Gender | The Space Between

Mainstream media promotion of America’s circa 2017 political movement to roll back changes from feminist and gay rights movements by containing dastardly nonconformity to sex-stereotypes via ‘transgender’: the idea that women are feminine (submissive) and men are masculine (dominating) and outliers have a medical condition, and/or are intersex special snowflakes.
The most important thing to remember is that men who want to wear make-up and skirts can’t possibly be male, and women regardless of presentation are still the people that get raped by men. Also that nelly gays and butch lesbians can be medically corrected into normalcy.
Primetime CBS special aired last night.

39 thoughts on “Gender | The Space Between

  1. The rainbow graphic at the beginning is so stupid, the explanation given about ‘gender’ is so asinine, it almost makes me yearn for the awful sex ed films of yesteryear, which actually showed a migrating egg, a shedding endometrial lining, etc.

    1. irresistible joke here about the “space between” one’s ears, which servile gender theory is filling with lukewarm air.

  2. Not your father’s transexualism! There’s a whole new rainbow full of special snowflake identities.
    People used to just call it personality, but what do old people know, anyway?

      1. Character? Is that the technical term for one of those flint tools from the Neolithic age?

  3. OMG what a headache producing, woman safety erasing mess. And what is it with all the ugly earrings so many people in the show wear? The bolts on the guy …. eyes role…

  4. I was rolling my eyes and facepalming less than a minute into this! I notice CBS has cowardly disabled comments, though I’m glad to see more downvotes than upvotes. All of these special snowflakes claiming these newly-invented genders were under 25, and many of them (as well as some of the people on the panels later) admitted it’s being fueled by sites like Tumblr, Instagram, and YouTube.
    I lost count of how many times I reached peak trans all over again while watching that!

  5. Any wonder WHY this was on the CBS Pay News platform.If this crap were to air on regular broadcast, some folks would be out of work.

  6. The ‘doctor’ (and I use that word loosely) speaking about intersex and human beings being “non binary” as a species…how disinfuckinggenuous can you get?! Citing physiological abnormality and deformity as “non binary” to make this point is a gross overstep into the land of pc medicine sans actual facts and virtue signaling.
    There used to be a name for this kind of doctor…oh right, I remember…they’re called QUACKS.

  7. I’m so tired of this “gender” nonsense. We are all nonbinary, as none of us fit 100% into either sex stereotype.
    In this video, I see men and women, dressed in ways which do not conform to our culture’s current sex stereotypes. That’s it. It is nothing but outward appearance.
    I see gay men wearing makeup, lesbians with mastectomies, and young women who hate female stereotypes so much they can’t stand being called women, although they are definitely adult human females. Instead of whining about how bad it is to be called a woman (which is ridiculous, as they obviously are women) they should be fighting to banish the stereotypes they hate so much, and with good reason.
    I don’t know why people can’t see through this nonsense.

    1. It looks as though someone has looked at the nonsense, in the political vein..listened and the result is this:
      According to several news sites ( including a couple that lean LGBT), Executive Order 13673 has been reversed. This was the Obama XO that extended federal employment protections to all under the umbrella, in particular…the t brigade. The lunacy and symbiotic parasitic attachment by (once again….for the most part) the t cult has resulted in a severely critical wound.
      So these folks can have their multiple genders, prefixes and if they choose, engage in the detachment of their biological OEM equipment…but this may just result in not being able to find gainful employment. And if these said, same persons were employers themselves and treated deserving minorities and women poorly in the workplace, let them now bid on government contracts. The clock has reached midnight….

      1. Exec Order 13672 is the lgbt employment protections order. He has kept that in place so far, allegedly because Ivanka asked him to do so.
        Exec Order 13673 is a fair pay and conditions order has been revoked. From what I see the reporting at ThinkProgress seems to be deliberately blurring the repeal of one with repeal of the other, probably because it get’s more eyeballs.

        1. Understood….but here is the rub. Seeing they are interconnected, the odds are that the repeal of 13673 is on the boards.
          Also…my thinking on why Ivanka stepped in is rooted in WHO would really benefit, short term. Need anyone here have to spell this one out? Sure as hell, it is not anyone with even suntans who voted for the DNC. But the protections are for the mostly melanin deprived, who think like Trump…protestations to the contrary.
          Bet the house on 13673 being taken care of soon enough

        1. My apologies on that…and I may and did use the wrong terms. Mea culpa.
          The intent was not to publish an inaccuracy, which I try not to do. If the relevant XO has not been enacted, then there is also something wrong about, where and there are postings elsewhere mentioning, at least under Obama these existed and ‘worked’.
          Again my apologies on a bad error in research on my part, as well as not being clear in the response.

          1. I took your “understood” comment to mean that your comment was not made in error, but done deliberately. Thank you for acknowledging your comment was (unintentionally) not factual.

          2. That is appreciated. As my feline companion has reminded me (more times than I can count ๐Ÿ˜Š), I am only human.
            Once again, I will try to not make the same error again. If for no other reason than, there is way too much at stake, to be erroneous. Even if it is an unintentional error. And when it happens, unlike the brigade…will have the guts to admit it.

    2. Exactly. The trans agenda perpetuates these sterotypes. If you don’t fit the sterotype change your label! By whose definition? The 1950’s definition of male vs. female? And I am so sick of allthis whining crap about them not fitting into the binary and that there is more than one gender. If that is the case why do you keep trying to fit into it! Stop trying to get into the women’s restroom and lockerroom if you are a third or fifty third gender! The building codes should be changed. Their should be a male, female and nongendered restroom. You cannot just slap a new label on an old fashioned restroom with semi private stalls. They are not fully private particularly with cell phone cameras today! I saw an article about a trans beauty pageant and I thought it was great! They should have their own pageant. They should have their own restroom and their own sports and stop trying to erase women’s rights!

    1. Am I to assume no one told this woman that breasts are infection prone which is why it’s best to avoid surgery there if possible?

    2. There are people with actual deformities and disabilities who are unable to get help.
      Medicaid doesn’t even cover adult dentistry. There are people living in constant agony in need of fillings and root canals. They can barely eat.
      But by all means, let’s use pubic funds to help this perfectly healthy person mutilate themselves. And then let’s chip in thousands more to revise the self-inflicted horrors. This is absolutely ridiculous.

      1. Eh. I know. She’s been maimed by surgeons who specialize in unnecessary procedures on able-bodied people, because she never wanted men to look at her tits again. Her nipples rotted off. I feel bad for her. *Throws hands up

      2. I agree. And it isn’t “just” dentistry. People can not access eye glasses or contacts, hearing aids, or expensive medications. There is no money for these crucial things, but taxpayers should spend $100,000 per person on SRS, and when trans changes their mind, we should spend the same to reconstruct what was originally there. Ridiculous!

      3. Medicaid doesnโ€™t even cover adult dentistry.

        I am going to correct you on this. Medicaid, at least under the Obamacare extension, does cover adult dentistry. I am on it and I have had thousands of dollars worth of dental work done.

      4. Medicaid (not to be confused with Medicare) is jointly funded by both federal and state gov’t. It covers dental care for all children under the age of 21. After 21, it’s left up to the state whether or not it wants to provide adult dental care. Some states do – altho it’s much more limited than that for children. Other states provide no coverage at all. So it all depends on which state you live in.
        After one turns 60, the rules do change a bit in some states and things like glasses, hearing aids, prescriptions, dental care, etc may be compensated for via other benefits.

  8. Males say they’re women and females say they’re men because of feelings that they have. โ€” Can your uncle Joe become your aunt Betty just because he feels like it?
    Feeling your way out of your genitals…tonight…on Sick Sad World.

  9. When I took intro to Psychology as a college freshman, the professor talked about how people who don’t fit into society are essentially forced to choose between alienation from others and alienation from themselves. He seemed to think it was both less narcissistic and somewhat healthier to become alienated from oneself and maintain one’s connection to others. As a young woman from a working class background, I remember thinking that a white, male professor was unlikely ever to be forced into that choice, so what did he know?. (Although I suppose there’s always a slight chance he was a closeted gay man.)
    It struck me at the time that it’s easier for those in power if people become alienated from themselves. If, for example, a woman felt called to be a nuclear physicist, but becoming one meant she wouldn’t perform femininity, caretaking, or emotional labor, she might end up alienated from society for not “acting like a woman” and some might think it woud be “better”–as in more pleasant and convenient for them–if she just caved into expectations, no matter how much she had to warp herself to do it. Or if a working class person accepts their place as inferior. I tended to come down on the side of alienation from society for people who weren’t hurting anyone except those who held rigid stereotypes.
    In the bad old days, you might have to choose whether to act against gendered expectations and become alienated from others, or mutilate yourself psychologically in order to be accepted. The trans phenomenon seems to be an escape tunnel from this old dilemma. For some, the bargain seems to be that if they mutilate their body in particular ways, maybe they can be who they are AND not be rejected. But this turns out to be just another type of alienation from oneself and, conveniently, takes energy that might be better used to push back against society, which tends to happen once enough people become alienated from it. The special snowflakes seem to assume they can escape the choice merely by making up a new category, so they can be seen not as defective males or females but as normal non-binary/genderqueer, etc., people. In a way, they’re expecting society to change, but only for them and others like them, not for all those boring, vanilla people they despise.
    Yes, it’s all very well to declare oneself gender fluid, but I want to know who’s expected to vacuum and do the dishes, and whose opinions receive deference.

    1. “He seemed to think it was both less narcissistic and somewhat healthier to become alienated from oneself and maintain oneโ€™s connection to others.”
      Are you serious? That sounds really off, and I say that as someone who studied psychology for several semesters in college, and for several years on my own. From what I learned, the notion of going to either extreme is very self-destructive. At one end, you lose your sense of self, making you essentially incapable of knowing what to do to live a happy or fulfilling existence in any discernible way, self-esteem goes out the window without any notion of self, and you become as malleable to others seeking to manipulate you as human silly putty. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, you know yourself but alienate yourself from other people such that you lose your social support and any possibility for close platonic or romantic relationship, thus depriving you of both an essential aspect of social/emotional nourishment and the safety that relationships provide in other senses. Both of them are terrible choices and there is no better one of the two. It would be like asking whether it’s better to overdose on pills or jump off a cliff โ€” you’re dead either way.
      The healthy option would be to create a sense of balance between the two โ€” to spend enough time getting to know yourself and enough time getting to know others. Fostering relationships both with yourself and the world will ensure some degree of social support, a sense of self more resistant to manipulation and abuse, and more of a sense of self-esteem in all regards. It’s really a mistake to even interpret it as an either/or choice. It’s not either you know yourself or you know others. You’ll know some of each regardless. It’s more a matter of how much you’re going to concentrate on each, and that’s an individual thing, but the healthiest direction to go in (regardless of the percentages) is really about establishing an appropriate harmony between the two.

      1. May I ask when you went to college? I suspect it may have been later than I did. Your comment assumes one’s degree of societal alienation is completely a matter of individual psychology–even individual choice–which is pretty much what my professor was claiming from his position of white, male, upper middle class privilege. I’m not speaking about simply knowing oneself and others, and not everyone is lucky enough to occupy a world where your description of a healthy balance is even possible. For example, I had gay relatives who were young adults in the 1950s, when wholesale social rejection and even arrest were very real responses to any refusal to be alienated from that part of themselves. And look at the way women and girls are treated in many societies today–sex selective abortion, FGM, child marriage, bride burning. What can a balance between self-alienation and societal alienation even mean under such circumstances? To assert that one’s degree of societal alienation is purely a matter of choice is to fall into the trap of individualistic thinking that led to the existence of all these special snowflakes in the first place.
        I would argue that in our society gender often still works in ways that force people to choose between types of alienation. If a 13-year-old girl who refuses to perform hypersexualized femininity is ostracized and bullied by her schoolmates, how do you propose she find the balance in that situation? Should she try to figure out how frequently she’s absolutely expected to wear a mini-skirt or the minimum number of topless selfies she has to send to not become alienated from her peers? If she’s lucky, she may have parents or an alternate community (such as a sensible church or an online group of baby radfems) that will support her as she rides out the storm of rejection, but not everyone finds that. As far as I can see, too many teenaged girls these days assume their only way out is to identify as male or, at least, non-binary, and I don’t think it’s because they’ve failed to choose some theoretical healthy balance, but because society has failed them–in demanding that girls squeeze themselves into the cage of femininity, no matter how much of themselves they have to cut off in order to fit.
        Gallus Mag’s blog is one of very few places in my life where people don’t routinely expect me to act more feminine than I am, even many people who’ve been in my life for years and should know better. And I’m no extreme outlier–just an ordinary straight, white woman who wears “women’s” clothes (admittedly of the more practical and comfortable sort) and a (no fuss) “women’s” hairstyle. Although I may become frustrated or laugh at all the young special snowflakes, I also know that our society created the conditions in which they developed. The reason I’m a radical feminist is precisely because I recognize that we can’t escape the conflict between gendered demands and societal alienation through individual choice alone.

  10. AUGH!!! I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I keep trying to watch this video and only getting about a minute in per sitting because I’m yelling at the screen and facepalming so hard. This is seriously the dumbest thing ever. You’re not SPECIAL because you sometimes wear a dress and other times wear a tie. Diane Keaton, among MANY MANY other people, have been doing that forever, and they don’t need a special “gender identity” to do it.
    Also, if the whole point of transness is that you want a different body from the one you were “assigned” at birth because you don’t identify with that “assignment,” then HOW DOES IT FOLLOW that liking both masculine and feminine things makes you not have a sex or gender?

    1. This is in the same ballpark as what was on Dr. Phil the other afternoon. As in another young special deluded snowflake.
      What made this another peak moment was that, an ‘expert’ who was brought on to ‘offer advice’ was from the DQ contingent, that consults on health issues, for a major LAX hospital. No…I cannot make crap like this up.
      I loathe even saying this, but if someone like Dr. Phil and others want to enable the egocentricly mad….then what will be ahead will really reek.

Comments are closed.