Today of all days I thought it appropriate to announce to the world my sexual desires. I am what people used to be called a “deviant”. But they’re not saying it anymore. They’d better not.
Announcing your sexual desires is recognized in our society, as it should be, as an act of supreme bravery, an act which is rewarded in any number of ways, particularly in fame. And I want to be famous for my sexual desires.
This granting of social emolument only works, of course, if the desires broadcast are thought deviant by bigots. And this is as it should be, because bigots are bigoted and bigoted people deserve to see what they hate praised.
Anyway, I self identify as a yak. I can’t help thinking I am yak. I remember wearing fuzzy coats when I was a boy and feeling how right they were for me. I didn’t realize I was a yak, though, until at age six on a fateful trip to the zoo when I lost nurse’s hand.
Oh, sure, I flirted with the idea that I was a colobus, especially as my hair began streaking grey. Once I even formed the notion that I might be a kakapo, a flightless bird native to New Zealand. But since I have never been to New Zealand I realized that my notion was false. I was confused because the kakapo, like myself, has a big nose and can’t fly. I blame society for these mix-ups.
Some of you will object that I am not a yak because I am not “genetically” a yak. This goes to show how much you know. You don’t have to be genetically a thing if you believe you are the thing. If you doubt this, just ask Bruce Jenner who taught us all If You Believe, You Are (this is the title of my next book). No more proof than belief is needed.
This slogan must be so, as is easily demonstrated. Scientists can show (through simple scientific tests) that folks like Bruce Jenner are genetically men, yet his belief that he is a woman turned him into a woman. He is, therefore, a woman—-because he believes he is one.
It helps to have others believe, too. This, I and Bruce have discovered, reinforces our own belief, which—I whisper this confidentially, dear reader—sometimes flags. Nobody can be ardent all the time!, especially while embedded in a hostile society.
Yet when I have these doubts, I seek an ally, somebody who agrees that I am a yak because I say I am a yak. I ask this person, “Am I really a yak?” and they say to me, “Yes, you are a yak.” So I am a yak. We live in a democracy.
Here’s the surprise. Although I am a yak, I am not sexually attracted to yaks (though I have experimented with yak milk). Sexual attraction, as academics teach us, need not be identical to identity. Some academics say it’s even a form of discrimination to be exclusionary and stay within the boundaries set by bigots. Bigots say, “If he thinks he’s a yak, let him breed with yaks.” But this is bigoted because it’s the kind of thing bigots say.
It isn’t unusual, then, that I am not attracted to others like myself; other yaks, I mean. My announcement is that I am attracted to human females, especially blondes of Dutch extraction. I am a yak, and I know it, but still I have these desires. I was born with them. I don’t even want them, yet there they are. And because they are, because they exist, they are therefore true and good desires.
That they are good and true is proved by noticing that I say I was born with these desires, or that I formed them at some point in time earlier than last week. Since I have had these desires since I was a young (mostly hairless) yak, you know they are true and good.
Yaks, you might not know, can only pee in herds. Lone yaks aren’t capable of the act. Scientists say this is a sort of inverse “shy bladder” syndrome. The point is this. In order for me to pee, I must be in a herd. But since I am not sexually attracted to yaks, I therefore need to be granted perpetual access to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader1 shower room.
I expect my readers, and especially the NFL, to be fully supportive and to threaten to boycott the Cowboys if they do not accede to this request.
——————————————————————–
1I’d also accept the Rockettes facilities.
Don’t talk back
Oh dear, and here I am about to embark on a long flight to your country. How should I identify? Definitely not as a Yak, not as a Kangaroo as that is one of the creatures on the coat of arms of my country and I have shot a few of both that adorn the coat of arms. I am confused. Perhaps I should identify as a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male the most persecuted species on the face of the earth today and go with the flow?
I hope to enjoy a ride on a Harley in Vegas next week where my daughter has decided to get married!! Do you know how many weddings there are each year in Las Vegas?
I started thinking you were a Yak about three days after I first found your website. But I knew you had to discover it yourself, and thus gave you time. Very proud you got there. Very proud…
And as a die-hard Cowboys fan, I fully support the boycott. I might need a counselor to help figure that out.
Oh umm…. Briggs I’ve got bad news for you.
But reality already beat you to this parody (anywhere from 5-20 years depending on how you count it). Yes I am dead f’ing serious. “Identifying as a yak” is what makes you technically a “furry” and the yak would be your fursona.
And of COURSE they have a growing rights movement.
Does this mean I can’t say “yak shaving” any more?
Back in the 60’s, when I was in junior high, my buddies and I would stand on each other’s shoulders in an attempt to get a peak into the girls locker room. Nowadays, boys have it much easier. They just self-identify and walk right in.
What a peculiar combination of desires. Yaks are beings of the high mountains, and Dutch women are not, not even the blondes, as they mostly live below sea level. A deadly place for yaks.
Good thing the desires do not express themselves as conflicting genetic combinations, you would be in so much trouble.
Just don’t say you’re a fairy. You’d be in a heap of trouble.
It’s well known that being Yakety has everything to do with sax. I think this was demonstrated by Benny Hill. If you’re a bigot, you can easily avoid the Yaketies. You can hear them coming from a mile away. It’s the quiet ones that are the problem.
You need a Latin motto. Why? Well, just because.
Volo ergo est.
(translation: I want it, therefore it is.)
I think there are some people who identify as Bonobos attracted to Humans. Maybe not openly yet, though.
Cool! glad to meet you Yak! I’m a kumquat! I am not attracted to other kumquats, only my spouse, who is still trying to figure out, who/what he identifies as. I almost identified as a codfish. It was close and on some days, I still wonder. But, if gender is fluid, maybe self identity is too! So I can be a kumquat or a codfish, or….the possibilities are limitless….oh too many choices…
better stick with the kumquat!
Why is believing all that is needed for sexuality, etc, but not religion???? Belief of millions of people should certainly have created a god by now.
Bruce does not believe he’s a woman. He wants everyone else to believe and had just enough surgery to make it convincing. Just enough.
The Furries thank you for your support. And you didn’t even have to join the group—or did you?
Have we reached the point yet where I can self-identify as a god and be treated as such?
HarryG: About the same number as divorces.
BrianH: Sorry you missed the fun years. Hopefully you’ll miss the years where the girls take revenge in a back alley.
Dear Yak Briggs,
Is it fun to tease people who are different from you? What do you get out of it?
It always goes back to Star Trek the Original Series
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz508DAx68U
JH: it isn’t fun, it’s necessary. These people/creatures/things/whatever take themselves so seriously, and endeavor to compel others to take them seriously, that ridicule is one of the best responses.
JH: When your opponent bases their argument on facts and logic, then your response should be in kind. When your opponent is a purveyor of utter nonsense, the only rational act is to laugh at them. In other words, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Besides, it sounds a lot like you’re tenor-policing, which is something that white cishet males do. I bet you’re not even vegan, you non-Bernie-voting charlatan!
JH: Would you worship Apollo?
Transcript of above…
Who mourns for adonis
…
I am Apollo!
… and I am the Tsar of Old Russia …
… my children …
you will not leave this place …
you will worship me as your father’s did before you …
if you want to play God, that’s your business …
JH,
You are a bigoted yakophobe. I am going to report you to your employer’s Diversity Tzars and they will extract from you a groveling apology.
I self identify as a Christian. This means that I have complete, internal certainty of the truths of Christianity.
Given what we know about how self-identification is enforceable on others, I can’t wait to see what I get away with!
Darla,
Codfish? How queer. They are flakey.
As it is April Fools day, I can only assume your self identification as a Yak is a fib. Tomorrow you will reveal this and that you really self identify as an Alpaca.
Today I self identify as Kate Bush. Here’s proof, I’m wearing red.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8jQl_zOKm4
JH: Ridicule is what kept people in line. Remove it and all H*ll breaks loose. Witness Europe—they let in murdering invaders and are backing those invaders killing and raping their own people. The idea that all people are somehow the same and none should be ridiculed is a recipe for anarchy.
Briggs: An apology may not be enough. People get fired even after apologizing. Speaking the truth is forbidden at this point and will result in loss of employment.
Sheri,
Also, every line like “bigot”, “-phobe”, “OMG IT’S 2016!!1!one!” is meant to ridicule and shame anyway.
Some people just get mad when the tactic is used against them.
James: Agreed. Some people can certainly give but not take.
Yak Briggs, how did you reach the conclusion that I am a a bigoted yakophobe? I don’t really care if you are a yak or not. Still, is it fun to tease people who are different from you? Well, is it possible for you to give a straight answer?
JH: Is it fun to completely ignore the answers already given and continue asking inane questions?
JH: Though you’re not *actually* “calling out” Yak Briggs, we know you *think* you are. Examine within yourself why you believe it’s important or worthwhile to shame Briggs for behavior you find unacceptable, and you’ll have your answer.
You know what’s funny? When someone decides they want to act like a punk bigot in my presence. Then I get to have fun belittling them and putting their little punk rumps in place. Online, though, I can only suggest to them that they go out in the real world and act like that in a crowd that is mixed beyond just a bunch of backwards, insecure, frightened little punks. So go ahead, Briggs. Go on out there and insult people you don’t like because you disapprove of their lifestyle, a lifestyle that has nothing to do with you. I bet you won’t.
JMJ
Mikhail, so you think that Briggs is shaming homosexuals by comparing them to animals? I did ignore your answer because you are not Briggs, are you? (Yak = Big Mouth. Briggs’s own admission. Inside joke.)
JMJ, No, I don’t think Briggs would insult people he doesn’t like, either.
JMJ, No, I don’t think Briggs would insult people he doesn’t like in front of them, either.
JH
We’re talking lifestyle’s and you want a “Straight” answer?
John B(), great, you got it!
I met a Tibetan engineer graduate student who graduated from Beijing University about 30 years ago. Yaks are inevitably connected to Tibet to many Chinese. So, the first time I met him, I asked him about yaks. I can tell you that yaks are important part of life of many Tibetans’ lifestyle.
We had a Banjo player at a local establishment, who announcing an older tune introduced it by saying “This tune comes out the Old West when men were men and sheep were nervous”. It always got a chuckle.
John B(), those ranch hands are probably macho heterosexuals.
JMJ,
Are you saying I am not a yak because I say I’m a yak? Hater! You and JH are awful bigots if you say I am not a yak.
The self-identity thing actually came up in a conversation at home last week. I told my sister and my wife that I was a l@sbian in a man’s body. That didn’t go over very well….
Briggs:
Not to put words into JMJ’s mouth
I THINK JMJ does NOT BELIEVE that YOU BELIEVE that you are a Yak.
See Sheri above
Funny word, BELIEVE, expecially when it’s all in majuscules.
Does Bruce BELIEVE in his heart of hearts he’s a woman?
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a unicorn.
Then always be a unicorn.
Mcjones talks big but like all bullies he is full of hate and a coward. How is it possible for an intellectual Dwarf to belittle anyone? Yakhater!
Briggs, I already knew you were a yak. That’s why you like those higher troposphere numbers and haven’t noticed the warming. 😉
JMJ
OH
I left it unsaid that JMJ’s belief TRUMPs your Belief
Maybe that should be truJMJps
(With a name like Smuckers; it HAS to be good)
As Don Rickles would say:
Just kidding – We love you JMJ, we really do
Darn, I should have said “numbers from higher in the troposphere.” }/ Yaks hate misstatements.
JMJ
I’m not a yak. I’m the hat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat
John B() I think you’ve identified the reason cow dogs sleep with one eye open.
Briggs,
I’ve got it! Let’ compare who is the bigger bigot. The smaller one has a better argument as better things come in smaller packages. Furthermore, this is as if you are admitting that you are bigoted against homosexuals. LOL!
I don’t care whether you are a yak, whatever kind you are (I know… I am getting old and repeating myself). However, yaks have many attributes that enable them to survive tough environments, I sincerely hope you do too.
Tibet is a bucket list travel destination for me. Though I mainly want to visit monasteries and temples, I shall say hi to your kind for you if I go there.
Peace be with you! Have a nice weekend!
Joy, I get that you are the one in red. Considering everything, I hope you are not the one in red, and with a beard.
Briggs,
Funny you should post this. I just recently found out I am a unicorn. No one had noticed that in all these years due to the magic of being a unicorn. We camouflage very well you see; so well we hide from ourselves. And for our health (not many of us left) we also need to pee in girls show rooms.
Odd we both need the same thing.
Jeff Wood,
Considering everything? I missed a page, definitely missed something.
I’m the best Kate Bush there, the others were rubbish.
Sheri wrote: “Why is believing all that is needed for sexuality, etc, but not religion?”
Your question presumes things not in evidence.
“Belief of millions of people should certainly have created a god by now.”
Says you; and it may be so.
“Have we reached the point yet where I can self-identify as a god and be treated as such?”
Undoubtedly. How exactly do you treat god?
JMJ: Do you ridicule Muslims—the people who abuse women, won’t let them drive, kill homosexuals, mutilate female genitals, etc? Yet they impose their religion on everyone. I’m betting not. Cowards such as yourself only ridicule Christians because you fear everyone else. Since Christians are supposed to be non-violent, you feel safe and secure in your ridicule. So be man—go tell a Muslim his religion is a fantasy, introduce him to a homosexual and call the Muslim a homophobe, and while you’re at it, pull the prayer rug out from under a Muslim just to ridicule his dedication. Then get back to us, oh brave and manly one. If you survive, which of course you will because you’re a sniveling whiney little coward and you won’t actually do that. You’ll keep on insulting those that don’t hit back and overlooking all that might actually kick your derriere severely.
(While we all may love you, some of think you’re an idiot. In the nicest way, of course.)
Phil R: Never fear. The wife and sister may come around yet.
JH: Bigoted is behaviour is the hallmark of progressivism. Otherwise they wouldn’t want to jail people who are skeptics, who won’t back cakes or take pictures, etc. Progressives are king of the hill when it comes to bigoted.
I note a trend here—men want in women’s restrooms and shower rooms. Do women want in men’s restroom and shower rooms?
Briggs, I just read this comment. What are the qualifications of being a bigoted yakophobe? Yes, please do report me to my employer’s Diversity Tzars, whose email address is probably readily available online. May I suggest that you send along the link of this post as evidence. Please also keep in mind their definition of diversity might be different from yours.
Michael 2: What am I presuming not in evidence? What does it matter how I treat a god? Generally, people are required to bow to gods and do as they are told. That works for me.
It does not take long for a discussion on this blog to veer toward Muslim bashing.
Wait. Cod? God? Something fishy here.
+++
@JH
Briggs is not mocking homosexuals. He is mocking Bruce Jenner.
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2015/08/bruce-jenner-rene-descartes-and-stolen.html
In kindergarten, my son’s teacher took all the little boys into the little girls’ room, and all the little girls into the little boys’ room and thus reduced the mystery, and reduced the potential for bathroom antics. It was an older building, and the tile for the girls’ room may have been pink and blue for the boys, but I cannot count on this as a reliable memory.
Katie: What a good idea!
“@JH
Briggs is not mocking homosexuals. He is mocking Bruce Jenner.”
YOS, it’s Bruce Jenner, whoever he is! So, that’s just make it fine and dandy, right? You have been reading his blog for awhile; am I incorrect in sayint that he mocks homosexuals? Well, his cup of tea.
You’re a Yak yak? explains the broadcasts, blog, speeches, etc etc
I’m an Alaskan malamute – explains the gassiness and other people’s instinctive recognition of me as SOB…
He also mocks frequentists. This is also a non sequitur in the current discussion.
According to the folks at Wikipedia, Rule Number 5 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is this:
The leftist trolls here get all flustered when the rule is used in the opposite direction. A double standard? Of course. That’s what they do.
JH, I’m not sure if Bruce (Caitlin) Jenner “identifies” as homosexual. Strictly speaking Bruce (male sex) identifies as Caitlin (female gender) and has undergone hormone therapy and plastic surgery to appear more feminine. Bruce (Caitlin) appears to have drawn the line at genital reconstructive surgery and wishes to keep his penis. Bruce also claims that he/she is not attracted to either male sex or gendered individuals. He has said that he is attracted to women that are both female sex and gender. Based on his male sex this makes him heterosexual. Based on her female gender this makes her a lesbian. As you can see, in neither case is he or she homosexual. I have written this in (excuse my choice of words) a straight tone, though, because of its apparent inanity, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone said I was mocking Bruce Jenner.
As a long time reader of Briggs’ blog I have not known him to mock homosexuals. He has certainly mocked the idea of homosexual marriage but that is not the same thing as mocking homosexuals.
Sheri,
With respect, the wife came around a long time ago. I have two great sons (well, most of the time). I think she was off-put when she assumed I was a straight male but was surprised to discover (as was I) that I was cisgendered (I used to be cisnormative until I found out that the -normative part could be found offensive as implying that non-cisnormatives were not normal).
I love post-normal epistemologies (although I really don’t understand them). 🙂
Harry G,
“Perhaps I should identify as a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male the most persecuted species on the face of the earth today”
You sir are really funny.
JH, Briggs never answer any questions, but he really at complaining that his right to bully other is infringed upon.
Do tell how exactly Briggs is bullying anyone as I’ve yet to see anything regarding swirlies or wedgies or anything else of similar ilk written.
Steve E,
So you describe what Jenner has said and gone through. Just informational, which is not the nature of this post. Other readers seem to agree that Briggs is ridiculing Jenner, and to then attempt to justify Briggs’s behavior. Yes, very superior behavior! Some uses a quote as if it can decisively justify it. In this case, a quote can be easily shown useless by another quote that says otherwise.
Perhaps, Group thinking at its best! Well, Briggs knows who his audience is. Imagine this post is publishedin a liberal media.
I just finished reading some articles in technologyreview.com, I cannot help but wonder why I am writing this comment. Well, I have to say that I have not met a person, nice or mean, that has not made me a better person (Yes, even Briggs is among those persons… Just using the way how Briggs would mention me here and there even though I has no clear idea as to why he would use the word “even”. )
YOS,
OK, let me ask you the question, instead! Is it fun for Briggs to tease people who are differet from him? What do you think Briggs get out of it?
Non-sequitur? What are the Non non-sequitur methods to go about answering my question about ones’ behaviors? (Well, it seems though you agree that I am correct in saying that Briggs has also shamed homosexuals by comparing them to animals.)
Sylvain, I don’t disagree with you. It’s probably because Briggs thinks that his followers have answered for him. And you know who his spokespersons are in the comment room! Again, he knows what kind of followers he has and is more than happy to use them to confirm his beliefs.
Steve E,
Briggs’s views on homosexuals or homosexuality range from, in short, disgusting, betiality, pedophile, not natural, the change of the meaning of his marriage, religious belief, …, to the change of the definition of marriage. Nothing new really, pretty much following the trending arguments one can find in conservative medias.
Have you ever email Briggs’s posts to gay friends? For example, the one or two posts about gay pride parades that one may not find in a conservative media. It just happened that my cousin participated actively in the organization of the parade and shared on Facebook pictures of the good things he was involved in.
(Contrary to what Briggs wants to believe, my cousin didn’t grow up in abusive environments at school or home. Though one has to wonder whether people are abusive toward gay people (who are different from others) because of their gayness, or gay people are gay because they were abused. Based on the reader’s comments here, I am inclined to believe the former. My cousin was fortunate that no one messed with him through K-12. because he and his twin brother are tall and fit and their parents were active in school activities and in the affiliated church. He and his twin brother have always had different interests according to Aunti Anna.)
JH: Never see anything like this on liberal media. They are 100% closed-minded and in favor of all censoring of opposing ideas. They also continually ridicule the right. Only the left cannot be ridiculed.
Briggs does not “tease people who are different” from him. Many of his commenters are different and he does not tease them. He does “tease”, “ridicule” or “mock” persons who are damaging to society. Any moral person would use all instruments in their arsenal to try and protect society from anarchy and violence. Of course, those attacking would label that behaviour “mean” and so forth in the hopes of ripping society apart, as was their original goal. Calling the protection of society mean is done by the enemy, not the ally.
As noted before, the absence of shame is called anarchy. That is what you are advocating for.
The definition of marriage was changed. That you don’t understand that speaks to your ignorance or refusal to address reality.
Actually, there are gay people who would not be offended by Briggs. They are, of course, rational and fair-minded, which precludes most, if not all, progressives and all activists. What you are really asking is has anyone emailed Brigg’s column to a close-minded bigot on the left. Obviously, that would be a waste of time.
Interesting that you believe that the absence of morality is somehow more desirable and moral that the presence of morality. (By the way, beating up on gays is immoral—attacking people is not moral. Telling them you consider them sinners and you do not want to have anything to do with them is actually having a moral code. Only those who lie or are truly amoral have not such code. Most are liars, as becomes evident when one asked about child sex, child marriage, female genital adjusts, murder due to family name honor, etc. In other words, the liars do have rules that apply to other people, but no one else can.)
JH, I didn’t justify Briggs’ behaviour. You had asked someone else who had been a long time reader of this blog whether you were correct in saying that Briggs mocked homosexuals. I merely pointed out that as a long time reader myself, I had not seen Briggs mock homosexuals. As YOS points out, Briggs does mock Bruce Jenner. I pointed out that based on his/her own story Jenner is not a homosexual.
As for Bruce Jenner not “being the nature of this post,” I would point out that Briggs devotes three paragraphs to Jenner and he/she is therefore open to comment. My straightforward description of Jenner nonetheless reads like satire which is entirely the point of Briggs’ post. What is not mentioned by Briggs is homosexuals nor the mocking thereof. That is a topic that you introduced.
By the way, bestiality and pedophilia are their own, quite separate perversions that have nothing to do with homosexuality. You are the only one I have read on this blog who has suggested they do.
Steve E, no, you didn’t justify Briggs’ behavior. Other readers seemed to try to do so (see above). And I agree with you that bestiality and pedophilia have nothing to do with homosexuality. I have never suggest they do. I attempted to summarize Briggs’ arguments, in short, perhaps too short to be clear.
OK, let me ask [YOS] the question, instead! Is it fun for Briggs to tease people who are differet from him? What do you think Briggs get out of it?
It is impossible for one person to know what it is like to be another. (Hence also, the absurdity of Jenner’s claim that he has always “felt like” he was a woman. How does he know? Feminists tell us that there is no particular way in which women feeel, but Jenner evidently associates womanhood with wearing pretty clothes and makeup, something that turns progressive feminists purple with rage.)
Non-sequitur? What are the Non non-sequitur methods to go about answering my question about ones’ behaviors?
Dr. Briggs made a post satirizing Mr. Jenner’s insistence on pretending to be a woman. You responded with a non-sequitur about homosexuality, which Jenner does not practice and which Briggs did not accuse him of. If the topic has come up in other posts, then your comments might be germane in those posts; but here they are simply “Hunh?”
Well, it seems though you agree that I am correct in saying that Briggs has also shamed homosexuals by comparing them to animals.
I don’t recall you making that particular charge and I don’t recall that Dr. Briggs has made the comparison. However, the ability to reason by analogy has been fading in our society for several decades now, ever since analogies were dropped from the standardized tests. (I happen to know why, but cannot entertain questions about it.)
I do note that human beings are in fact animals, so it is not clear why this might be shameful. Certainly I am an animal. I am not a plant, for sure; though I have certain plantlike powers.
Is all satire “shaming” or is it only “shaming” when people of whom you approve are satirized, like Bruce Jenner — or perhaps One-Hand Jason? Do you chastise SNL for “shaming” Donald Trump?
This raises the fascinating question of what the social alternative to shame might be for governing behavior? In the West, it has been primarily “guilt,” but that is mostly by the board now. Guilt depends on the formation of conscience, and Post-modern life is founded on the inhibition of conscience. The other method developed in other societies has been “shame.” Without shame or guilt, then it’s Nellie-bar-the-door and “the center cannot hold.”
It’s April 3rd nearly 4th JH! Where is your funny bone?
Jenner is a vain man. That’s it.
(I did some googling after reading Steve E’s summary.)
YOS all true except
” Feminists tell us that there is no particular way in which women feel,”
I am a woman and I disagree with that assertion which I understand is not yours. There are differences in behaviour and expression. If thinking differs which we know it does between individuals, then it certainly differs from men to women.
I find it peculiar that so many take Germaine Greer, as the article to which you linked did, as the final word when it comes to feminine thinking. That’s what’s got us into al this trouble!
Dear Ye Olde Statistician,
I quite enjoyed the comment you posted on April 3, 2016 at 6:01 pm.
Thanks,
Geezer
Joy:
YOS said “Feminists tell us ….” You started with “I am a woman ….”
Perhaps there is a difference between feminine thinking and feminist thinking.
Geezer, true, YOS also said feel not think.
The mere mention of the name Germain Greer! That’s female thinking.
Oh Dear! Now there are three:
1. feminine thinking,
2. feminist thinking,
3. and female thinking.
Perhaps a Women’s Studies (or Sociology) professor will publish a peer-reviewed article on the differences.
Geezer, that’s a quote from Bill Hickok and he knows.
Geezer, that’s a quote from Bill Hickok and he knows.
I thought Bill Hickok died in 1876.
Howard keel’s dead too.
@Joy
It’s just an illustration of how feminism and transgenderism are at odds.
YOS: Excellent point. Did Bruce know what it was like to be a woman? He actually appears to have been saying “The grass is obviously greener on the other side, so I’m going through the fence.”
@Nate Winchester
“Do tell how exactly Briggs is bullying anyone as I’ve yet to see anything regarding swirlies or wedgies or anything else of similar ilk written.”
There are many form of bullying others than wedgies.
This whole blog post is bullying toward people who are different. It is obvious that Briggs does not believe he is a Yak. If he did, it shouldn’t be a big deal to anyone and it would not concern us.
In this blog Briggs pretend he knows why people claim to be gay, transgender, or whatever else.
When he says:
” I must be in a herd. But since I am not sexually attracted to yaks, I therefore need to be granted perpetual access to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader1 shower room.”
1) there is nothing better than a male bathroom where man pee press one against the other to feel being in a herd.
What It means is that he believe that these people act to have advantages or right that other people don’t have. These people don’t fight to have more rights than others, they fight to have the same right that anyone else has.
Women toilets are all separated by walls. That transgender people use the other sex bathroom doesn’t change anything to what happens in it. Toilets could all be both gender if Urinal were enclosed like toilets.
When he says:
“Yet when I have these doubts, I seek an ally, somebody who agrees that I am a yak because I say I am a yak. I ask this person, “Am I really a yak?” and they say to me, “Yes, you are a yak.” So I am a yak. We live in a democracy.”
For him, it means that he thinks that psychologist and psychiatrist are stupid and believe everything they are told. He doesn’t realize that transgender goes through hundred of hours of therapy before any surgery get done. A lot of work is done with these people to make sure that they know who they really are. The process is far from being easy.
“And I want to be famous for my sexual desires.”
These people don’t want to be famous, they want their freedom. Most would like to be like anyone else, and not lose their job because they are attracted to the wrong person. The Church that claims a higher sense of moral rewarded pedophile with promoting their deviant priest.
YOS,
I don’t watch SNL. It’s probably true that it is only shaming when people of whom one approves are mocked. Just like, often times, one only judges people, with whom they agree with and who have the same belief, to possess reasoning abilities. Just read some comments here.
You would be wrong IF you think I approve or disapprove Jenner. I simply don’t care. Not my life to approve or disapprove. Live and let live!
And by the same line of reasoning, Briggs can tease anyone he wants, still, is it fun to tease people who are different from him? What does he get out of it?
And we better be very critical of the politicians.
[It puzzles me that Briggs seems to think that I don’t know there are physical differences between men and women when discussing equality. So I asked him if it is possible that his understanding of equality is incorrect? No answer as usual. I fell that I am nagging him now.]
Having said the above, I will ask you a similar question to you, could it be that your understanding of feminism is incorrect? Do you think feminists don’t know there are biological differences between female and male sex? What’s the point of denying Jenner’s feeling of being female possibly due to the effects of honornoes and having breasts? If I say I am Tomboy, would you react to me the same way?
Oh, YOS, I didn’t mean to request you again to answer to the questions “is it fun for Briggs… “. I was just repeating my original questions.
could it be that your understanding of feminism is incorrect?
I tend toward equity feminism, but the academy seems to favor gender feminism nowadays. To say “incorrect” is to imply that there is an objective fact of the matter. I have only pointed out that there is a tension between claims of “feeling like a woman” on the part of people like Jenner and the claims of gender feminism. This is because on the evidence what Jenner means by “feeling like a woman” is that he likes to wear pretty clothes and makeup and these are rejected as stereotypes imposed by the patriarchy.
Do you think feminists don’t know there are biological differences between female and male sex?
Of course they do. They just don’t think they matter. That’s why they talk about “gender” rather than “sex.”
What’s the point of denying Jenner’s feeling of being female possibly due to the effects of honornoes and having breasts?
Not sure what this sentence means. Jenner’s feeling about being female are simply illogical — and (from the feminist perspective) demeaning toward women. (See pretty clothes, above)
If I say I am Tomboy, would you react to me the same way?
Why?
simply illogical — and (from the feminist perspective) demeaning toward women. (See pretty clothes, above)
This is so simplistic YOS. You are again using the feminist attitude to defend an argument about a man who is still complete except his additions.
So you say you are using the feminist argument to show a contradiction but yet as I pointed out and was conveniently misunderstood, the female perspective is important not the feminist one.
Why bring in Germaine Greer (from the article).
It seems to me that anyone writing what was a supercilious article adds weight by using a dreadful example of female, which is what Jenner is trying to be. He does not pretend to be feminist.!
. . .
Let’s see… post on his own blog, middle of nowhere on the internet, it’s not required reading for anything, no evidence he sent it to anyone, no evidence Briggs or anybody else is following anybody reading out this post using a bullhorn.
But that somebody might read this is bullying? Because the little darlings are just too incompetent to CLOSE THEIR OWN BROWSER WINDOW? The mere existence of his voicing a contrary position is *gasp* bullying???
No. It’s not. Period. Shut up you little crybully and stop trying to take away other’s freedom of speech. Because as CS Lewis warned: “For suspicion often creates what it expects. (“Since, whatever I do, the neighbors are going to think me a witch, or a Communist agent, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and become one in reality.”)” So you keep running around and crying “wolf” were there isn’t one, there won’t be any help when the real wolves come.
To the leftist trolls:
If you dislike the bill of fare served here, why do you keep coming back for more?
Nate Winchester,
Nobody is in any doubt about bullying.
It’s not worth defending. Sylvain is making deliberately provocative remarks.
JH is on another page entirely.
I just can’t believe people could care less if Briggs says he’s a yak!
As for changing rooms.
@ shower roms: Men do behave like monkeys in the changing rooms especially if they think there’s a female interested. It’s as well to turn a blind eye and it’s a good time not to be fully sighted.
I’m sure the experience is completely different in the reverse situation.
Joy, +1
YOS,
Right. Perhaps, more appropriately is that Briggs did not accept or understand or acknowledge the gender equality I was talking about. What is true? He has the answer.
”Why?” Because it’s commonly understood what it means when a woman says that she is or was a tomboy. No feminism or feminist involved. Probably neither logic thinking nor agreeable reasoning is involved in stating so. If there is, charitable interpretation should be applied before the clear meaning of tomboy is derived. Denying a person’s feeling is a strange thing to do in my book, and, imo, it serves no purpose but to show ones’ contempt as if one is superior. (My personal view based on my observations.)
Using Jenner’s case to stab at feminists or feminism is a cheap shot (not that this is what you are doing). One may say that Jenner accepts the traditional or stereotyped role of female. One may opine that Jenner recognizes that feminism can become through ones’ own perspective. Many strips of feminism and feminists. Surely this is not something that can be concluded in a few sentences.
JH: So you’re a-okay with Subway Jarrod’s lifestyle of sex with children?
Not your life to judge, right? You were okay with Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, etc. You never judge, right?
You can know what it’s like to be a tomboy, because girls are tomboys.
It’s interesting that the same people who seem to believe Bruce knew he was a woman without ever being one are often the same people screaming you can’t know what it’s like to pregnant unless you have been, you can’t understand bigotry if you’re not a victim, etc. Seems, as usual, understanding is exactly what the left says it is, nothing more.
Nate: Very well said.
simply illogical — and (from the feminist perspective) demeaning toward women. (See pretty clothes, above)
Exactly. That was the feminist critique of Jenner’s actions: that he apparently equated the feminine with playing dress up.
I’m not using it to defend anything. I was using it to hold two typical progressive stances up side by side and show how they are at odds.
Nate,
“But that somebody might read this is bullying? Because the little darlings are just too incompetent to CLOSE THEIR OWN BROWSER WINDOW? The mere existence of his voicing a contrary position is *gasp* bullying???”
Not the voicing of a contrary position but the consistent mocking of what these people are going through is bulling.
Yes, they can close their own browser, but they cannot shutout their here to people using this blog as a source of inspiration on how to treat these people.
The fake Plan Parenthood video last year led to the shooting in Colorado. The author of the video, and those who promoted them, are directly responsiblefor these murders, which included a cop.
“No. It’s not. Period. Shut up you little crybully and stop trying to take away other’s freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
Sylvain is right. I have it on good authority that the video was faked by (legal) aliens working at Area 51 under the supervision of Donald Trump.
the consistent mocking of what these people are going through is bulling.
That would include calling someone racist or homophobic or accusing him of suborning murder and so forth? Or does it not count as mocking if it is done with dead seriousness?
Right, those videos released last year are directly responsible for all the times the nutcase Robert Dear ,a href=’http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/robert_lewis_dear_vandalized_c.html’>vandalized other abortion clinics years earlier.
Always hilarious to see how a survivalists who lived out in a remote area with no internet access was affected by internet videos.
Tell you what, if I go out and assault someone tonight then tell the cops I was just enraged by your words, you’ll be perfectly accepting of a stint in jail as an accomplice then, right? After all, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences. What if Briggs just gets so depressed by your accusations of bullying he commits suicide, can we throw you in jail as an encourager to suicide? No freedom from consequences after all.
Brigg,
You are in good company with the likes of Alex Jones.
The videos are so real that they indicted the author of the video instead of their victim, and this was a republican DA.
Robert Dear was quoting verbatim the video. Tiller was killed after a campaign targeting him on Fox News. Those who do the act are nuts but they take the idea somewhere.
It is not different than the San Barnardino nut case a few months ago. Yet in that case, I’m sure you have no problem seeing that ISIS propaganda was the source of their action.
“if I go out and assault someone tonight then tell the cops I was just enraged by your words”
And who will be your target. I have no doubt that you are capable of killing someone. But who can you claim to kill in my name?
“What if Briggs just gets so depressed by your accusations of bullying he commits suicide, can we throw you in jail as an encourager to suicide?”
Interesting analogy considering that the LGBT suffers the highest rate of suicide. Of course, these people kill themselves because society is so kind to them.
1. Sheri asks: “Michael 2: What am I presuming not in evidence?”
You are presuming that sexuality requires only belief but religion requires more. Many, maybe most, Christian denominations require only belief; it can be as simple as saying some words. If you are a once-saved-always-saved Christian then you can do anything you want but you do have to go through the gate of at least saying you believe. It is amazing how people resist saying a few magic words.
Context: Sheri wrote: “Why is believing all that is needed for sexuality, etc, but not religion?”
2. Sheri writes: “What does it matter how I treat a god?”
In order to answer your question I must know how you treat a self-identified god so that I know how you wish to be treated.
Context: “Have we reached the point yet where I can self-identify as a god and be treated as such?”
“Generally, people are required to bow to gods and do as they are told.”
The Christian God has made it pretty clear that charity (to other humans) and obedience (to the law of charity, principally) is more important than bowing.
But you seem to be dismissive of gods and that is likely how you will be treated; thus we see that you already are being treated like a god.
Sylvain wrote “they cannot shutout their here to people using this blog as a source of inspiration on how to treat these people.”
That didn’t make much sense (“shutout their here”).
“those who promoted them, are directly responsiblefor these murders”
I do not accept that peculiar left wing thinking. I have been made angry sometimes by what I see in media, but I don’t break the law because of it. Are you so weak that you can be inspired to murder by a YouTube video? Let’s get that kind off the streets, for there be many advocates of violence, more from the Left in my opinion.
“Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.”
Nor has it been argued otherwise. But consequences also have consequences. What you plan on doing, your “consequences”, could trigger someone else to impose consequences on you, which in turn produces yet more consequences.
Jesus suggested occasionally turning the other cheek (you have only two) to stop this eternal cycle of imposing consequences on each other.
Scripture foretells that in the last day a man will be made an offender for a word; the mere suggestion that you should go out and murder, you aren’t guilty but whoever suggested it *is*. That is a strange thing.
Many, maybe most, Christian denominations require only belief; it can be as simple as saying some words.
And yet if you have faith enough to move mountains and have not love, then you are nothing, a resounding gong. By their fruits we are to know them. What good is it if someone says he has faith but does nothing about it? If someone has nothing to wear or no food, and he says, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but he does nothing to clothe or feed him, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. So there does seem to be more to it than reciting a few words, at least according to the traditional teachings.
Most denominations? Perhaps. It doesn’t take much to make a denomination beyond a storefront, or perhaps some TV cameras. But two-thirds of all Christians are members of the Traditional Churches: the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, not members of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Bible Shack, so what ought we really go by?
Briggs: I didn’t know there was a naturalization or green card for the aliens at Area 51! Was that part of immigration reform?
YOS: It’s only bullying if it’s not done by the Left.
Michael 2: SOME Christian denominations require only belief—I don’t think it’s nearly all. It’s also not defensible if scrutinized—ie, it’s a cop out by people who just want to behave badly and get away with it. Would you be happy if I changed it to “some religions require more”? If so, consider it changed as I would hate to make you unhappy.
2. Interesting—you actually are going to use my definitions.
Bowing can be omitted if you find that bothersome.
How is saying people are required to bow to gods and do as they are told
dismissive. That’s what gods require—obedience. Which gods did not
require obedience? Since gods are gods and know more than humans,
that doesn’t seem out of line.
YOS,
“That would include calling someone racist or homophobic or accusing him of suborning murder and so forth? Or does it not count as mocking if it is done with dead seriousness?”
Is the person homophobic? Racist? Suborning murder (even more when Briggs himself says that these murders are justified. I swear he must have been so happy that he could have dance on that cops body if it had occured in Michigan)?
It is not homophobic to call a gay, gay, a Black, black, or a Jew, a Jew. It is homophobic to call someone that you don’t like gay when he is not.
Yes YOS, The writer of the article saved her until the end!
He knew what he was doing, the brute.
Jenner is a man
Germaine is a woman
Being female IS all about pretty clothes.
I can’t find a feminist to argue with.
Pingback: WMBriggs Podcast — Let’s Polka! Or How Polka Can Save The World – William M. Briggs
Pingback: Stream: The Transgender Logic of Gender Fluidity Justifies Absurdities – William M. Briggs
Pingback: This Week In Doom — WMBriggs Podcast – William M. Briggs
Pingback: The True History Of College Sports Under Title IX – William M. Briggs
Pingback: Uncertainty and the World: An interview with W. M. Briggs at Ordeal of Consciousness – William M. Briggs
Pingback: Gallup: More Adults Identifying As LGBT(…), Which Implies Even More Will – William M. Briggs
Pingback: Insanity & Doom Update LXVI — Necrophiliac Edition – William M. Briggs