Share this comment
It's a falsehood to call that guy a congresswoman.
The fact is that he's the first trans congressman, meaning a man who has medicalised himself to appear like the opposite sex, aka a male transsexual.
They played games with language as a way to entrench this ideology by stealth and I am done going along with it just to be "accepting".
We're…
It's a falsehood to call that guy a congresswoman.
The fact is that he's the first trans congressman, meaning a man who has medicalised himself to appear like the opposite sex, aka a male transsexual.
They played games with language as a way to entrench this ideology by stealth and I am done going along with it just to be "accepting".
We're talking about a public figure here and not, say, your neighbour. It should not go on the record that he is an elected "congresswoman". It's a travesty that we allow this legal fiction to officially exist in Western countries.
I have no problem with individuals choosing to transition and changing their name. But the state should not be in the business of falsifying public records to validate a person's aesthetic choices and inner sense of identity. No one can change their birth year or place of birth, so why is it possible to change one's registered sex?
We live in strange times.
Speaking of playing games with language, it's also interesting that they replaced 'transvestite' (& all its past connotations of fetish and debauchery) with 'transsexual'.
Rebranding 101.
You only rebrand a product when its reputation has become unsalvageable.
But it's still the same tainted product.
Transsexual wasn't really a replacement of transvestite. It's merely the next step up: medicalisation (hormones and/or surgery) rather than just cross-dressing and make-up.
Also, transsexuals traditionally included very effeminate gay men who were not the same breed as the hetero fetishists.
The language game was to call both of these things "transgender" while simultaneously expanding the label to include gender-non-conforming kids.