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.
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.