Transgenderism is the new Blackface

[cpwill]

In the 19th and 20th centuries, minstrel shows featuring white actors in blackface — dark makeup worn to make them look black — spread throughout the United States. This practice was laughed off as entertainment. Today, it’s considered to be racial appropriation and stereotyping. But aren’t men who impersonate women similarly guilty of appropriation and stereotyping? If blackface is racist, then surely “womanface” is sexist.

Theatrical cross-dressing has been around for centuries. On the stage, these performances were often ironic and humorous. But there is also a more sinister kind of female impersonation, one that serves to advance the anti-woman ideology of transgenderism. It was not uncommon in minstrel shows for white people to portray African Americans as ignorant and criminal, reinforcing racist sentiments. And with transgenderism, it is not uncommon for men to portray women as hypersexualized and airheaded....

Men impersonate women for all sorts of reasons, not all of them ideological. Some are tormented by gender dysphoria and hate their bodies. Others are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Some get a sexual thrill out of putting on women’s clothing. Others are opportunistic and have figured out it’s easier to win sympathy or even sports competitions by impersonating a female.

With blackface, we don’t discriminate based on a person’s intentions. When Rachel Dolezal identified as black, despite having no black ancestry, going so far as to change her hair and darken her skin, she was widely condemned. She had no ill intent. She merely “identified” as black. Besides, race is arguably much more of a social construct than sex is. Yet for some reason with sex, it’s a different story. Female impersonators are not only tolerated, they’re glorified as representing the pinnacle of womanhood.... “Womanface” is the new blackface. It’s time to get outraged.​

Not a terrible point, though, it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

 

[Phys251]

In the 19th and 20th centuries, minstrel shows featuring white actors in blackface — dark makeup worn to make them look black — spread throughout the United States. This practice was laughed off as entertainment. Today, it’s considered to be racial appropriation and stereotyping. But aren’t men who impersonate women similarly guilty of appropriation and stereotyping? If blackface is racist, then surely “womanface” is sexist.​

​

Theatrical cross-dressing has been around for centuries. On the stage, these performances were often ironic and humorous. But there is also a more sinister kind of female impersonation, one that serves to advance the anti-woman ideology of transgenderism. It was not uncommon in minstrel shows for white people to portray African Americans as ignorant and criminal, reinforcing racist sentiments. And with transgenderism, it is not uncommon for men to portray women as hypersexualized and airheaded....​

​

Men impersonate women for all sorts of reasons, not all of them ideological. Some are tormented by gender dysphoria and hate their bodies. Others are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Some get a sexual thrill out of putting on women’s clothing. Others are opportunistic and have figured out it’s easier to win sympathy or even sports competitions by impersonating a female.​

​

With blackface, we don’t discriminate based on a person’s intentions. When Rachel Dolezal identified as black, despite having no black ancestry, going so far as to change her hair and darken her skin, she was widely condemned. She had no ill intent. She merely “identified” as black. Besides, race is arguably much more of a social construct than sex is. Yet for some reason with sex, it’s a different story. Female impersonators are not only tolerated, they’re glorified as representing the pinnacle of womanhood.... “Womanface” is the new blackface. It’s time to get outraged.​

Not a terrible point, though, it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

Being trans is not a choice. Wearing blackface is.

 

[reflechissez]

In the 19th and 20th centuries, minstrel shows featuring white actors in blackface — dark makeup worn to make them look black — spread throughout the United States. This practice was laughed off as entertainment. Today, it’s considered to be racial appropriation and stereotyping. But aren’t men who impersonate women similarly guilty of appropriation and stereotyping? If blackface is racist, then surely “womanface” is sexist.​

​

Theatrical cross-dressing has been around for centuries. On the stage, these performances were often ironic and humorous. But there is also a more sinister kind of female impersonation, one that serves to advance the anti-woman ideology of transgenderism. It was not uncommon in minstrel shows for white people to portray African Americans as ignorant and criminal, reinforcing racist sentiments. And with transgenderism, it is not uncommon for men to portray women as hypersexualized and airheaded....​

​

Men impersonate women for all sorts of reasons, not all of them ideological. Some are tormented by gender dysphoria and hate their bodies. Others are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Some get a sexual thrill out of putting on women’s clothing. Others are opportunistic and have figured out it’s easier to win sympathy or even sports competitions by impersonating a female.​

​

With blackface, we don’t discriminate based on a person’s intentions. When Rachel Dolezal identified as black, despite having no black ancestry, going so far as to change her hair and darken her skin, she was widely condemned. She had no ill intent. She merely “identified” as black. Besides, race is arguably much more of a social construct than sex is. Yet for some reason with sex, it’s a different story. Female impersonators are not only tolerated, they’re glorified as representing the pinnacle of womanhood.... “Womanface” is the new blackface. It’s time to get outraged.​

Not a terrible point, though, it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

ok

 

[OrphanSlug]

In the 19th and 20th centuries, minstrel shows featuring white actors in blackface — dark makeup worn to make them look black — spread throughout the United States. This practice was laughed off as entertainment. Today, it’s considered to be racial appropriation and stereotyping. But aren’t men who impersonate women similarly guilty of appropriation and stereotyping? If blackface is racist, then surely “womanface” is sexist.​

​

Theatrical cross-dressing has been around for centuries. On the stage, these performances were often ironic and humorous. But there is also a more sinister kind of female impersonation, one that serves to advance the anti-woman ideology of transgenderism. It was not uncommon in minstrel shows for white people to portray African Americans as ignorant and criminal, reinforcing racist sentiments. And with transgenderism, it is not uncommon for men to portray women as hypersexualized and airheaded....​

​

Men impersonate women for all sorts of reasons, not all of them ideological. Some are tormented by gender dysphoria and hate their bodies. Others are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Some get a sexual thrill out of putting on women’s clothing. Others are opportunistic and have figured out it’s easier to win sympathy or even sports competitions by impersonating a female.​

​

With blackface, we don’t discriminate based on a person’s intentions. When Rachel Dolezal identified as black, despite having no black ancestry, going so far as to change her hair and darken her skin, she was widely condemned. She had no ill intent. She merely “identified” as black. Besides, race is arguably much more of a social construct than sex is. Yet for some reason with sex, it’s a different story. Female impersonators are not only tolerated, they’re glorified as representing the pinnacle of womanhood.... “Womanface” is the new blackface. It’s time to get outraged.​

Not a terrible point, though, it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

Terrible attempt by National Review, bound to make the discussion worse.

 

[HIP56948]

Frankly, from what I see how Americans dress, I'd rather see Dudes dressing like Carman Miranda!
.

.

 

[NWRatCon]

Yes it is a terrible point. Bigots gonna find any excuse to bigot.

 

[j brown's body]

In the 19th and 20th centuries, minstrel shows featuring white actors in blackface — dark makeup worn to make them look black — spread throughout the United States. This practice was laughed off as entertainment. Today, it’s considered to be racial appropriation and stereotyping. But aren’t men who impersonate women similarly guilty of appropriation and stereotyping? If blackface is racist, then surely “womanface” is sexist.​

​

Theatrical cross-dressing has been around for centuries. On the stage, these performances were often ironic and humorous. But there is also a more sinister kind of female impersonation, one that serves to advance the anti-woman ideology of transgenderism. It was not uncommon in minstrel shows for white people to portray African Americans as ignorant and criminal, reinforcing racist sentiments. And with transgenderism, it is not uncommon for men to portray women as hypersexualized and airheaded....​

​

Men impersonate women for all sorts of reasons, not all of them ideological. Some are tormented by gender dysphoria and hate their bodies. Others are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Some get a sexual thrill out of putting on women’s clothing. Others are opportunistic and have figured out it’s easier to win sympathy or even sports competitions by impersonating a female.​

​

With blackface, we don’t discriminate based on a person’s intentions. When Rachel Dolezal identified as black, despite having no black ancestry, going so far as to change her hair and darken her skin, she was widely condemned. She had no ill intent. She merely “identified” as black. Besides, race is arguably much more of a social construct than sex is. Yet for some reason with sex, it’s a different story. Female impersonators are not only tolerated, they’re glorified as representing the pinnacle of womanhood.... “Womanface” is the new blackface. It’s time to get outraged.​

Not a terrible point, though, it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

You might have had a chance if you'd made this about drag shows, except women seem to be one of the biggest supporters of them.

 

[Cameron]

In the 19th and 20th centuries, minstrel shows featuring white actors in blackface — dark makeup worn to make them look black — spread throughout the United States. This practice was laughed off as entertainment. Today, it’s considered to be racial appropriation and stereotyping. But aren’t men who impersonate women similarly guilty of appropriation and stereotyping? If blackface is racist, then surely “womanface” is sexist.​

​

Theatrical cross-dressing has been around for centuries. On the stage, these performances were often ironic and humorous. But there is also a more sinister kind of female impersonation, one that serves to advance the anti-woman ideology of transgenderism. It was not uncommon in minstrel shows for white people to portray African Americans as ignorant and criminal, reinforcing racist sentiments. And with transgenderism, it is not uncommon for men to portray women as hypersexualized and airheaded....​

​

Men impersonate women for all sorts of reasons, not all of them ideological. Some are tormented by gender dysphoria and hate their bodies. Others are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Some get a sexual thrill out of putting on women’s clothing. Others are opportunistic and have figured out it’s easier to win sympathy or even sports competitions by impersonating a female.​

​

With blackface, we don’t discriminate based on a person’s intentions. When Rachel Dolezal identified as black, despite having no black ancestry, going so far as to change her hair and darken her skin, she was widely condemned. She had no ill intent. She merely “identified” as black. Besides, race is arguably much more of a social construct than sex is. Yet for some reason with sex, it’s a different story. Female impersonators are not only tolerated, they’re glorified as representing the pinnacle of womanhood.... “Womanface” is the new blackface. It’s time to get outraged.​

Not a terrible point, though, it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

I don't see it. I do however, see conservatives doing the same thing they have always done -- insisting that small groups of people with beliefs or backgrounds they don't agree with or understand don't deserve dignity and should be ostracized. Blacks, immigrants, gays, now trans. I'm so tired of these Nazis trying to control others and police things that don't affect them. Conservatives will end up looking the same on these issues as they always have. I'll hang out with and hire a trans over a redneck bigot any day.

This is why conservatives don't want anybody learning about racism and their involvement in it. The parallel is way too obvious.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

This thread is going to go south in an awful hurry. And when it does, the OP will whine that we are picking on him. Blackface = Transgender. Let THAT sink in. THAT is his comparison. WOW. Just WOW.

 

[Lovebug]

I'll hang out with and hire a trans over a redneck bigot any day.

I'd hang out with both and get a calm conversation going.

 

[NWRatCon]

This thread is going to go south in an awful hurry.

It started in the deep South and just went into the gutter from there.

 

[Helix]

I wonder which Emmanuel Goldstein right wing propaganda will choose for its next Two Minutes Hate campaign.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Being trans is not a choice. Wearing blackface is.

Even if it was a choice…ok? Like I have no issue with femboys, drag queens, or any of it.

I think the main issue here is that gender and race are different things.

 

[beefheart]

There was another poster here trying to flog this moronic conclusion.

And he kept trying, after everyone ignored his ponderous rantings.

It was hilarious.

 

[NWRatCon]

There are three ways bigotry proceeds: First is just gross portrayal of bigotry with epithets, slanders, etc.; second is passive acquiescence, the failure to condemn it; third is the most insidious, portrayal of bigoted statements and polemics as "rational" or "a good point".

Tucker Carlson, and his ilk, are great examples of the last, with references to "great replacement", and other such bigoted garbage. This OP is another. There is nothing redeemable or accurate in the screed parading as "opinion" in the the OP rag, just a vehicle to promote the hateful bigotry that inspired it.

The original poster is trying to put one over on us by pretending that it has some merit. We should give it the shrift that it deserves - none - and call it out for what it actually is: an excuse to promote bigotry by pretending "I didn't say it, someone else did. I was just bringing it up for discussion." Sound familiar? "I'm not a Nazi, I was just quoting Mein Kampf."

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I wonder which Emmanuel Goldstein right wing propaganda will choose for its next Two Minutes Hate campaign.

THE DEBT LIMIT!!! zOMG WEERE SPENDINGz ARE CHILDRUINS FUTURE BECAUSE BIDEN IS A CROSSDRESING COMMIE!!!!
Transgender is soooooo March 2023.

 

[cpwill]

This thread is going to go south in an awful hurry. And when it does, the OP will whine that we are picking on him.

Nah.

Blackface = Transgender. Let THAT sink in. THAT is his comparison. WOW. Just WOW.

As I said, I think it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

However, it is indeed a thing. Men acting like extreme stereotypes of women for (theirs and others) entertainment doesn't do much for capturing what a Woman, Actually, Is.

 

[Redress]

As I said, I think it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

That would be not trans people. Transgender is a very specific condition.

 

[NWRatCon]

As I said, I think it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

"I'm not a bigot, I'm just promoting one online."

 

[cpwill]

There are three ways bigotry proceeds: First is just gross portrayal of bigotry with epithets, slanders, etc.; second is passive acquiescence, the failure to condemn it; third is the most insidious, portrayal of bigoted statements and polemics as "rational" or "a good point".

Tucker Carlson, and his ilk, are great examples of the last, with references to "great replacement", and other such bigoted garbage.

Without signing up for the defense of Tucker (who is a smart and effective liar, smear artist, and con-man) or his fans (some of whom are almost certainly racist),

Complaints that "the great replacement" theories are all such bigoted garbage from the left would have a bit more credence if the left hadn't spent decades championing replacement theory as an argument for why our nations' changing demographics ensured the future would be run by the Democratic party.

I mean, if the left spends years telling old, non-college, white dudes that they can't wait for them to be replaced by a bunch of young, browner, more urban, educated left-leaning demographics....

..... we can't exactly be shocked when some of them believe it.

This OP is another. There is nothing redeemable or accurate in the screed parading as "opinion" in the the OP rag, just a vehicle to promote the hateful bigotry that inspired it.

Nah. You don't need hate to reject romanticism.

The original poster is trying to put one over on us by pretending that it has some merit. We should give it the shrift that it deserves - none - and call it out for what it actually is: an excuse to promote bigotry by pretending "I didn't say it, someone else did. I was just bringing it up for discussion." Sound familiar? "I'm not a Nazi, I was just quoting Mein Kampf."

I think it's a mitigated point - it is obviously true in some spaces and not true in others. I generally don't agree 100% with anyone.

 

[Fletch]

There are three ways bigotry proceeds: First is just gross portrayal of bigotry with epithets, slanders, etc.; second is passive acquiescence, the failure to condemn it; third is the most insidious, portrayal of bigoted statements and polemics as "rational" or "a good point".

Tucker Carlson, and his ilk, are great examples of the last, with references to "great replacement", and other such bigoted garbage. This OP is another. There is nothing redeemable or accurate in the screed parading as "opinion" in the the OP rag, just a vehicle to promote the hateful bigotry that inspired it.

The original poster is trying to put one over on us by pretending that it has some merit. We should give it the shrift that it deserves - none - and call it out for what it actually is: an excuse to promote bigotry by pretending "I didn't say it, someone else did. I was just bringing it up for discussion." Sound familiar? "I'm not a Nazi, I was just quoting Mein Kampf."

Wow, straight to Hitler.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think it's a mitigated point - it is obviously true in some spaces and not true in others. I generally don't agree 100% with anyone.

You just did it again.

Without signing up for the defense of Tucker (who is a smart and effective liar...

I'll justify his bigotry and give it credence by agreeing with him."

 

[reflechissez]

Nah.




As I said, I think it's more apt for the "public-influencer" persona's and those seemingly driven to this by a thrill from flamboyance.

However, it is indeed a thing. Men acting like extreme stereotypes of women for (theirs and others) entertainment doesn't do much for capturing what a Woman, Actually, Is.

Who cares about this, other than you?

 

[cpwill]

That would be not trans people. Transgender is a very specific condition.

Pretty bold of you to assume their gender and tell them who they aren't, especially when they claim otherwise.

I believe the "this has insulting elements similar to what we saw in blackface" idea (which I hadn't considered before, but agree sometimes occurs) is evidently a reaction to the recent brouhaha over Dylan Mulvaney:

"I'm not a bigot, I'm just promoting one online."

Madeleine Kearns is not a bigot, and applying that term to everyone you disagree with will only make it lose its' meaning and power.

 

[Redress]

Pretty bold of you to assume their gender and tell them who they aren't, especially when they claim otherwise.

I believe the "this has insulting elements similar to what we saw in blackface" idea (which I hadn't considered before, but agree sometimes occurs) is evidently a reaction to the recent brouhaha over Dylan Mulvaney:

Madeleine Kearns is not a bigot, and applying that term to everyone you disagree with will only make it lose its' meaning and power.

I did not assume anyone's gender. I stated that transgenderism is a specific condition. Don't try and troll me with stupid shit like that.