Saturday, February 15, 2014

More on Janet Mock

In have been reading a lot of the stuff posted in support of Janet and what Mock has now claimed in retrospect and it suddenly dawned on me Janet Mock was a victim created by herself because she calls herself transgender. Why is that? Let me expplain.

If she identified as transsexual she would actually have a better case in my mind because a transsexual is someone who changes sex regardless of what some would want you to believe. If you define yourself as transgender then unfortunately for you your genitalia are fair game because 97% of the transgender umbrella do NOT CHANGE SEX and keep their male parts. Any interviewer will ask because it is relevant although Janet Mock now falls clearly in the camp of the race baiters like Monica Roberts and Laverne cox where if you question them you are a racist.

They label Morgan both transphobic and racist based on those interviews in an attempt to again obfuscate and blur the lines between those born transsexual and the transvestites , cross-dressers,and drag queens that run rampant within the transgender movement and are pushing for the same rights as women and for the right to call themselves women/female while maintaining and using male genitalia in the manner they see fit. Nobody is allowed to question this because as men they ge to define when they are women and when they may not want to be women such as at the pay windowor the employment office.

Writing a memoir at 29 is in a way egotistical because other than a sex change at 18 what has she accomplished in her life even as a trans activist? I can think of dozens of people that have more compelling stories and had not one single advantage as a kid and did what Mock has done and then went on to lead amazing lives where they were icons in their fields yet unknown as trans.I guess it is better to be a nobody with a little writing talent and the smarts to trick a Piers Morgan into interviewing you and then promoting said interview as an ambush, transphobic, and racist in order to promote book sales and yourself.

I liked Janet Mock and thought she would possibly be a good example for kids but I believe I was wrong now. She cheapened everything that those born transsexual go through in an attempt to satisfy the loony toons wing of the transgender movement. Labeling someone a bigot is a horrible thing to do and it is particularly egregious when the individual is not.Piers Morgan is neither transphobic or a racist yet he has been labeled as both.

I did not think Morgan focused on Mock's SRS but it is relevant to her memoir as was her relationship with Aaron. The real problem might have been that Morgan actually has a clue that transgender includes transvestites, cross-dressers, and drag queens who have male genitalia and prefer thir genitalia which defines them as men regardless of what they claim. The point here is that is why Mock was bitching because that defines her penis packing pals for what they are whic is drag queens, she-males, etc..

When you are promoting the transgender mantra transition and SRS are not items to be discussed because they are not relevant to the vast majority under the umbrella term but if you can confuse the information you cn make people believe transgender implies sex change which it most certainly does not.

In the fantasy world Mock seems to live in nowadays her transition was not a big thing nor was her finding an understanding man after her SRS yet she lies through her teeth and claims she wants to help the young transsexuals and believe me SRS and boyfriends are more than just importantexcept in the new world Mock seems to live in.

Her attempt at denying the truths of her life denigrates everyone born transsexual. Bet you didn't know that nightmare when you transitioned is not important. Neither is the SRS that made you whole. What is important is to uphold the rights of men in dresses to live their pathetic fantasies where they believe their 7 inch neoclit is taken as a clitoris by the "straight" boyfriend who likes to suck her neoclit (wink, wink). Mock is being abused by men and she cannot see it but promotes their issues blindly.

Has she ever wondered how her boyfriend Aaron would have reacted if she told him she had a penis but it was really a neoclit? Of course she would never think that because she was always a little girl even though she was born a boy as I was. We both fixed it yet mock believes the only thing she should have talked about on the Piers Morgan show was transgender issues where she could spout the transgender line in order to support the men. I can think of nothing more misogynistic than that yet somehow Morgan is the villian as are others  who supported Morgan who just tried to do his job.

Now Mock is claiming Morgan called her a "man" to her face which I find 100% unbelievable. I am certain Morgan will avoid trans issues completely after this just like Rosanne Barr,Katie Couric and any other  person in the media. The first rule when you are being interviewed is that the person being interviewed does not control the interview.If Mock wanted to avoid those questions she and her "trans" pals did not like she should have avoided the interview but then she needs to sell "Redefining Realness" which in a way is kind of accurate if she simply replaced "Realness" with "Reality" but then again any title is better tha her first thought of "Fish Food" which is about what her transgender bullshit is good for.

Maybe she can write a sequel called "Redefining Bullshit" when she actually wakes up and smells the roses and realizes she is being used but then Miss Mock does not seem to have the capacity to think for herself or even for that matter on her feet as her two interviews with Piers Morgan proved.


Anonymous said...

Publishers want book sales. Interviews, especially on national television, help sales. Controversial interviews are even better. This whole sequence of events has never been about reality.


Anonymous said...

Just being transsexual is a lonely experience. In childhood you are often alone in a space occupied only by your own confused thoughts about the self identity that conflicts with your body, your own family's perception and expectation of you and the behaviour of your peers when they instinctively perceive that you are different. That was certainly my experience. The situation is worse if your appearance and behaviour is at odds with your assumed physical sex. My childhood is punctuated by comments " what a pretty daughter you have" and then the ensuing correction by one parent or the other of "son, this is my son" inside you are pleased and yet embarrassed at the same time. You get used to an existence that is an isolated one. My grandfather described me as a loner because I either took myself off to a place where I could be on my own to quietly read or play my guitar. Sometimes I'd retreat into the fields and woodlands around our home. On holidays in north wales I'd climb to a high ground and gaze into the surrounding countryside for hours at a time.

I later years I was usually either drunk or sleeping off a drunken binge until I awoke and began the next. Again usually in isolation.

These days I have lots of friends a loving husband an understanding sibling and her family who keeps their council as they are the only ones in my life aware of my full history. At times it is a lonely existence.

So While I have no personal knowledge of why Janet mock came out and she surely did not have too I suspect it was a result of that isolation that comes with keeping a secret like being born a boy even when you knew in your soul that you're a girl. When you have corrected everything and have a real life at last if you have told no one that secret you hold inside can sometimes be overpowering in its drive to be told. Perhaps that is why Janet shared her secret with the world. However for most being out is not optional for numerous reasons I need not go into. As far as image is concerned Janet is obviously a beautiful feminine woman and when piers Morgan told her that she smiled a genuine smile of pleasure at the compliment. Is it wrong to tell a woman she is beautiful or a man he is handsome? Surely not! Yet In this fiasco that is the kind of stupidity Janet is advocating at least that is what it looks like.

Janet is a journalist and a smart one, she is using the media to sell books simple as that. I don't think she is smart enough to know the TG are using her. I still think she will come to regret losing her anonymity and I believe like another well known out transsexual I know will give almost anything to have it back.

In this fiasco Janet Mock is getting just what she was seeking. Sales of books to transvestite men who will use her life story in the book to jerk off too. Because let's be clear about this a transsexuals real life story is pornography to the TG


Anonymous said...

First comment was spot-on. This whole affair has **always** been about increasing the author's visibility. Same goes for the likes of Sandeen and Addams.

I wonder how Ms. Mock will feel about this particular choice, when she's (for example...) pushing 60, and explaining life to her teen-aged grandchildren?

For what little it may be worth, what with my working and living in much more rural and (dare I say?) socially-'ingrown' places, I've never regretted the decision to run away and simply get on with life, and to never **ever** talk about what my life looked like at ages 15-18. What's done was done , paid cash on the spot, and it's been all good ever since, with a few widely-separated unpleasantries such as most of us face within a misogynist society. (I doubt that most of the late-cming crowd will ever comprehend that point.)

Maybe the big difference in play is that, a fair number of us here, 'being' was much more the issue at hand, not 'becoming'.

Yours thoughtfully as ever, from far, far, **far** away from the news-cameras. ^_^

Hugs to thems wot want them...

/your friendly far-away elfchick

Anonymous said...

When I give this some thought, which is not very often, this entire ideal or concept, or 'phenomenon'--known as transsexualism, is completely misunderstood by those who have not experienced it.

Into this dearth of knowledge or understanding steps the "trans**"-activist, more than happy to define or "redefine" that reality to fit their own personal ideology or lifestyle.

This is the art of the spin-masters--defining reality, for those too lazy or ignorant to do it for themselves.

A poignant example of this can be seen in this comment from a thread where some cross-dedriin desighdressing men, (claiming of course to be transsexual from birth), are 'defining' "Normalcy".

"However, I can't say enough how "normal" it feels to me for my kids to call me dad... it feels more normal now that I've transitioned than before"

Anonymous said...

:sighs unhappily in reminiscence of long-ago sorrows....

What I wanted more than **anything** was to be a good mother; would have given anything to bear a child, but that seems always to have been just a bit beyond the reach of medical science.

Second-best, which of course rapidly became **the** best choice (without any equivocation) was to adopt. That's what my ex-husband and I did, to our great joy.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to have it otherwise.

yours in grandmotherly reflection,

... an elfchick

Anonymous said...

Just back from the gynecologist's, and as I was there, I looked round at the other women waiting as I to be called. I saw fat women and thin women, young women and old, beautiful women and those who were, to put it kindly, plain as mud, childless women and those who seem to have grown eight arms and the patience of Job to deal with their squirming broods.

Oh...It's all about gender you say Janet? Really? Please? Pray tell, on what planet and in what in benighted gods name has anyone's gender to do with ANY of this?

Stuck for an answer there? Ok, I'll tell you what!


Your sex hasn't a single damned thing to do with your gender! The one and the ONLY reason gynecologists are a separate medical specialty is because being female is entirely, entirely and completely about what is between your legs. End of story! All of the rest of it? The clothing, the mannerisms, the social roles, the things that we ascribe to one gender or the other stem entirely from what is between our legs... NOT the other way round!

Transsexual, when you parse it out is really quite simple, It is about being born with an untenable physical dichotomy. About having that thing which defines us as human being of one sex... and yet having the body of another. Of being driven at any and all means and at any cost to correct that division and doing so, not for accolades or specialness, or identity, what ever the fuck that is! Rather you do it just for the slim hope that afterwards, you might live an unremarkable and utterly normal life as far removed from that dichotomy as is humanly possible.... I dare say there isn't a woman jack one here who hasn't experienced a litany of unspeakable horrors because of the way she was born, and I dare say there isn't a one who would not do it all over again to have what she has now...

I would...


Anonymous said...

...quoth MKIA: "an unremarkable and utterly normal life". Indeed, thus and so.

Looking back on it all, I never thought that it involved a "slim hope", though. It was obvious, always was obvious, and still is obvious who I am. The surgery was no more a definer of my self-worth than, say, having a broken wrist fixed. It was just a necessary thing that needed to be dne, something that one has done and is then done-with, no more worthy of note than the moment that the cast comes off the broken wrist.

Kind regards as always, elfchick
(who, admittedly, is nobody 'special' and who, therefore, is rather unlikely to write a memoir let alone go flounder her way through interviews with any members of the press)

Anonymous said...

Thank you MIKIA for spelling things out so succinctly, mildly and I must say bluntly.

I would love to see just what over intellectualized response would be forth coming from our gender specialists?.

IMHO you have spelled things out in a nutshell. Unless I am mistaken, the term 'transgender' is a manufactured contraction, invented as an adjective to describe the changing or crossing over of gender roles.

In this sense, (the correct usage, IMO), the rad-fems have it right. Gender is a social construct and it is both malleable and fungible depending on the culture or in this case, the whims of the individual.

That being the case, it has absolutely nothing to do with trans-sexualism, which is the changing or crossing over from one distinct sex to the other.

The conflation of these two distinct conditions or more accurately, actions, is the infernal goal of the trans-activists like Mock, Sandeen, and so many others.

Confusing the public, politicians and even medical professionals is what allows for the passage of legislations allowing for just travesties of justice like the provision of SRS for wife murderers at taxpayers expense and men exposing themselves to young girls under the guise and protection of being "transgendered".

In a word, what a CROCK of trans-shit.

Anonymous said...

I would certainly agree that gender is a social construct. I have a number of younger friends for whom the notion of gender is an utterly malleable one, from whose variable nature they derive a great deal of genuine satisfaction. Good on them! I find that I gain a certain 'contact high' from being in their enthusiastic presence in social settings, in much the same manner that I find the proximity of parents and their newborn babies delightful.

I'm not so sure, though, that politicians are all that confused when they draft and enact laws concerning transgender behaviour. I'd rather more likely suspect that it's a cynical move to pander towards yet another identifiable group of swing voters.

In the end, I don't lose a lot of sleep over what happens to convicted spousal murderers once they are in prison, so long as they stay there behind bars where they rightly belong. I'd be willing to bet that, in the Kosilek case, the recipient of court-sanctioned surgery might not long survive it -- there are surely a few 'honest' crooks in that particular prison.

Anyway, it's refreshing to have a frank discussion of these issues.

Yours thoughtfully,

--- an elfchick

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this has been posted yet...
Interesting read, the comments are equally as interesting.