Shush, Daddy’s Being Fabulous
From the forthcoming film by Vaishnavi Sundar, Behind The Looking Glass, about women whose partners, or fathers, have ‘transitioned’:
It’s like this person came along and said, “You know how you had a dad? Well, that was all a lie. And all that time, your dad didn’t like being your dad.” And my dad was kind of replaced by this other person. This other person who didn’t love me like my dad loved me, wasn’t interested in me like my dad was.
And his love was conditional.
“Your dad has fallen in love with himself, & there is no part for you in there where you are not just a prop.”
There is profound silence surrounding the lives of the children with trans id-ing father. Are they just props used for championing a delusion? #behindthelookingglass https://t.co/MGRE78WGLk pic.twitter.com/aw9yFit55J
— Vaishnavi Sundar (@Vaishax) July 27, 2024
Emma Thomas, the woman recounting her somewhat unorthodox childhood, also appears in this longer interview. The subjects touched on include unmentionable erotic motives, ideological capture, and the experience of watching a man publicly enacting an approximation of breastfeeding. It’s a strange listen, necessarily, a little sad, and sometimes darkly funny.
Ms Thomas also has a blog, Children Of Transitioners, in which she relates her experiences, and those of others, and where she attempts to parse the phenomenon of dads in dresses:
Update, via the comments:
Pete SJ visits Ms Thomas’ blog and quotes this:
Adding,
At which point, this eye-widening saga came to mind.
And note that those applauding Mr Yates, the star of the link above – the bewigged man quizzing schoolgirls about their panties – are overwhelmingly ladies of a progressive leaning. Selling out their own daughters, and the daughters of their neighbours.
In order to be seen holding fashionable views.
Or, as Ms Thomas recounts in the embedded video:
So again, some boundaries being tested.
Given the current near-ubiquity of trans activism, it’s curious how little attention is given to estranged wives – ‘trans widows’ – or, as above, estranged children. Who, I suppose, would be ‘trans orphans’.
To which dicentra replies,
Before citing the following scolding comment, directed at Ms Thomas by a disaffected reader:
Yet the popular activist term deadnaming.
And you’d think the news that your husband no longer exists and that your entire marriage was a farce – or that your dad no longer exists and is now competing for the title of mom – or some bizarre hooker aunt – might be a legitimate basis for some, shall we say, irritation.
Even so-called “phobia.”
Update 2:
The entire documentary can now be viewed here.
God, that’s sad.
And just a tad surreal:
Given the current near-ubiquity of trans activism, it’s curious how little attention is given to estranged wives – trans ‘widows’ – or, as above, estranged children. Who, I suppose, would be trans ‘orphans’.
Is today’s word ‘parenting’…?
I think it’s safe to say there’s… room for improvement.
Given I’m not a parent, I’m surprised by how often the topic of parenting crops up.
Didn’t see that coming.
Given I’m not a parent, I’m surprised by how often the topic of parenting crops up.
Because everyone has a stake in the future, whether they are a parent or not.
And, also, because you’re a mensch.
I am a glorious being.
[ Fetches mirror. ]
[ Takes mirror back. ]
[ Rummaging. ]
[ Returns with softer, more forgiving lights, and larger mirror. ]
Heh. I see we’ve a tough crowd in tonight.
glorious
I can get this shabby treatment at home, you know.
A schizophrenic mum and an autogynephile dad. That’s serious back luck.
It’s not an ideal start in life. Still, Ms Thomas does seem quite grounded, quite sensible, all things considered.
Pace Orwell, some people are more despicable than others.
.
Given the immediate context, there is a madhouse quality.
Well, I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be. Because learning to love yourself truly is the greatest love of all.
As any competent psychotherapist will tell you, you should never affirm a crazy person’s delusions.
I agree.
This is a familiar pattern among the egotistical, up to and including full-bore psychopaths. Everything is about them. The entire family is skewed to serve their pathologies.
They’re easy to find as they leave a trail of victims in their wake.
Ms. Thomas also has a blog … where she attempts to parse the phenomenon of dads in dresses.
“Involving you in his erotic world” – an economic summary that catches the ambiguous or boundary-transgressing aspects of the behavior.
This post echoes an article I recently read, I forget where, possibly in the Spectator, by Debbie Hayton’s wife, about her experience as he transitioned later in their marriage. There’s a line that stuck out then and stayed with me – “it was all about Debbie: what Debbie thought, how Debbie felt, what Debbie needed.”
I read Hayton’s articles in the Spectator, and they come across as some of the more levelheaded opinions from the trans side, especially because he (now, anyways), does not claim to be an actual woman. But I guess when he was first transitioning, things were more like the dads in the Children of Transitioners blog.
The more I read about it, the more I think AGP takes the Narcissus myth to the extreme. The world revolves around the AGP, and everyone else on the planet are just props to be used in the drama. Bad enough to do that to adults, but to do that to children who are still trying to figure out the world? I’m fast losing sympathy for these messed up people.
I’m just going to leave this here, for no reason whatsoever.
And note that those applauding Mr Yates – for his, ahem, bravery – are overwhelmingly ladies of a progressive leaning. Selling out their own daughters, and the daughters of their neighbours.
In order to be seen holding fashionable views.
What was that word again? Oh yes. Despicable.
In order to be seen holding fashionable views
Indeed.
Ms Thomas also has a blog […]
I have a glancing familiarity with this type of situation. One of my very best friends in high school also lived across the street from me. We spent tons of time together, between school, he at my house and I at his, washing our cars, playing drums, swimming in his pool, cramming for tests together, etc you get the picture. His family…mom and dad both teachers, his sister a few years younger than us…couldn’t have been more solidly suburban middle class. His dad an amiable and unremarkable fellow who worked, cut the grass, made BBQ chicken on the grill and would sometimes take us to the lake or a movie. All was well.
And then it wasn’t. My friend’s dad (Mark) came out of the closet. No. He exploded out of the closet. Fully, triumphantly, almost defiantly gay. And a transvestite. Shopping for and wearing women’s clothes around town. With all the overblown tics and caricatures of womanhood…the lisp, the flouncing, fluttering hand gestures, etc. He started smoking. Quit his job or was let go.
As you can imagine, this was an atomic detonation for the family. Divorce. Mom now living in an apartment. The sister graduated high school and moved far away overseas. Mark moved to a bigger city so he could presumably be around other flamboyantly fabulously gay transvestites.*
And my friend? Devastated, deflated, adrift, besieged with embarrassment and inchoate anger and confusion. Who was his dad? Did he ever really have a dad? Was BBQ chicken hey-fellas-who-wants-to-throw-the-football Mark even real, or was the whole persona a facade?
My friend did therapy, years of it, disappeared, moved to another state, worked a low level managerial job, died relatively young. His mom died too. The sister lives in Africa.
*I saw Mark in his new city several years later at a party. Total happenstance. He was the same, lisping, gesticulating with his cigarettes, talking only about himself, he looked haggard and manic.
I tried asking about his son, daughter, his wife. He knew little, couldn’t have been less interested, was plainly annoyed and impatient that I was inquiring about his old, discarded life.
The solipsism and selfishness…I almost had to admire its ruthless purity.
That’s not a feminist thing, unless politics affects what is said/not said.
Instalanche.
Act casual, say nothing.
What a despicable collection of lunatics. Using kids, your own children as props to further your own messed political and social agendas, is beyond evil.
As parent, your children look to you as a mentor and coach with an unconditional love and acceptance. What these people have done is a complete betrayal of their children’s trust.
Transition or not, you need to be there for your kids –not the other way around.
Umm, looked around lately?
(deleted – needs revision)
It’s surprising National Review still has the post up, given the haste with which they disassociated themselves from Derbyshire.
Well of course. Which is why I wrote that.
But accurate language is important.
..
Quite. One thing I will always be thankful to Theodore Dalrymple for is introducing me to the Confucian doctrine of Rectification of Names:
Yes indeed!
My search engine returns many hits – maybe hundreds. I too am surprised NR hasn’t completely erased Derb’s writings. It wasn’t that long after NR booted him that I stopped renewing my subscription. I wonder how many of their editors believed he wrote falsehoods vs. how many didn’t want NR to be criticized by woke fascists.
It was Covington Catholic that did it for me. Already irritated by the treatment they afforded Mark Steyn, it didn’t take much.
That’s not a feminist thing, unless politics affects what is said/not said.
“I’ve since had a feminist realisation about the importance of accurate language”
“Okay. 30% of domestic violence is unilateral female-on-male, and the relationships with the highest rates of domestic violence are lesbian ones.”
“NOT LIKE THAT”
The judge should sentence them to be taken out back and shot.
After graduating college and getting a real job, in lieu of discussions that (I thought) would be inappropriate for a work environment, unlike in school, I got subscriptions to NR and The New Republic. NR was dumped after about five years due to way too much pompousness. The last straw was some article about the mafia and jukeboxes. As much as the facts seemed reasonable, the tone that suggested that putting a quarter in a jukebox was the moral equivalent of supporting and even committing all the crimes the mafia was doing was just too much. There was other dumb stuff too but that was the last straw.
I continued TNR until the utter absurdity of the Stephen Glass BS completely shocked me. I was stunned that they would publish what was bloody obvious made up, cliched bigotry. It made me very uncomfortable about the people in the general news business. I was shocked that even leftists in the press didn’t seem to question it. This magazine was then known as the “in flight magazine of Air Force One” (early Clinton years). I never even heard Republicans object to it. Surely some were aware. The first that I realized that anyone besides myself was aware that it was complete fabulism ironically was when driving home from work, maybe early 2000’s, listening to “Fresh Air” on NPR and host Terry ???? was discussing the movie about it with…Stephen Glass. We have the awful media that we have today, and thus all these absurd BS stories, because “conservatives” failed to pay attention to what was going on in the libtardsphere. And then, even when they had it shoved in their faces, they still refused to respond appropriately. Would not be prudent at this juncture. Not the hill to die on. Don’t go to war with people who buy ink by the barrel. Idiots.
When they stick their heads above the parapet they are told to get over their transphobia and affirm their new mum/wife. The term “trans widow” is considered to be transphobic, because of course it is.
From that article:
You’d think the news that your husband no longer exists and that your entire marriage was a farcical lie – or that your dad no longer exists and is now competing for the title of mom – or some bizarre hooker aunt – might be recognised as a legitimate basis for some, shall we say, irritation. Even so-called “phobia.”
When you use their correct given name they call it ‘deadnaming’, presumably because they consider their old identity dead. This is the terminology that they have adopted themselves, by and large.
So calling it ‘trans widow’ is perfectly valid.
Equally applicable to the enablers:
Or taking their sons to Drag Queen Story Hour.
Yes, my personal experience confirms that.
Absolutely. But hey. Pride, baby.
It’s funny because it’s true. Which is the only reason it’s funny.
Not sure what it is about wearing a dress and a Guy Fawkes mask that would elicit pride.
This person inadvertently gets to the crux of the matter. This is why they are so pissed off at anyone who refuses to be a prop in their drama – “How dare you focus on anyone but ME”. Farkin’ narcisissts. But that’s not the whole of it either – Narcissus was satisfied to be in love with himself – these people need everyone else to be also. It’s a power game.
In a strange variation on that theme, we have this mother whose child supposedly is trans (the father is also on board). Note that she mouths the words the child is saying. Obviously the child has been rehearsed, but it looks like the mother is a bad ventriloquist and the child is her dummy. IOW, the “trans” child is almost a literal prop.
Mad, malevolent mothers are, I think, an insufficiently recognised phenomenon.
I love David and the posters here….. but I feel the need to point out that:
Every Narcissistic Manipulation Used by the Trans Movement Was First Used by the Gay Rights Movement.
It’s the Exact . Same . Playbook.
I was there – raised and educated in New Yawk City during the 60s-70s-80s, I had a front row seat at the blazing mirror-ball-birth of the Gay Rights Movement. Including the first wave of pity-mongering “influencers” speaking “their truth” in my school, college, synagogue, and first job.
In no particular order:
Malignant narcissism – check
Identity politics – check
Extortionary victimhood – check
“Transgressive” display as its own righteous justification – check
Men leaving families – check
Immediately inserting the agenda in schools – check
“Experts” separating children from “toxic” parents – check
Kids worked over by “mentors” – check
Deception Cascade of “we’ll never do/ask for THAT” claims – check
Spike in sympathetic gay characters in media – check
Fawning Leftie press hiding the less savory aspects of the “subculture” – check
Memory-holing the families’ stories – check (<<< you are here)
Mau-mauing expert medical opinion with phony “born that way” claims (disproven when we mapped the human genome) to justify adult depravity and the pedo focus of the movement – check
——————————————
I am glad you all now admit that this is not a legitimate way to change social norms or public opinion. And that such behaviors may indicate psychological extremis more than political oppression.
If you were alive during the first go-round – you are invited to revise your nostalgic concept of yourself as a libertarian/freedom-fighter, and apologize (at least in your mind) to the people you sneered at for not getting with the gay-lib program.
None of this has anything to do with the right of an adult to live as they wish – this is about politicizing the definitions of “nice”, “just”, “equal”, “inclusive” and subverting them to identity politics.
This is about narcissistic manipulation scaled up to a political movement, and used as a club.
[ Compiles Friday’s Ephemera, defrosts burgers. ]
[ Finally starts watching season two of House of the Dragon. ]
You are making unfounded assumptions about the views and personal histories of the people here. I wonder why. It certainly can’t be to Win Friends and Influence People.
pst314:
You are making unfounded assumptions about the views and personal histories of the people here.
———————–
Didn’t take a survey and I admit I generalize, but I have been reading and posting here for some time. I doubt there are many Archie Bunker Society members here, especially regarding the sexual revolution.
But enough about me:
Did/do you oppose the use of these techniques when they were/are used to promote the G, L, and B parts of the rainbow family?
In particular I remember the obfuscation and DARVO of the gay political organizations as AIDS emerged. Then the maudlin crocodile tears used to divert attention from the truth – and make political hay when it could no longer be hidden.
While people died.
Then don’t.
A google search finds maybe a half dozen comments by you.
Is the choice only between Archie Bunker and brain-dead liberal?
I damned well did. I opposed the pathological culture. I opposed the lies.
But I also recognized and recognize that the gay activists and dysfunctional “queer” culture do not represent all gay men and lesbians. There are men and women like David who will have no truck with “pride” parades, public sexual displays, bizarre fetishes, the grooming of children, and promiscuity for the sake of immediate gratification and often justified in political terms. I’ve been opposing the bullshit since the sixties. And I resent people making accusations based on zero evidence.
Not to put too fine a point on it, who appointed you Witchfinder General?
Dude. Where have you been all my life. I agree with about 90% of that. The parallels are there but we’re not supposed to talk about them because it makes people uncomfortable. Which itself is…somewhat understandable. Much like some trans people are embarrassed and uncomfortable with today’s drama…
Oh, checkity-check-check. One quibble: Men leaving families was pretty much unavoidable. But that was happening in so many hetero relationships it gets somewhat lost in the statistical noise. So long as they tried to respectfully deal with the situation. Not everyone did. Not that everyone does everything anyway but…
But this sympathetic gay characters in media…we’ve been watching reruns of the US comedy Cheers. Only in the first season but there was a very forced, awkward, episode that was soooo cringe. It really stood out and not in a good way.
I recall hearing “he discovered he was gay, poor baby, you’ve understand” but I didn’t believe it then and believe it even less now.
Thus begins a Devon Eriksen post about the right to bear arms, given current events.
The he lays into Europeans who sneered at Americans for their gun-loving ways:
Read the whole thing.
I’ve got to say, I think BenDavid has a point, though I suspect his tone came out more aggressive than he intended. It is a failing I can sympathize with, as I am also subject to it.
I also recognize elements from the Trans playbook. I was taught “born this way” in school regarding homosexuality. I accepted it as the clear enunciation of an obvious truth, disputable only by bigots and zealots.
But now? It’s starting to look more like propaganda in my mind. I see these arguments applied today in a manner which seems mad to me, and I start wondering why I ever accepted them back then. I suspect that the reason is: social conditioning in schools, and nothing more.
I doubt there are many Archie Bunker Society members here, especially regarding the sexual revolution
Out of respect for our host, many of us refrain from commenting on certain subjects.
I might well agree, generally, that there’s a serious problem with degenerate behaviour and sexual abuse in the SF fan community. That doesn’t mean I’d much appreciate people constantly barging through my front door shouting “YE’RE ALL NONCES, YE NERDS”
I must be older than you: The Party Line when I was a teen was that it was environmental. “Born that way” came later, and I was amused at how quickly the political rhetoric changed from “must celebrate because it’s environmental” to “must celebrate because born that way”.
After decades of contact with that community, I am still unsure exactly how widespread that degeneracy is. (Closer contact with more fans might have clarified that.) But it’s certainly not rare, and I believe it is connected to the widespread embrace of pernicious ideologies.
Any good?
But not as widespread as in this segment of the population.
The show overall, or season two specifically? I’m only two episodes in (of eight, I think). So, it’s been diverting enough for me to start watching a second season. It’s not The Zenith Of All Television – it doesn’t quite match Game of Thrones at it’s peak, though it’s considerably better than its predecessor’s later seasons. It’s competently made, there’s no grating wokeness, and some bits are quite exciting. Plotting, scheming, dragons.
There was also, last season, a remarkable scene set on a beach at night, and which was shot in extremely low light. Quite eerie.
It was a “moral failing” the way I was raised. There was considerable denial that obviously gay people, flamboyantly so, were actually gay. My mother, I believe to her dying day, who had a tremendous respect for exceptionally talented people refused to believe that Liberace was gay. After some eye rolls my father would mention her cousin Ernest and his “good friend” but that itself would get excused. They were just la-de-da. Not, you know…After some deep discussion/comparisons on the subject with a roommate in college and noticing that a few of my brighter friends had…interesting non-relationship relationships with women I settled somewhere between the “born that way” and “early development environmental factors” camps which were effectively the same thing. But then there were the oversexed celebrity rock stars who seemed to be rutting with anyone and…? The thing with these sorts of things is there can be many simultaneous causes of outcomes perceived by society as one thing. This tranny stuff is a huge example of this but there seems to be little differentiation from both the left and the right. There are obviously (but then again #SCIENCE!) chromosomal abnormalities that get mixed up with psychological disorders that get mixed up with true sociopathy that gets mixed up with simple comedic farce (looking at you Monty Python) such that even serious people start talking past each other from the get-go.
And thereby spread the degeneracy further.
Why? It was already my nature to object to the degeneracy. Knowing more of them would not have changed that.
It was certainly such in my preteen years, although the veiled adult comments about people like Liberace went over my head except for a general sense that they “weren’t right” in an important way.
In fact, the more I knew them the less I liked them.
I knew it! I knew it!
pst314:
I opposed the pathological culture. I opposed the lies.
But I also recognized and recognize that the gay activists and dysfunctional “queer” culture do not represent all gay men and lesbians. There are men and women like David who will have no truck with “pride” parades, public sexual displays, bizarre fetishes, the grooming of children, and promiscuity for the sake of immediate gratification and often justified in political terms. I’ve been opposing the bullshit since the sixties.
WTP:
I agree with about 90% of that. The parallels are there but we’re not supposed to talk about them because it makes people uncomfortable. Which itself is…somewhat understandable. Much like some trans people are embarrassed and uncomfortable with today’s drama…
Zionist O:
It’s starting to look more like propaganda in my mind. I see these arguments applied today in a manner which seems mad to me, and I start wondering why I ever accepted them back then. I suspect that the reason is: social conditioning in schools, and nothing more.
—————————–
Oh Toto – We’re Hooome!
so when aelfield asks:
Not to put too fine a point on it, who appointed you Witchfinder General?
——————-
Not my goal at all.
But on many of the blogs I frequent there is a complete unwillingness to trace what’s going on now back to root causes.
People point clearly at the folly and disingenuousness of, say, other people’s identity politics without caring too much to examine how much they were led by telly / at uni to identify with certain liberal/progressive opinions,
To take a more, uhh, neutral example:
What was your reaction when you were urged to stop saying “born out of wedlock” (narrow, judgmental) and say “single parent family”.(brave and feisty).
This directly relates to the “modern retail experience” posts here – but as WTP and others have said, people are uncomfortable saying it.
More specifically – many are unwilling to abandon their pose of condescension towards the Judeo-Christian tradition and its scale of values. The sneer has been so closely associated with sophistication in their minds.
Monotheism
Protestant Reformation
US Constitution
…. hey it’s great that all that happened, but now that our parents discovered all that we don’t need to maintain it any more with, like, personal conviction. That’s a drag, dude. And so judgmental. Heavy.
Yet it is clear that we have reached a tipping point where a plurality of citizens no longer conceive of themselves or their social relations in this frame of reference – no longer see themselves and others as children of One G-d. And the structures are crumbling without that personal belief.
The police officers who arrest UK citizens for thought crimes no longer view themselves that way – many were not even born or inducted/assimilated into those values.
Ronald Reagan was right – Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Even those who remember what it was like Before The Woke speak in half-embarrassed confusion about “decency” and “personal responsibility” or describe wokesters as “immature” – which are all true, but skirt around the M-word – Morality.
Here’s the thing that bugs me about that, and it applies to other social euphemisms…”born out of wedlock” is significantly different than “single parent family”. When a parent, usually the father, dies and leaves a wife and kids behind, that’s a very different story in a lot of ways from being born out of wedlock. Including morally. And if the immorality implied/inferred upon the children is wrong, watering down that immorality by sharing it with a broader group is just as wrong.
I still sometimes say “illegitimate” and “bastard”. I like how it angers certain people.
But we mustn’t call Gemans “krauts”. They are “people of cruller”.
I still sometimes say “illegitimate” and “bastard” as well. Can’t recall ever using them in reference to anyone whom I knew to be illegitimate nor a bastard. Odd that.
I have gotten pushback from
peoplewoke idiots who insist that it is “intolerant” to speak of “illegitimacy rates” which I sometimes do in regard to social dysfunction.