Of Course: Straight Singer Accused of Being "Transphobic" For Refusing to Entertain Dating, and Refusing to Kiss, Trans "Woman"

Look, if you were comfortable in your heterosexuality, you wouldn't mind adding some Vitamin Dick to your diet.

From BET. I have changed the pronouns to reflect actual reality rather than polite indulgence of fantasy self-conception.

Singer Ginuwine has sparked a heated debate on Twitter after a recent episode of Celebrity Big Brother UK. In the latest episode, Ginuwine seemingly rejected fellow housemate India Willoughby.

The controversy stems from a conversation between Willoughby and the "Pony" singer, in which [he] asked whether he would date a trans woman. "You would date me, yeah," Willoughby, who is a trans woman herself, asked.

"Not if you were trans," Ginuwine replied. After Ginuwine replied that he would not date a trans woman, Willoughby attempted to plant a kiss on the singer. When [his] advance was rejected, Willoughby stormed off.

See Twitchy (the first link above) for the Twitter reaction, of people claiming this was "transphobic" on "Ginuwine's" account, and other people noting, quite rightly, that this guy specifically told this other guy (who claims to be a woman) he was not interested in a sexual relationship with him, but then the guy tried to forcibly kiss him anyway.

You know -- like men are losing their jobs for in Hollywood. But I guess here, a man is allowed to attempt to forcibly kiss another man because Trans "Women" have special rights to commit Sexual Assault for Equality.

Quick rant you've read here before:

The left and right both incubate fringe ideas. That is not a bad thing; new ideas need to come from somewhere.

In the beginning, many ideas seem very strange. People often react poorly to new ideas, thinking those who forward those ideas or support them are weird.

It is useful for a political movement to keep its weird new ideas under the radar, at least as involves their political leaders. Political leaders can be voted out of office if they push weird new ideas the public finds strange, dangerous, or morally dubious.

So any political movement would like to keep the agitation for its strangest, weirdest new ideas confined to the non-elective sectors of the movement.

When the left has a Weird New Idea, like "gays should be permitted to get married," leftist politicians do not comment on it much, and the media does not ask them questions about it.

Only when the non-elective political actors of the media, academy, and various pressure groups has moved the Weird New Idea to a level of sufficient public acceptance that it is no longer a weird or toxic idea but a debatable one do leftist politicians begin to talk about it.

Until that point, they are never asked about it by the media, who understands this game all to well. They don't want liberal politicians having to take a position either way on Weird New Ideas until the non-elective sector of the political-cultural-sexual left has agitated for the idea enough that, while it does not yet command majority support, it commands near-majority support and another chunk of the electorate doesn't care about it too much either way.

Until that time, such Weird New Ideas are "wedge issues." The partisans on your side will get angry with you if you don't support the Weird New Idea, but the moderates/non-partisan voters will think you're weird and not someone they want to vote for if you support the Weird New Idea.

Expressing an opinion either way on a wedge issue is a losing propsition -- it's a no-win situation.

Which is why the media doesn't ask liberals about progressive Weird New Ideas until they have been pushed enough by people who can't lose their jobs in elections until the public is desensitized to the weirdness of the idea.

On the other hand, if Rick Santorum, who has some fringey ideas about birth control, says vaguely that birth control is "not okay" (as in, we shouldn't encourage it, not that we shouldn't legally permit it), then -- well, you might think the media would ask Rick Santorum about it at a debate, to embarass him.

But you'd be wrong. Because no one thought Rick Santorum was a viable candidate for president except his immediate family.

Instead, former Clinton communications guru George Stephanopolous asked the front-running expected-to-win Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, whether he'd outlaw birth control.

Romney was baffled by the question, because he'd never suggested anything like that.

But Stephanopolous had achieved his goal -- he'd painted Romney as someone who just might want to ban birth control, and he also managed to cool off some conservative support for Romney by the few in the party who actually do support the Rick Santorum position on birth control.

So here's my point:

When will the media start asking progressive politicians if they agree with the rest of the progressive political movement -- the non-elective-office parts of it -- that straight men are required to at least consider dating other men with penises and, a man with a penis attempts to plant a kiss on them, should happily accede to it?

And better yet, because we can't get the prog media to ever ask the people they vote for and have affairs with a tough question -- can we get the conservative reporters to start asking such impertinent questions?

If it's okay to ask Mitt Romney about Rick Santorum's vague comment about birth control, then it's okay to ask Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and even Oprah Winfrey if they think that straight men should be open to sex with trans "women," with or without their original factory parts.

Or should we just hold off on asking progressive elective officials these questions until the non-elective-office sector of the Sexual Left has mainstreamed the idea that straight men are now required to be gay, if gay or "trans" people demand it?

Is this an outlandish idea? Well not according to the incubators of the left's ideas. And it's certainly no more outlandish than whether Mitt Romney is suddenly going to ban birth control.

So why don't we start making these assholes taking positions on these things before the culture-making wing of the left makes it comfortable for them to take positions?

And speaking of--

How many genders are there? Shouldn't Democrats have to weigh in on this?

posted by Ace at 05:56 PM

| Access Comments