gender

British "Man" Gives Birth: Lose Your Fucking Mind and Hate Him!

Posted on

We live in an amazing, Technicolor, sci-fi world. A world where you can almost literally be anything you want. I mean, you can’t actually be, say, a cat or a polar bear. But you can dress up like them and fuck other people dressed up like zebras and mice, which is basically all you would want out of that kind of life anyway. So, no, you can’t actually be anything you want, modern science hasn’t quite gotten us THAT far, but say you’re a woman and you don’t like that, you can be a man. Then say, you’re a man now, but you want to be a mommy. “Tough shit” you say? “You made your penis and now you have to lie on it!” Well that’s where you’re wrong gender Nazi! Now you can have your masculinity and your mother’s day too!

Wait, follow me here: A man in England, who was a woman in England is now a mom… dad… in England.

Why is this news I hear you asking? People push smaller people out of the appropriate organs every day, what makes this special? Well I’ll tell you. It’s a freak! Look and point at the freak thing doing a freak thing that makes us uncomfortable! Any time anyone different does something normal, people shit their pants.

What grabs the attention initially is “Man has baby” which is not true. A man did not have a baby. Let’s get that straight. A woman, now identifying them self as a man after surgeries and hormone treatments, who looks very much like a human man as long as he’s wearing pants but who still possesses working lady innards, had a baby. Now I’m not saying that he isn’t a man now or maybe wasn’t all his life and now just externally matches the person he was all along internally. What I’m saying is that this is not a person born a man, with male baby making mechanics, giving birth to a child. This is a biological woman with all of the inner workings as such, doing what those things do. So cut it out with “Man Has Baby! Holy Fuck!”… You’re not helping.

Cut it our y'all, I'm all powerful. Fer serious!
Cut it our y'all, I'm all powerful. Fer serious!

But even then, that’s STILL not the real reason anyone is taking notice of this. It grabs the attention sure, but once someone reads “man with left over lady parts” they understand that a miracle has not occurred. And maybe that’s part of the problem. Maybe it would be better if it WERE miraculous. ‘Cause there’s no other reason that the news that somebody with the appropriate parts (the very same that God done gived ’em to make it possible) having a baby should be a big thing to anyone, except of course, you know; God.

It seems, for an all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator of everything everywhere ever, this “God” fellah sure seems to get his mighty will gone against an awful lot. Fortunately there are plenty of defenders of this flimsy excuse for a deity ready to call these disgusting perverts who have had babies the way they were designed to, monsters who have destroyed any chance of happiness for the people they just made.

“We have to sit up and consider these things,” Busy body, Josephine Quintavalle, of ‘Comment on Reproductive Ethics’ said when no one asked. “I don’t think it is in the interests of the child to distort nature this way. We are prepared to do anything possible to fulfill the rights of the adult. But I think it is at the expense and rights and welfare of the child.”

She went on to say that “there needs to be a proper inquiry in to the issues surrounding these births.”

To which I can’t help but wonder: why?

A person with ovaries walks into a doctor’s office and asks for help in creating another human being who may or may not also own a set of ovaries, depending on the whimsical fancy of an invisible sky grandpa. The doctor gives the womb owner magic lady juices to make their parts more baby ready. Some time later, usually a couple score months and then some, VIOLA! Baby!

What makes one baby maker less ethically acceptable than another? A beard? Because a good amount of lady ladies have facial hair problems, this one just seems to be more comfortable with it. What makes the soft, smooth mother with fertility assistance more fit to mother than the gruff, less traditional mother? If this man woman had perhaps had a dozen children and a reality show, would the ethics then be less of a sticky wicket?

Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, London, said: “You are hardly going to end up with a baby that’s going to have a happy, productive and optimal childhood.”

Now you’re just being a dick Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St. Mary’s University College, London. And I fucking assume it’s a college if it has “University” in the name you redundant cunt.

Is that a beer gut or do you just have a secret womb destroying God and family?
Is that a beer gut or do you just have a secret womb destroying God and family?

What “Mr.” Stammers is saying, is that this horrible, selfish person, who bore this child solely to mock creation and “Mr.” Stammers’ basic belief system, has damned this child to an unhappy, unproductive, unoptimal childhood. Because this person decided that they more associated with manliness than ladyliness, but still wanted to have a child with the equipment that they were given, they are somehow unfit to raise a child in anything but a hellish state of Godless confusion.

OR, Mr. Stammers is a fucking hateful douche who’s own carefully shaped world view, molded by a pretty mommy with boobies and makeup, is a living example that how frilly your mom is don’t really dictate your potential future seething unhappiness.

Love is love people. And doesn’t it stand to reason that someone who loves them self more due to choices they’ve made to re-shape their lives, will likely be able to bestow upon their child a pretty solid level of unreserved love. It seems a family with this sort of base will likely be hindered less by judgement and shame, except of course for all of the judgement and shame heaped upon them by the outside world who’s been taught by good, wholesome families to judge and shame.

Read your own books folks. This flawless lord of yours told you to love. That message seems to be pushed aside by your searching out reasons where you think your book tells you to hate and justifications for why you do. But I’ll take a thousand dickless dads over a single nuclear family that says man mom is wrong to bring a child into the world because his life choice makes them feel icky.

Secret Baby Genitalia Are Destroying Our Country

Posted on

Your child needs to be told by everyone exactly what their genitalia mean to them socially and psychologically but then must never, under any circumstances, ever actually be instructed on how to use them by anyone. Especially not with weird anatomically correctish stuffed toys… But we’ll get to that…

You see, two equally and oppositely frustrating stories popped up in various newsy type web siteries recently that just made me want to tell everyone not directly involved with the current raising of a child anywhere in the world to take a nice big cleansing breath and shut entirely the fuck up.

Like anyone else, I just see this happy baby and need to know, what's goin' on DOWN THERE!"
Like anyone else, I just see this happy baby and need to know, what's goin' on DOWN THERE!"

Firstly, a relatively popular story of a newborn it named “Storm Stocker” has for no good reason pissed off a number of people who have absolutely nothing to do with this particular child thing. Apparently the reason this baby makes so many people angry is that it doesn’t know if it should shit itself like a baby girl or throw up on everyone that touches it like a baby boy. This genderless diaper of confusion is being raised by a pair of child endangermenters in Canada who have decided that they would simply rather not tell the world what’s going on in their infant’s nappy. They have this crazy notion that the world doesn’t need to know the specifics of their offspring’s genital configuration, which for some reason seems to have caused an uproar in a rather vocal group of baby penis and vagina enthusiasts.

And of course, rather than simply allow these parents to raise their very own child as they damned well see fit complete strangers call them crazy and experts call it “potentially disastrous”, while not understanding what words mean.

“To raise a child not as a boy or a girl is creating, in some sense, a freak,” said Dr. Eugene Beresin, director of training in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. “It sets them up for not knowing who they are.”

So this “expert” on ASOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY believes that the best way to describe this child who he knows nothing about and who frankly, knows nothing about itself,  is “freak”. Firstly, its people calling others freaks that sort of make them that thing. Secondly, this “expert” seems to imply that the only way a person knows anything about who they are, as a person, is by understanding who’s parts they have and what society says that means about who they are.

“To have a sense of self and personal identity is a critical part of normal healthy development,” he said. “This blocks that and sets the child up for bullying, scapegoating, and marginalization.”

To have a sense of self and personal identity IS a critical part of normal, healthy development, but to have that sense of self and personal identity hamstrung immediately by gender roles imposed by society and dogma does nothing what so ever to help promote the normal or healthy development of a human being’s personal sense of self and identity. Gender, more than anything, inhibits and limits the discovery of an individual’s personal identity, because to honestly explore exactly who you are in a way that contradicts preconceived gender specifications makes people fucking uncomfortable, if  for no other reason than pointing out the lack of choice they had and how fucked up THEY were by the roles they were forced into.

“We all have sexual identity,” said Beresin. “The mission to have masculine and feminine traits more equalized and more flexible and not judgmental is awesome in a utopian community. But we take pride in our sexual identity.”

A child takes absolutely no pride in their sexual identity. These parts that make them specifically this or specifically that mean no more to a young child than an ear lobe or an asshole. There’s plenty of time for their parts to define them later, when it’s unavoidable and everyone around them is unable to judge them by anything other than their gender because that’s how they were taught to identify everyone in their lives. And just because the world ain’t perfect, doesn’t mean these parents can’t try to strip away one of the biggest obstacles in their child’s future struggles for as long as they can while their child tries to discover other, more important things about themselves.

“Identity formation is really critical for every human being and part of that is gender,” Beresin said. “There are many cultural and social forces at play.”

It’s impossible to deny, part of that identity formation is indeed gender, but it should be the smallest part of it, not the biggest as all of the busy body opponents of these parent’s plan for raising their child want to make it. Your slit or your schlong shouldn’t be the first things that determine the direction of your life, it’ll direct the kid enough later, let’s spend some time learning what else might be going on inside it first before we tell it what it can and can’t be.

Meanwhile, in Switzerland sex ed programs are handing out stuffed vagina and wooden penis toys to school kids and the Swiss are losing their shit.

“Children should be encouraged to develop and experience their sexuality in a pleasurable way,” Daniel Schneider, a deputy kindergarten rector for Basel who helped develop the sex ed curriculum along with experts.

When a lumpy thing loves another weird squishy thing very much...
When a lumpy thing loves another weird squishy thing very much...
 

Of course, the same people who want to make sure their children understand that they’re a boy and they should do boy things, don’t want them to know what the boyest thing they could do is or how to do it.

Sure, some of the details sound kinda odd, such as the kindergarten teachers being instructed to “show that contacting body parts can be pleasurable.” and “recommends having children massage each other or to rub themselves with warm sand bags, all accompanied by soft music.” That seems more like entrapment than anything else, but I’m not a child sexology expert either, so what do I know?

But maybe the biggest problem for these parents IS encouraging children to “experience their sexuality in a pleasurable way”. These people believe that they should know what being a boy or a girl, a man or a woman means, but that they shouldn’t express, explore or discover anything else beyond their predetermined role. That hiding from them what their parts do is the best way to keep them from using them. It seems thousands of years of history has proven that to be a ridiculous theory, so why not then try to teach these children, who will learn it one way or another, how to do so safely, responsibly and enjoyably, rather than tell them that they shouldn’t do anything and if they do, they should keep it a secret and be ashamed of it. Talk to your kid, treat them like a responsible, thoughtful person, and they might be one.

Ultimately, a school doctor quoted in the “sex box” article sums it all up much more succinctly than I have been saying that the “the taboo around sex and sex ed is a problem that only adults have.”