. The Kabballah and the Constitution are practically the same thing. Just goes to show ya. Ya learn something new everyday. Woman, Constitution, and other debatable theories.
As established in the precedent laid down in Humpty Dumpty v Connecticut, words mean whatever we, or rather, whatever they want them to mean ... whether here in Wonderland, or beyond the looking glass. As I observed not long ago, some sexual identities are entirely dependent on looking-glasses and the hours spent applying makeup.
It is these glass-gazers who know true reality — it is these seers who foretell our future, our destiny. We are Evolving into that sort of sexless bacteria that exchanges packets of genetic material, like a handshake. Yuck. Wash your hands. What's that goo? Hair gel?
"Normal" used to be a word we were allowed to used in polite company. Now it's another N-word. I hope sacgina is acceptable. It lets real women avoid having to describe themselves as non-trans woman. Seems like people should be able to call themselves what they have always called themselves, without contradiction.
Then again that's the problem — men claiming they've always been women. They would be sacgina men, or women ... it's confusing — men with sacginas calling themselves women.
What should the women who call themselves (non-competitor) "men" be called? — I mean, not for name-calling, rudeness, but for accuracy rather than emotion? What clear descriptor might there be for the full-blown post-surgical counterpart — women with neopenises calling themselves men? Maybe ... neopenis-women.
At least neopenis is widespread online ... oh, only 39k on google. "Transwoman" has almost 40 million. Anyways, I completely made up sacgina.
Peen-neo? Sacgina men and peeneo women? We'll take a survey. Whatever the majority wants. Popularity is what democracy and truth and reality are all about.
It's The New Adventures of Sacgina and Peeneo! Streaming now on Disney+!!!
Why do I return, in recent months, so frequently to this tranny topic? I repeat myself, but in new ways. Aside from the power of its symbolism for the decay of our civilization, it is a sad fact that sex is a constantly salient topic, and an urge and a compulsion. An appetite, albeit not, reportedly, for everyone — one of the alphabet sexualities is a-sexual. Asexual. We ignore the inherent contradiction of the diction ... oh! dickshun, giddit?!? Heh heh... But sex itself is an urge for most of us.
It's not that it's sex. It's that it's so basic to society and to biology. As hard as the deluded and disturbed are fighting and killing for their version of change, we need to mount a defense, and my sarcastic and potentially painful paragraphs are part of it.
We will be instructed, as soon as some Lefty thinks of it, that "most" is a racist term, as indicating and supporting a non-minority. Regardless, there is still some statistical power in numbers. Measurement is a great deal of what science is (even the Covid Religionists acknowledge this, with words). Objectivity, enumeration, measurement, consistency and stability and reliability, these are, really they are, how we establish what is normal.
The thing about knowledge is that it can be known. Identify things as what they are, illusions dismissed, and we arrive at reality. A sacgina is not a vagina. A peeneo is not a penis. However improbable, this must be the truth, Sherlock. Because it is impossible that a thing is what it is not.
How many ways do I have to say a man is not a woman, and vice versa. I keep circling back. My problem is that I insist on truth over feeling. If the physical universe were theistic it would respect this in me. Society, at the moment, if it knew of me, would hate me.
Me and Jesus. Ah.
J
No comments:
Post a Comment