Form Follows Function
A Hole a Woman Does Not Make
Seems a no-brainer, actually, doesn’t it?
If the biology of sexuality knows anything, it knows that it merely touched the surface of complex, multi-dimensional interactions and interdependencies. Biologists are much less fearful than the medical profession, so they more readily admit what they don’t know. Be that as it may, what they do know is more than amply sufficient to substantiate the contention that penis-removal, hormone treatment and a surgically created functionless cavity in the penis’ place does not a woman make.
Who would even come up with such an imbecilical madness? OK, perhaps pre-school children playing with old-fashioned genderless plastic dolls, perhaps they might, based on a glimpse upon the anatomy of the little brother or the little sister come up with that.
But, luckily, preschoolers don’t make laws (other than sandbox rules – remember those?) and they don’t define the world (again other than the sandbox). However, one dynamic does often originate in the sandbox, or the schoolyard: Bullying.
Bullying is always a means to gain some superiority. Bullying is always based on intimidation, like carrying a big stick . . . or any stick for that matter. This is how it works: I have something. You want it. But I know it is rightfully mine and am unwilling to simply give it to you. This pisses you off.
Next, I find myself surrounded by you and some of your friends (or groupies) and you tell me you want what I have, adding, perhaps, that you are asking “nicely”. At which point, your bodyguards all move a step closer to me. “How about it,” I am asked, “have you come to your senses?” or something to that effect. In my view, the sensible thing is to realize that none of the ownership facts have changed. The bone of contention was and still is mine. At which point, if I am not very quick on my feet, your “friends” push and shove me and “teach me a lesson.” Next time, they will “beat the crap out of” me, they say.
This is the prototype of action strategy to gain possession of what is not rightfully yours.
DIVERSITY IS NATURAL
From here, we could fast back or fast forward. Let’s go back first. But before we do that, a clarification is in order. This entire issue of gender violence in no way should or can invalidate people’s gender-crossing feelings. I would even go a step further. To “genderize” a child’s inclinations as conforming to or deviating from a given girl or boy stereotype is questionable from the start. If a boy like playing with dolls or toy animals, if he likes to dress in pretty fabrics, if he likes to sew, none of this makes him even remotely effeminate or a potential homosexual, none of it. Similarly, the proverbial tomboy may grow up to be neither butch nor man-hating or in any way lacking feminity.
If, however, a male person experiences an affinity to the feelings of a woman – to the best of his abilities – or a female person feels more kinship to the experiences she considers male, there should exist no hindrance to either of them living their lives with the feelings they actually have. A man in silk and dress needs a pigeon hole as little as a woman on a tractor does. To go one step further, a male changing his name to a female name and living life following his inclinations should be as non-scandalized as a woman doing the same.
Here we need to pause to observe an inequality. Have you not noticed in reading about these cross inclinations that the sense of oddness or “problem” is much more pronounced in the case of a man wanting to live as a woman while a woman in pants and on a tractor or as a “Top Gun” in the Air Force barely raises an eyebrow any longer? It’s almost become a non-issue. This has a simple reason: Apparent male qualities are almost implicitly accepted in women. Apparent female qualities in a male person, however, threaten the patriarchal status quo much more.
Another critical consideration is the anthropological data on cultures, historic as well as present day ones, where the gender crossing issue is a non-issue, where there are four or more gender identities without the least stigma or hierarchy or value judgement to any of them.
All in all, what’s the big deal? We will find out, but first the look back in history.
Look Back in History
Maybe six or seven or eight thousand years ago, during the “very very dark ages” when people were still living largely in places they didn’t have to build and for which they didn’t have to pay a mortgage, when women were the natural leaders of the average tribe or society. The reason for this – hence “natural” – was that they had a degree of know-how and insights that men and children usually did not possess. And then there was (and still is) the life thing, you know. Makes you feel pretty helpless when you can’t make babies without them. What a pisser! This was way before test tubes, of course, back then.
So what do you do if you can’t change the facts? You lie about them. In keeping with the sour grape principle, you tell yourself and whoever is willing to listen, that this life thing is really a punishment. Nothing to be envious about. The rest of this thing is “history” of sorts, at least in the books of those who want books to be more powerful than . . . women.
This was an early form of legislating insanity. Those were the bad old times of states ruled based on religious law, the way we nowadays despise places like Iran for. But back to the bad old days, where was apparently the way to go, the books say. Not to mention that you could change the rules or interpret them at will and then accuse those who didn’t follow the new rule or interpretation of breaking the law. No separation of church and state then, simply because religion was the state’s vehicle to power. But that’s another story, one of many other stories.
That’s where it all started: Envy of women’s powers.
THE EMPEROR”S NEW “WOMAN”
Fast forward to the 21st Century. Envy of women’s powers has found a new wrinkle: The Emperor’s new woman. Or, as one insane slogan proclaims “Real women have cocks.” Yes, you read this right. We make believe. And who doesn’t wanna play according to our rules in our new gender sandbox, we . . . bully them, beat the crap out of them. After all, you want what women are. It isn’t rightfully yours, but you will force your way into (being accepted as) a woman. Rapists do that very thing, and mostly for the same underlying reason: A rage about not being equal to woman. “If I can’t have it, I will destroy it.” “I will penetrate against your will. I will be accepted as a woman even if I have to achieve that by force, by intimidation, by bullying, just like in the sandbox.
It is really insane and perverse: A man who wants what a woman has and is, something he will never possess. Never. He makes himself look somewhat like a woman and claims he must be treated like a woman. OK, let’s burn him on the stake or drown him with a millstone around his neck. Let’s enact the rape statistics on him. Let’s pay him less for his work. No. no. no. Re-wind. No. That male woman-imposter has dressed up his rapist anger in a new victim role because he doesn’t get what he wants. Poor man!
It’s all our fault that he – along with the whole entourage – is so angry and vitriolic. We didn’t give him what he wanted when he wanted it. He had no choice and it’s all our fault. It is woman’s fault that a man cannot be a woman. Where is Spock when you need him: “Is not logical”, he would say, but logic and belligerent insanity are diametrically opposed forces.
Frank Lloyd Wright has it right: Form Follows Function. A Hole a Woman Does Not Make.
And real women do not have cocks.
— to be continued