Tag Archive | shemale

Transtrending

Everyone is suddenly a gender and sexuality expert when it comes to transgenderism and transsexualism, just as everyone is suddenly an economist when it comes to “price gouging.” Obviously, one doesn’t have to be transgender or transsexual to understand gender and sexuality, but one does have to evaluate things rationally and scientifically, and, in my experience, it’s less likely that this has happened among the cisgender. Nor does it help the situation that even trans people are muddying terminology and making the whole thing more confusing than it has to be. So, one more time, let’s have a thorough analysis of this topic.

Gender & Sex

First, it must be observed that there is a difference between sex and gender. Gender is a matter of culture, while sex is a matter of biology. Gender is sort of an extension of sex, but there is not a perfect correlation; there is even plenty to be said that biological sexual characteristics predispose one sex toward certain gender behaviors. For example, that women wear makeup is a statement regarding gender–it is a behavioral and appearance norm–yet it stems from biology, ultimately, as it is traditionally the female who attracts the male, and the male who is the hunter (or “seeker” if you prefer). This is not unusual among humans; many animals have the responsibility of attracting a mate falling to one sex or the other. Men engage in grooming to help their chances of being approved when they approach a mate, primarily. These biological tendencies that stem ultimately from some genetic hard-wiring that leads men to predominantly be hunters and women to primarily be “the hunted” ultimately morphs into women wearing makeup and men not.

The brassier is another example. That women wear bras and men do not is a gender norm, but it quite obviously stems from biological sex characteristics. One of the two sexes has something there that benefits* from the additional support. It is like the jock strap and athletic cup in a way–that male athletes wear cups is a gender norm, extending from the fact that men have something there to be supported and protected. It is still arbitrary, though–if nature had decreed that men have breasts, then men would wear bras; that they don’t is essentially a fluke of nature.

I’m not going to attempt to define what the male sex is, or what the female sex is. It would be a good idea, and it would be helpful, but I’m not convinced that such a definition exists. As I wrote in my upcoming book Beyond Words & Labels, a set definition must include all members of that set while excluding all members not in that set. If we could produce a definition of “the male sex” that included every single person we consider male and excluded every single person that we don’t consider male, then I suspect the definition would take 4,000 pages of legalese texts, 3900 pages of which would be exceptions and exclusions. I think it’s a futile task, and that every person will ultimately come to their own understanding of what the male sex is and what the female sex is.

That’s fine, as long as they recognize that their definition is their definition, and that they have no authority or right to force other people to recognize their definition as valid. Just this week, I had someone tell me that I would never be a real woman because I cannot have children (not true–I cannot carry and give birth to a child, but I am most certainly capable of impregnating a woman). I naturally pointed out that there are plenty of women who similarly cannot have children, some of whom were born barren. He stated, “That’s a different reason, though.” So his definition of woman isn’t just “can have children.” In fact it is, “A person is a woman if she can have children, except those women who can’t have children, and who can’t have children because this particular reason and that particular reason, but not this other particular reason.” It’s asinine and arbitrary, isn’t it? He’s just using his gut to tell him who is and isn’t a woman, and, now that he believes this distinction is real, he scrambles to find some way of clearly defining it–a task that cannot be done.

Sex

So sex is a matter of biology, though I’ll not attempt to define what parameters distinguish one sex from the other. For every example we find who fits within our definitions, we’ll find one who doesn’t, and this will require the sort of exceptions I just mentioned. In the end, the definition will be enormous, and still incomplete. Sexually,  whatever you think a woman or man is is what a woman or man is. Sure. There’s really no other way to handle it, unless someone out there wants to produce that gargantuan definition. It’s no problem if you believe a woman is “someone who can get pregnant,” as long as you don’t attempt to turn that definition into law through the state, by forcing me to have “male” on my identification because your definition is the one that the state uses, when the state has no business weighing in on the matter at all. As long as you don’t do that, what definition you use is of no importance to me.

However, if we are to communicate, we must have some sort of common definition, however vague and generalized it is. In fact, we do have such a definition, but it is terribly flawed. The common definition is that men have penises, and women have breasts and vaginas. Obviously, this definition has plenty of problems, but in ordinary conversation there isn’t usually a reason to drag a fine-toothed comb through delineations. If I tell you to get out of the way of a car, it wouldn’t really matter that it was a van coming to hit you. I would technically be wrong, but I was still able to communicate to you the gist of what was happening. That’s the best that our definitions of the sexes will do–they’ll generally communicate the gist of what most people consider to be male and female. This is, again, necessary for us to communicate, although we should certainly keep in mind that our definitions are not the End All, Be All of Sexuality.

Gender

Gender is also not some neatly-defined set of archetypes and cliches. “A man has a beard, has a favorite beer, and eats his steaks rare!” is one such gender statement, and it’s certainly true for some men–and some men genuinely believe this–but it isn’t the definitive criteria of what a “man” is. Neither is having long hair, wearing makeup, wearing skirts, and playing with Barbie dolls the definitive criteria of what a “woman” is. These are all cultural tendencies of one gender or the other, but they’re certainly not universal. And, one will notice, they’re not all extensions of sexuality.

A preference for beer and having a beard, for example–one is completely arbitrary, and the other is an effect of testosterone that is present in both males and female. My great Aunt May had a mustache. An even better example is the notion that women don’t have hairy legs–this is flagrantly false, as demonstrated by women who don’t shave. Their leg hair is generally as thick as any man’s. That women shave their legs is a gender norm–it could just as easily be men who customarily shave their legs. Even so, not all women shave their legs anyway, and are still considered women by gender.

While many aspects of gender are extensions of sexual characteristics–such as women wearing makeup to attract mates–not all of them are, and some are either totally arbitrary or are actually customs pushed onto them by the other sex. This is the primary feminist complaint regarding bras, in fact: that they were not designed to provide support, as is so often suggested, and were actually designed simply to conceal what men thought had to be hidden. That it remains socially unacceptable, and often outright illegal, for women to be topless while no such restriction is placed on men, suggests that this is the case, especially given that wire bras are a relatively new thing.

Gender Identity Disorder / Gender Dysphoria

This is a condition that afflicts some individuals, and it occurs when a person’s expected gender norms and behaviors do not sit well with the individual, and when the individual has an inclination toward the other sex’s gender norms and behaviors. It is an illness, in effect. It is not equivalent to being transgender or being transsexual.

I find myself having to repeatedly point out that observing the differences between “having GID” and “being transgender” does not in any way demean a person’s Gender Identity Disorder (GID). “Being transgender,” however, is the most common treatment for GID–it is not the only treatment, and it is not universal. Having Gender Identity Disorder does not make a person transgender; being transgender is a choice as a way of coping with Gender Identity Disorder. To be sure, the GID needs to be dealt with one way or another, and a person does not get a choice about having GID, but how one is going to address it is a choice, and not everyone chooses to be transgender.

It is fast becoming a pet peeve of mine to see everyone with GID describing themselves as “transgender.” I recently read an article from someone who stated, “I am transgender and, no, I am not coming out or transitioning.” What this person meant is that they have Gender Identity Disorder, and calling that “transgender” is little more than a way to jump on the bandwagon. It’s like they consider “transgender” to be “like having Gender Identity Disorder Times Ten!” Gender Identity Disorder certainly sucks, but it is not synonymous with “transgender.”

I’ve had Gender Identity Disorder at least since I was three years old, as I described in my book Dancing in Hellfire, which is available as an eBook on Amazon for $2.99 or in paperback for $7.49. However, I have only been transgender for a little over two years, and have only been transsexual for a little over a year.

I want to state, before going further, that there is an enormous difference between Gender Identity Disorder and cancer, and that I do not in any sense stack the suffering of GID against the suffering of a cancer patient. I’m using it only as a quantitative analogy, and not a qualitative one. To be sure, I’ve seen trans people suggest that having GID is as bad as cancer, but we can’t take such “Oh, poor me!” people seriously.

Gender Identity Disorder is akin to cancer, and being transgender or transsexual are akin to chemotherapy. One is the disease, and the other is the treatment. It’s readily apparent that they cannot be synonymous. Having cancer doesn’t make one a chemo patient, and undergoing chemo doesn’t mean that one is a cancer patient. Having Gender Identity Disorder doesn’t mean that one is transgender, and being transgender honestly doesn’t mean that a person has Gender Identity Disorder–see the transtrender people out there who are doing it “for the fun of it” on college campuses. Or play World of Warcraft, and you’ll quickly learn that 25% of the people you know as females are actually males, and many of them simply state that they’re females (we’re not talking simply playing as female characters)–that’s transtrending. They don’t have Gender Identity Disorder, but when they throw hearts in chat all the time, they’re adopting the gender chat standards of the other sex as their own. It’s a minor thing, and not an irritant, but it’s crucial to observe: one can be transgender without having Gender Identity Disorder, and one can have Gender Identity Disorder without being transgender.

Transgender or Transsexual?

Now that we’ve pointed out, and demonstrated logically, that having Gender Identity Disorder is not equivalent to being transgender, there’s one area left to dissect: transgenderism and transsexualism. They are also not synonymous, just as gender and sex are not synonymous.

Being transgender involves adopting the other sex’s cultural norms as one’s own. A male who acts like a female, wears makeup and dresses, listens to Beyonce or whatever–that is an example of transgenderism. It is rather like a drag queen, except that it is done perpetually, not occasionally. It is limited to behavioral and cosmetic changes, such as crossing one’s legs like a woman, wearing makeup, or growing one’s hair long. It includes no biological or physiological changes.

Being transsexual is a bit more nuanced, and there are three varieties of it: pre-op, post-op, and non-op, and these divisions depend upon Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS). A pre-op transsexual is someone who intends to have SRS, and is, to some degree, in the process of doing so, perhaps by starting with Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). A post-op transsexual is someone who has had SRS. A pre-op intends to have their penis cut off and replaced with a vagina, or have a penis added to them; a post-op has done this already. A non-op transsexual is someone who undergoes physiological changes excluding SRS. I’m a non-op transsexual, and I do not intend to ever have SRS. People are right to observe, then, that I will not ever sexually be a woman, and this is a point that I gladly acquiesce, hence my use of “S” for my sex–“Shemale.” I have the biological characteristics of both sexes (what many would call “Intersex,” but I won’t, because “transsexual” already covers it).

Besides which, “Intersex” raises more questions than it answers, and the terminology is sloppy, awkward, and clumsy. When I tell you that I’m a shemale, you immediately understand what that means, and no further questions are necessary. If, however, I said, “I am intersex,” then that raises a ton of questions. Did I start as a male or female? Do I have a penis or vagina? Which direction am I going? Even someone steeped in LGBTQIAAAP+ALPHABETSOUP culture is going to have to pause and think about what “I’m a male-to-female non-op transsexual transgender lesbian” means. When a friend of mine said that they were transgender, it confused me–me!–because this person appears to be an ordinary male, and is doing absolutely nothing to transition toward female. So… is this person F2M? Does this person have a penis? Did this person have breast reduction surgery? In actuality, the person has gender dysphoria, but is not transgender or transsexual–confusion that should never have risen in the first place.

This tendency of people with GID to call themselves transgender is conflating the issue and confusing people, even other transgender and transsexual people, and it needs to stop. It’s happening because of transtrending. They think it makes them more special, more unique, more snowflakey to call themselves trans rather than accurately calling themselves sufferers of GID. These words mean things. Being transgender isn’t a statement. It’s not a label. It’s a series of actions, a bold choice, a way of life.

Trans-ism is WORK

…which brings me to what I really wanted to write about today, because I have met many people at the local LGBT club who claim to be transgender, yet who are doing nothing to transition. That’s fine, in a sense. They don’t have to transition to take care of their Gender Identity Disorder. Transitioning isn’t for everyone. It’s arduous, difficult, and, often, painful. However, if they are not transitioning, they cannot seriously expect people to use the other sex’s/gender’s pronouns for them. If they just look like an ordinary dude and even have a 5 o’clock beard, they can’t seriously expect to be called “she,” and neither can they get all offended when I call them “he.”

I know a dude who does this, though I told him about a month ago to stop texting me. The guy has a mustache, doesn’t shave any of his body, has short hair, doesn’t wear makeup, doesn’t wear any female clothes, or anything. Yet he claims to be transgender, and wants to be called “she” and “her.”

I’m just not going to do that.

Being called the other sex’s pronouns is something you earn, not something that you are given. You want to be called a “she” as I am? Put some work into it, sweetie. You’re not entitled to that, not from me. Other people can call you that if they so choose, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s something you have to earn. The dude I’m talking about is named Randy, but wants to be called Rebecca, and wants to have female pronouns used. When anyone points out that he presents himself as an ordinary dude, he cries, “But muh feminism! Women don’t have to shave their faces and wear pretty dresses!”

No, true, they don’t. But you know what else? Women who dress like men, don’t shave, don’t wear makeup, and all that… are going to be called “butch,” and, in a lot of cases, they’ll be referred to with male pronouns.

I couldn’t even guess how much work I’ve put into being transgender and being transsexual. Because it is work, my goodness. I’m wearing a waist trainer right now. I wear it every single day, from 9:00 am to 2:00 am, taking it off only to sleep and putting it on just before I leave for work each day. I shave my body every single day, and shave my face twice a day if need be. I’ve dyed my hair a more feminine color, and am growing it out. The one area I’ve lapsed is in voice training, and I’ve only lapsed there in the last two months, and resumed it earlier this week. Want to see an example of how much work I’ve done?

This shit doesn’t happen by itself, man. The “trans” people who demand to be called by the other sex’s pronouns who haven’t put in the work–you know what they remind me of? They remind me of the socialists who want the Minimum Wage increased because they want to make more money. They want to earn $15 an hour, but they don’t want to put in all the work, the training, the learning, the research, the effort to actually earn what I busted my ass to earn. They just want it given to them. You want to have what I earned? Then start earning it. Start shaving. Grow your hair out. Do pilates. Get a waist trainer. Soften your voice. Put one some makeup. Put on a dress. These stereotypes are the basis that we use to distinguish the genders and sexes. It’s true that you don’t have to submit to them, but perhaps being a M2F trans person while fighting the 60s feminist battles is a poor combination, you think?

I don’t care how passable you are or aren’t. God knows I’m not as passable as I’d like, and still have more work to do. What I care about is effort. You put in the effort, and I will happily encourage you and respect your pronoun preferences. But if you don’t want to put in the effort…? If you don’t want to put in the effort to be a “she” or “her,” then why in the hell should I put in the effort to call you a “she” or “her?” Demanding other people call you “she” and “her” when you’re putting in no work to be a “she” is like demanding that other people do your work for you. No, cupcake, it doesn’t work that way.

I have my own ideas of what “he/him” is, and what “she/her” is. So do you, and so does everyone else. However, as stated before, there is some commonality among our understanding–enough that we can communicate. I’m not going to put aside my understanding of “she” and “her” to call you that, and neither do you have any right to demand that I do so. And I can tell you this: neither will most people willingly put aside their own understanding of what “she” means to accommodate your mustache and call you a “she.” I’m not evil, wicked, or bad because I have my own (already far more versatile than the average person’s) understanding of what defines the genders and sexes, and that I will use my definitions and not yours. You can disassociate from us, have at it, but you cannot use the state to force us to use your definitions “to avoid offending you or hurting your feelings” any more than we can use the state to force you to be called “he.”

But it’s the worst of entitled behavior to stand there in a mustache and expect people to just know that you prefer to be called “she” when you aren’t transgender and certainly aren’t even transsexual. I get that you have Gender Identity Disorder, Randy, and that it hurts you to some degree to be called “he” and “him,” but that’s your problem to deal with, not everyone else’s. If you want to deal with that problem, do so, but don’t expect other people to deal with it for you. Maybe it damages us psychologically to have to refer to a dude in a mustache as a chick. “Damage” is certainly too extreme, but it most definitely causes dissonance and awkwardness.

Demanding that we accommodate your Gender Identity Disorder while you aren’t even accommodating it is bizarrely entitled. I’m sure most people would gladly work with you and begin calling you your preferred pronouns if you started transitioning–if, indeed, one chooses to transition in order to deal with it–because for most reasonable, compassionate people it’s not about being passable or non-passable. It’s about effort. Just put some damned effort into it. Don’t expect everyone else to cure your Gender Identity Disorder by using certain pronouns for you when you haven’t done a thing to address the GID yourself. And if you’re not going to transition, then you have absolutely no justification for demanding the other sex’s pronouns in the first place, as doing so would only exacerbate your GID. If you have GID but you’ve decided to stick it out as your birth sex of “male,” then it’s not going to help you one teeny-tiny bit for people to call you a female, is it? No–it will perpetuate the dysphoria.

Having Gender Identity Disorder doesn’t entitle anyone to anything, and having it doesn’t make a person transgender or transsexual. We should all be compassionate enough to assist and accommodate our brothers and sisters and others who are transitioning, but if they aren’t transitioning, then there is nothing to accommodate, and being “well-intentioned” by trying to accommodate them anyway will only exacerbate their Gender Identity Disorder. Being transgender isn’t for everyone, and going even further into being transsexual certainly isn’t for everyone. They are difficult decisions, deliberate and willful courses undertaken as ways of handling Gender Identity Disorder, and they are not the only ways of doing so.

But I’m going to use the pronoun of the sex you’re presenting as, and so will most people who aren’t dicks.

When you stand there with a mustache and cry that it’s offended to be called “him,” you are insulting me and everything I’ve done in my transition, just as fully as the Minimum Wage workers who assert that the rich didn’t “earn” their wealth are insulted by those entitled, bratty demands. I am not offended, but I am most definitely insulted. If you want what I have, then you better be ready to put in the work that I’ve put in–and have yet to put in. You think it’s been a walk in the park to acquire estrogen? You think it’s pleasant to wear a waist trainer? You see all those marks on my stomach? Do you think it’s fun to shave my face every single day, sometimes twice a day? Did you think that plucking my eyebrows was something that I do for fun? Or that I’m force-feeding myself more food than I want in an effort to gain weight? No. All of this stuff sucks, and is between “very painful” and “very unpleasant.” And I do it because I don’t expect random strangers to call me “she” and “her” unless, you know… I appear to be a “she.” I’m not entitled to be called “she” even though I don’t look, act, or sound anything like what they understand “she” to mean.

And neither is anyone else.

Put in the work, or don’t. Be transgender or transsexual, or not. Deal with your Gender Identity Disorder. Don’t demand other people deal with it for you.

* Arguable. In fact, a recent study revealed that women who don’t wear bras have perkier breasts than women who do.

I Will Not Compromise

I’m a transgender resident of #Mississippi. When I first accepted this and told a few people–only a year ago–I was told that it would make me a reject. They were right, of course. I didn’t have to be told that; my family represents the worst of fundamentalists, with actual compounds for when the antichrist takes over. So I know Mississippi well.

Aside from a small percentage of people, everyone would reject and dislike me. I would certainly be fired, and wouldn’t be able to find work. Both the message and the reality were clear: if I am who I am, then it will make my life almost unbearably difficult. Best to put it aside, bury it back in the closet, and wear the mask that the masses of people would accept.

The Libertarian Party has been facing an identical crisis. The masses won’t accept “true” libertarianism. Best to shove it back in the closet and wear the mask that the masses will accept.

So the party compromised. “We’re ashamed of what we have in the closet–please don’t look!” they’ve begged for months, going from disdainfully calling us purists to radicals to extremists to enemies.

It’s lethal to live a lie. Transgender people kill themselves everyday because of it. I would ask the #Libertarian Party to stop living a lie. Be the freak that it is. Stop shoving its identity into the closet out of some misguided need to have the masses’ approval. Yeah, it made my life difficult–more difficult than most people can guess, especially since I’m an #anarchist and would never use legal channels to violate their rights to refuse me service and employment (even if Mississippi had them, which it doesn’t).

It’s remarkable how liberating it is to stop compromising with people you *shouldn’t* be compromising with. It’s absolutely liberating to tell people, “You will deal with me on my terms, as who I am, or you will not deal with me at all.”

People are sick of compromise. People are sick of politics, of “business as usual.” We have the two most despised people in America as the two major party candidates, and a ticket that is not even polling 5% against them. Maybe it’s time we asked ourselves if the compromise that everyone hates is the *reason* we’re not beating these grotesque abominations of bad ideas and worse policies.

Stop hiding who you are. Say it loud, and say it proud. “We are #libertarians, and we don’t give a damn what you think. You will accept our party on its terms, or you will get out.”

It’s not about winning elections. It’s not about mass appeal. It can’t be. If all you want is to win elections, then take your ass to the #GOP or the #Democrats. Stand up for yourself and stand up for who you are. We need that more than ever. The last thing we need is to compromise the principles of liberty.

But Muh 5%!

This is something I’ve been hearing a lot. “But if we just reach 5%, then it will all be worth it!”

Why?

It was initially for “muh federal funding,” but we “purists” dropped the hammer on that real fucking quick. Taxation is theft means exactly that. It doesn’t mean “taxation is theft until we’re getting the money.” No, it’s still theft. If the Libertarian Party qualified for funding through stolen tax dollars, then it absolutely must reject that money. Even the Democrats and Republicans don’t accept that money; we’d be the only party who accepted it, and we’re the only party with a strong, principled reason why we shouldn’t.

That there is any “libertarian” out there arguing that we need federal funding tells us exactly how very, very far from principle Johnson and Weld have taken us. It is time to put the “libertarian” back into the Libertarian Party.

The reason they’ve since adopted–once they realized what a bad idea it was to even suggest we’d accept stolen money–is that it makes ballot access easier. So? It’s not like we really have a hard time getting on the ballot in all 50 states. We’ve done it several times; this is not the first time that we’ve done it, and neither are we the only party who has achieved it. There is no political party with more grassroots activism than the Libertarian Party. If we need to go out and get 5,000 signatures, then, by god, we go out and get 5,000 signatures.

But Muh Pragmatism!

Forgive me if you’ve heard me use this analogy before.

The Libertarian Party is like a fat woman who has her eyes on a pair of jeans that are way, way too small for her to wear. To remedy the situation, she takes up a razor blade and starts cutting huge chunks of flesh, fat, and muscle from her legs, hips, and ass, hellbent on fitting in those jeans that she can’t fit in. We are reaching for her wrist and telling her, “Baby! Stop it! You looked great! You don’t need to fit in those pants to be sexy!”

“Those pants will make me so much sexier!” she insists, shakes her hands free, and continues cleaving her flesh. Then, finally, as she stands among a pile of severed skin, tissue, and blood, she tries once more to fit on the jeans. To her horror, she finds that they still don’t fit. Frustrated, she begins sawing away at her bones. She is hellbent on fitting in those jeans, because wearing those jeans will make her sexy, and that’s all that matters.

If I was even remotely skilled with graphical stuff, I would make a cartoon of a very fat woman cutting off slices of her skin. She would wear a shirt that said “Libertarian Party,” and her legs would be drawn on with a Sharpie, separating her legs into numerous sections. “End the Drug war” would be written on one section. “Stop spying” would be written on another. Then, all around her on the ground would be strips of flesh that she’d already cut off, with one of them reading “Second Amendment” and another reading “religious liberty.” Beside her would be a pair of pants that were clearly way too small for her, and written on the pants would be the words “mainstream acceptance.”

The people who laid the groundwork for libertarianism absolutely hated pragmatism–his pragmatism was the primary reason that Hayek and Mises despised Keynes. They didn’t dislike Keynes because of his ideas; they were clear about that. They disliked him because he was pragmatic. He didn’t stand by his ideas; he chose whatever was most practical to achieving his own ends. That was what they disliked.

Today we have a political party founded on their words–for all intents and purposes–that is actively, consciously, and even gleefully choosing pragmatism over principle. I’ve written too much about this folly to go into it again. I’ve done videos on the subject, podcasts on the subject, and articles on the subject. It’s been thoroughly exhausted as far as I am able, and no one cares, because “But muh 5%.”

But Muh Dallas Accord

I’m sick of having people throw the Dallas Accord in my face. The Dallas Accord was an agreement between the libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists–such as myself, though I was one with oblivion then–that the official party platform would not mention whether or not a state was necessary or ideal. It was, in effect, an agreement that anarcho-capitalists would be welcome within the party as long as AnCaps didn’t make it an anarchist party, and an agreement that libertarians would be welcome within the party as long as they didn’t make it a statist party.

dallas-accord-failureThe Dallas Accord was meant to give middleground and forge a compromise between libertarians and anarchists that both sides could be happy with. The agreement was that anarcho-capitalists would at minimum support a libertarian candidate because, as I and countless others have said, if nothing else libertarianism is a probably necessary next-step on the road to anarchism. I would be 99% happy with a libertarian state, and would throw everything I have into supporting that state and seeing its existence come to fruition. No, it’s not anarchism. That’s where the Dallas Accord comes in; it was the agreement that the anarchists would be content with libertarianism until it was even possible to step from libertarianism to anarchism.

We’re a long, long way from the Dallas Accord with statists like Gary Johnson.

It was the Libertarians who did not hold up their end of the accord. They were supposed to hold up their end of the agreement by working toward libertarianism and proposing libertarian candidates, since libertarianism is something that we ancaps will at least tolerate. At absolute minimum, the Libertarians need to nominate people like Darryl Perry or John McAfee if they want to hold up their end of the agreement.

The Dallas Accord was not a blank check for the Libertarians to nominate whoever the hell they want with no dissent from the anarchists. It was the agreement that the question of the state’s necessity would not be addressed yet.

That’s correct, modern Libertarians. We were once considered so vital to the party, and so included within its ranks, that Libertarians forged the Dallas Accord with us.

Now we’re purists.

Radicals.

Extremists.

Heretics.

Enemies.

So you tell me who violated the Dallas Accord.

Anarcho-capitalists are a vital part of the Libertarian Party, and we have been since its inception. The Dallas Accord was our agreement that we would not try to warp and twist it into the Anarcho-Capitalist Party. And we haven’t. I didn’t even know about the Accord until a few weeks ago, but I’ve been adamant in my refusal to twist the LP into the AnCap Party. I would not support or endorse a candidate who somehow ran as an AnCap–even though he is an AnCap, it’s worth pointing out that Darryl Perry is not running as an Ancap; he’s running as a libertarian. I wouldn’t expect most Libertarians to understand that.

You were supposed to nominate libertarians. We’ve been asking you to nominate libertarians. We’ve been speaking up for and advocating libertarians. John McAfee is right there. Right there.

But Muh Conformity!

The national chair released a video today talking about how ridiculous we are to ask for a recall of Weld, how “we knew what we were getting,” and how his job is to unite behind the candidates. If we don’t like it, he said, then we needed to nominate a different chair in 2018.

2015 and 2016 were awful years for me. Getting to the LNC this year simply wasn’t feasible. I had just come out as transgender and was not in any sense ready to do anything that public, and I was broke anyway. This will not be true in 2018. My reach here at Anarchist Shemale is growing every single day. My financial situation is better every single day. I’m more passable every single day. I’ll be moving to Vegas soon, where I will be able to easily get employment, and that’s assuming the agents who are reading Dancing in Hellfire right now don’t help me become successful, and assuming none of the other things I’m writing will be successful. I’ve got lots of opportunities, and the last year of hard work and investment will have paid off before 2018. So you can bet your ass I’ll be there.

And, Sarwark, I will do everything that I can to have you replaced.

What will my influence be like in 2018? I don’t know. I know that I’m on the first page of Google results for a number of liberty-oriented search strings. Between 7 and 15 people find my site every day simply through Google. Not including Yahoo, Bing, the Rational Review News Digest, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

no-porn-in-sightJust imagine how much traffic my work must be getting for any search string containing the word “shemale” to not contain any porn at all. When I first took up the moniker, “anarchist shemale” resulted in porn. Now there isn’t porn anywhere in sight. Once more–the word “shemale” can be searched on Google in some context and not result in pornography. Can you guess what it took to achieve that? People are finding something with the word “shemale” in it through Google and it’s not taking them to porn.

I don’t know how influential I’ll become if I continue what I’m doing, but I know my goals and my hopes. I also know that the Libertarian Party completely and utterly ignored my request to become an affiliate for my county. Despite routinely posting on Facebook about how they want people to become affiliates, they have totally ignored my email and my application form, none of which mentioned “The Anarchist Shemale.” I could understand why they wouldn’t want affiliation with me if I was pushing Anarchist Shemale as an official libertarian work, but I’m not, haven’t, and am not going to, regardless of how officially tied with the party I become. But what I do in my personal life and what I call myself is also not the Libertarian Party’s business.

Besides which–you want to get people’s attention or not? Send the Anarchist Shemale out there proudly and then just wait on the flood of liberals bitching that I dare call myself a word that they don’t like, and then celebrate as I rip apart their reasoning, because I have damned good reasons for it and the simple fact is that what I call myself has no bearing on anyone but me.

But, once more, indications are that the Libertarian Party is afraid of stepping out of the mainstream, of doing anything weird, of generating any controversy, of ruffling any feathers. So fixated on “Oh, my goodness, but what will the masses think?” that they probably wouldn’t formally associate with anyone called the Anarchist Shemale, even though libertarians are exactly the people who you’d expect to not give a damn what I call myself. And they don’t. But neither are they willing to take a stand on that, either.

Some are.

Liberty.me, the RRND, and some others have absolutely no qualms about calling me the Anarchist Shemale. Officials within the Libertarian Party, though–I can only imagine their discomfort, like a white person who is hesitant to quote an episode of The Boondocks, “And then they defined the… uh… the… the… ‘N-word’ moment… as the moment when two… uh… when two… African American men… are… uh…” I can only imagine poor Mr. Sarwark trying to reference me. “As for what the Anarchist sh… The… uh… Hm. As for the Anarchist… Uh… Aria… DiMezzio? Dimeggio?”

Grow a spine, cowards.

Now, that’s supposition. They haven’t replied to my email, but I can think of only two reasons that they would not accept me as an affiliate for my county, when my county does not have one. The first is irrelevant. I’m not a dues-paying member, but have no issue with becoming one. As I said, I only recently learned of the Dallas Accord and didn’t think the Libertarian Party would be welcoming enough of a dyed-in-the-wool anarcho-capitalist. Officially, the party is.  I made it clear that I have no hesitation regarding purchasing membership–when I can afford it–if that’s necessary. Considering that I do work actively to spread the cause of liberty, though, I’m not entirely sure formal membership would be required. And even then, they’d list me as my male name since this is Mississippi but let’s not get into that. It’s not why, anyway.

No, the reason is that I’m closely tied to the Anarchist Shemale. If you google “Aria DiMezzo,” then you will find–in addition to links to the masterpiece song from which I derived my name both because of its beauty and its translated meaning–the Anarchist Shemale right there, #Godless and #Lawless. I imagine that, before any political party formally associates themselves with someone, they at least do a Google search.

At any rate, I am disappointed. It has been at least a week now since I applied, and I know the Libertarian Party of Mississippi with all four of its members aren’t that busy. Moreoever, I know that I can coax at least six or seven friends into formally joining the party, too, since they’re all anarchists and libertarians themselves. If I was the affiliate for the party, they would do so, because the party would immediately become something that they personally knew of and understood, not some distant monolith. It would become more personal for them; it would mean more.

I said on Facebook last night:

There are two kinds of people with whom I’ve never hesitated to inform that I’m transgender:

Gamers and libertarians.

Me: “I’m transgender.”
Republican: “Ah! Satan!”
Democrat: “Oh, you poor thing! We’ll save you!”
Libertarian: “Okay. Whatever. Dafuq you telling me for?”
Gamers (to everyone): “Shut up, faggot. You’re gonna get us killed.

Me: “I’m a shemale.”
Republican: “Ah! FIEND! Malificarum! Simm sallabim!”
Democrat: “Ah! Satan!”
Libertarian: “Is this relevant to the discussion?”
Gamers (to everyone): “Shut up, faggot. You’re gonna get us killed.”

I fully appreciate that I do have to stop dropping the word “faggot” and so much profanity in my articles. I am working on that. By the same token, though, the Libertarian Party is the last group of people who I would expect to care. I do have two distinct styles–one that is official and formal, and one that is loose and sometimes profane. I am more than capable of writing formally; just check my reviews and editorials at Cubed3, or buy V2: The Voluntary Voice. So that’s something I need to address if I want official ties with the party, but, once again, it was not The Anarchist Shemale that was seeking party affiliation.

It is Aria DiMezzo.

Their silence dishonors them.

The cowardice on display in so many ways dishonors them.

Be proud of who you are, libertarians. Don’t apologize for it. Get out of the closet. You’re libertarians.

The yellow you’ve chosen for your party color has become more appropriate than you think. So tell me, Sarwark and Libertarians, are you yellow? Because it looks to me like you are, and not because I haven’t heard anything about affiliation; that isn’t a big enough deal for me to think that. That’s just one more example of what I’m perceiving as Libertarian cowardice and fear of rejection.

Pulling a Kidney Stone From the Bowels of the Internet: Transgenderism & Transsexualism

Now given that this guy might as well have trollface.jpg as his profile pic, we don’t have to pay much attention to what he has to say. He’s just trolling–clearly–using loaded language on both sides of the issue to ignite flame wars on the update. Who cares. Reading through the comments, though, is an interesting experience. Not interesting enough for me to share the comments one by one–besides, there are at least seventy right now–but it did make it plainly obvious that the average person has no idea what we’re even talking about.

stupid-dickI’ll leave to your imagination the comments that this received.

First, there is a difference between transgenderism and transsexualism, and it’s actually more than splitting hairs. I once criticized someone for using the word “transsexual” and said they were likely out of touch with mainstream society, because it is no longer widely used. I was incorrect, and hadn’t given the matter sufficient thought. I was still correct about the person, because it’s not like he knew the difference, but I didn’t, either. “Transgender” seemed a more palatable version of the deprecated “transsexual.”

It gets murky, because there is a difference between gender and sex. After all, gender is a social construct; sex is not. This gets even more opaque because we tend to use words like “male” and “woman” in both contexts, often without even realizing it. For example, in a single paragraph, a person might say, “A man is someone with a penis [thereby referring to the sex of male], and someone with a beard who drinks beer and eats steaks that are almost raw. If your steak is cooked, you’re not a man.”

It should be readily obvious that we’re talking about two totally different things here. One is a sexual organ–a certifiable, verifiable fact that a person either has or does not have. The second part deals with social roles and stereotypes that are not universally applicable. Although it’s becoming increasingly politically incorrect to say, if you have a penis, then your sex is male. At least, that’s how it used to be–I would argue that’s no longer the case, seeing as I’m a non-op transsexual, but I also think that “having a penis” means that I can never refer to my sex as female.

See how complex it gets?

Gender is all about archetypes and stereotypes, conditioning, and societal expectations. “Girls play with Barbies, boys play with G.I. Joes” is a statement referring to gender. These are human social constructs without objective form–they are, to borrow from Shakespeare, our attempt to “give to airy nothingness / a local habitation and a name.” It is almost completely arbitrary that skirts are feminine and jeans are masculine, that women wear makeup but men do not. Of course, we can look through history and find socioeconomic reasons for why these things are adapted by or forced onto one gender or another, but that doesn’t really change anything. Why didn’t men decree that skirts were masculine and that jeans were feminine, that way they could see all those delicious butts in jeans throughout the eons?

Well, for one, denim wasn’t invented in the age we’re discussing.

“Because they didn’t,” is the answer to my question, though. Why didn’t men decide that it was their role to attract women, and thus that men needed to wear makeup and doll themselves up? Again, “Because they didn’t” is the answer.

Now, again, we can go back to the ancient stages of human history and reflect on the fact that men are innately stronger than women, and so men naturally fell into the hunter role better while women were better suited for the gatherer role, but we’ll still ultimately find that it was arbitrary and mostly about power. I’m not preparing to launch into a tirade about female oppression throughout history–it’s not relevant. That’s exactly my point: none of it is really relevant. How these things came about is meaningless today–they are because they are, and they aren’t because they aren’t.

The anthropic principle applied to gender, as it were.

What about bras, though? Surely, it’s not a societal construct that women wear bras while men don’t. Indeed, it’s not, because the sexual dimorphism of humans is most prominent in the breasts. This is a real, sexual difference between the two. We can talk about bra burning and stuff, but that’s not the point. Again, the point is that women have boobs, and men don’t, so if either sex was going to wear protective–or oppressive, for the virulent feminists out there–clothing over their boobs, it would obviously be the sex that has something there to protect.

We could easily ask why men wear jock straps and cups, but women don’t.

“Because having something in that region to protect is a characteristic of the sex,” we would answer, and we would be right to give that answer.

Now, what happens if someone’s sex does not match their gender?

A lot of people would call it a mental illness. This is, strictly speaking, referred to as gender dysphoria, and it’s presently considered a mental illness, though the reason for that is explicitly given that it’s the only way to ensure that Hormone Replacement Therapy and Sex Reassignment Surgery are covered by medical insurance plans. We can get into whether or not that’s beneficial or harmful. It’s also not relevant to our discussion. Gender dysphoria is simply what it’s called when a person’s sex doesn’t match their gender.

Since “gender” is a social construct in the first place, it’s impossible that it could genuinely be a mental illness.

It would be like saying that a white kid has a mental illness because he wears Fubu and listens to Kanye West. In this analogy, the kid’s skin color (an objective, verifiable reality) does not match his cultural identification (he has adopted black culture as his own). Is this a mental illness?

What a stupid question. It’s obviously not a mental illness.

But when we alter it slightly and we have a white boy who wants to wear dresses and play with Barbies, suddenly we do have people crying that it’s a mental illness.

This is what being “transgender” means. It means there is no change to the person’s sex, yet they adopt the other sex’s gender roles and stereotypes as their own. Yes, this involves acknowledging and even embracing gender stereotypes, one of the many examples of liberals’ hypocrisy. You literally cannot be transgender without being sexist. Saying–even if not directly–something like “I don’t want to play with G.I. Joe! I want to play with Barbies, because girls play with Barbies!” is quite obviously sexist.

Under most circumstances, the liberal would reply, “Girls don’t have to play with Barbies! That’s an outdated way of thinking, you chauvinistic pig!”

But if the person is transgender, they’re like, “Awe, and you should do whatever empowers you!”

Being transsexual entails being transgender, but “transsexual” means that there are changes to a person’s sex organs, and there are a few types of this. There is Pre-Op, Post-Op, and Non-Op, depending on whether the person is going to undergo surgery of their primary sex organs. The difference between a Pre-Op Transsexual and a Non-Op Transsexual, then, is one of intent: the pre-op intends to have a sex change operation–to have their penis replaced with a vagina, or their vagina replaced with a penis. A Post-Op is someone who has had this surgery, like Caitlyn Jenner. A Non-Op is someone who is fine with their primary sexual organ, but does make changes to their body that exclude surgery (excluding cosmetic surgery of the face or breasts).

Realistically, a non-op transsexual is a mix of the sexes.

I’ve been criticized and told that I shouldn’t call myself a shemale because it underscores the idea that we aren’t “real women.” I agree and disagree. I agree that, when we’re talking sex, yes–not having the primary sexual organ of a woman does, in fact, mean a person isn’t a “real woman,” at the very least sexually. I realize this offends people. I also don’t care. If you don’t have a vagina, then your attempts to sell yourself as sexually a woman are either disingenuous or delusional. Take your pick. But I don’t think it’s your prerogative to demand other people to acquiesce to your delusion.

Sex is a matter determined by the person’s sexual characteristics. My sex is shemale. I don’t care if that bothers you. It is shemale–you can use “non-op transsexual” if you want, but I prefer communication over political correctness, and “shemale” conveys more to the average person in a single word than this entire article will–and saying “I’m offended” isn’t going to change that. I’m not a pre-op or post-op. I have made the deliberate and conscious decision to keep my penis. It would be the height of absurdity to proclaim that my sex is female and to demand that other people grit their teeth and pretend like it is female. It’s not–it’s S.

For “Shemale.”

My gender is female. With the recent changes to my eyebrows and increasing changes to my face from the estrogen that I take (which is causing the bodily changes I addressed previously), I’m increasingly “passable.” While many people would also get upset that I’d dare use such a word to describe a transsexual rather than a Drag Queen or crossdresser, it simply is the case that I, as any transsexual person does, want to be able to simply exist as an ordinary woman. It’s not until we get into the bedroom with the door shut that my primary sex organ would matter, so no one ever needs to know that my gender–female–doesn’t quite match my sex–shemale. As I currently stand, it is obvious, primarily because of my eyebrows and cheeks.

While the liberal would argue, “No. There’s no such thing as ‘passable’ when it comes to transsexualism or transgenderism. You are female because you say you are female. So you are, by definition, passable, because you are female,” the reality is, of course, murkier.

We don’t live in La-La Fantasy Land.

The word “passable” refers to whether a random stranger will notice anything odd about my gender identification. I can insist to this stranger, “No, really, I’m a female” all day long, but it’s not going to stop me from getting this look:

skeptical“Passable” simply refers to whether or not I get that look.

Strictly speaking, no, “passable” doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’m not a drag queen or a crossdresser–I’m transsexual. So the liberal is, in a sense, correct–I’m passable by definition because I identify as a woman and thus am a woman. Strictly speaking, it is irrelevant whether I conform or break this stereotype or whether I have or lack that feature. I am because I am because I am.

Yet the liberal is still wrong to say it has nothing to do with me, because no transssexual person wants that look.

Caitlyn Jenner, for example, is one of the least passable transsexuals that I have ever seen. It’s seriously jarring to me, to see Caitlyn Jenner. I do feel bad for the girl–that enormously square jaw and countless amounts of money spent on cosmetic surgery. And I’ve spent very little money and yet am far more “passable” than she is. That makes me sad for her–it does.

But that doesn’t really change anything.

So, to summarize, sex has been, through most of human history, a binary matter, and because of that, gender became a binary matter. I would suggest that it’s probably true that gender remains a binary matter to this day, but sex is no longer a binary matter. After all, I would put “S” under my sex, but “F” under my gender. I do get that a lot of people think that I should put “F” under both, and I’ve had people chastise me, insult me, and block me for refusing to put Female as both my sex and my gender.

If you ask me, that is the mental disorder: refusing to accept that your sexual organs do determine your sex.

We can have disagreement about whether the sex of “Female” means “has boobs and vagina.” But we can also find plenty of examples that break that mold–breast cancer survivors, and some girls are just flat-chested. We can have a disagreement about whether the sex of “Male” means “has penis, no boobs.” And we could also find plenty of examples that break that mold–men who have had irate waves perform improvised surgery with butcher knives after finding them cheating, or men who have what we call “man-boobs.” There are exceptions to everything, and a rejection of black and white thinking is prevalent in my work.

So I’m not willing to say that it’s universally true that women have vaginas and boobs, and men have penises but no boobs. But I am going to say that if you’ve made the conscious decision to have a penis, then you’re expecting other people to bow to your delusion when you say that your sex is female. Maybe this means we need a new sex for people who willfully operate between the sexes by having a penis, curves, and boobs while identifying as the gender of female.

What do you know! We have one.

It’s “shemale.”

Stop being offended by it. It’s the next step of sexual identification.

A quick note: I would tentatively suggest–without having put a considerable amount of thought into it, hence why it’s tentative–that if you experience “gender dysphoria” while touching your primary sexual organ, then it is probably evidence that you are identifying as the wrong sex. People are often surprised to learn that my penis doesn’t bother me. This appears to come from a general confusion on the matter–I’m a lesbian. My penis is rather useful for that. If I experienced “gender dysphoria” by having my penis stimulated, then I’d have major problems. I’d also say that this is “sexual dysphoria” and not “gender dysphoria.”

But my sex is shemale. Shemales have penises. There is no discrepancy there, so there is no conflict that would cause dysphoria. Again, people would understand that more easily if they could get it through their thick skulls that there are some very goddamned good reasons that I identify my sex as Shemale rather than Female.

Video: Transgender Life in Mississippi

Hey, if you like the video, be sure to actually go to it on Youtube and like, share, comment, and subscribe. There’s a lot of that, where my shares will get Likes and +1s, but that doesn’t really help the video any, since the post and not the video is what gets the attention from that.

Anyway, this is a general overview of life being transgender in Mississippi, how I came to accept it, how I dealt with it, how my fundamentalist drug addict parents fucked me up, and just conversation in general about what life is like in Mississippi–for transgender and non-transgender people.

I know that it’s pretty long, but that was kinda necessary, because there’s a lot of ground to cover.

I’m working on the audio quality issues, but there aren’t many ways that I can solve it in my current situation beyond using my microphone. I mean, I can’t just go out and buy a high quality audio recorder; I have to work with what I have. I mean, I can’t even just go out and buy the correct foundation, as I mentioned in the video (which is why my face is a different color than my body… I know.). I just have to work with what I have, in pretty much every part of my life.

Here is the GoFundMe page I mentioned…

Shemale Lesbian Problems

I’m sexy as fuck.

3I have to be honest, though, that my muscles are seriously beginning to irritate me, even as there’s nothing I can do about them except wait and let hormones knock them out. I imagine that it’s going to take a while, because I’ve always been pretty muscular. I’ve lifted weights most of my life, too, which has caused a lot of people to be surprised when I have to do something that really shows my muscles–or just flex. When I worked at Domino’s Pizza years ago, we were messing around near closing time, and discussing exercising, and everyone was showing their muscles. When the conversation worked its way around to me, I was like, “Nah, that’s alright. I’ve gotta do some dishes.” They pressed, however, so I flexed.

People are always surprised, because I’m so skinny, but I’m seriously all muscle. When lifting weights years ago at a gym, I had to be strapped down while working a machine that had me pulling the weights down from above, because it was instead lifting me into the air. It was a reverse benchpress kinda thing, I don’t know what it’s called. But there were several people in the gym, and everyone was shocked that skinny little me was like “No, put 150 pounds on it. I’ll start there.” When I owned a Bowflex (Don’t buy a Bowflex), I had to order two extra 50-pound resistors, because the default weight wasn’t enough for me to get a workout.

When I got home from school everyday during early high school, I’d jump and grab the roof of our house, and proceed to do pull-ups while lifting my knees–there’s nothing that works abs as much as doing that. And when all that combined, I ended up with mostly a 6-pack abs and quite a bit of muscle on my arms. So there was like a decade or more of pretty regular weight-lifting, crunches, sit-ups, and pull-ups.

I’m thinking it’s gonna take a few years for estrogen to atrophy those muscles away.

2I’m also looking pretty good, though! I don’t normally do my makeup that well, but I had several hours over which to do it, and I had plans that night, so the extra effort was important. I could have gone anywhere I needed to go looking like that, and no one would have looked twice–well, they might have, but it would not have been because they suspected I might have a penis.

Well, except for the muscles.

Those still are dead giveaways.

_20160717_120753I am pretty sexy, though, and I do enjoy showing that off. I’m kinda torn on the subject, though, because I want to take extra care to avoid being stereotyped like many transgender people are. I can handle my abs being like the pic there on the left, and you can even see where curves are starting to develop. There are clear curves there, and I really like that.

Even my legs are pure muscle, though. Look at them.

Just one big ass muscle there.

My legs are okay, though. I’m not particularly bothered by my legs, though I don’t like my ass.

One of the girls I was recently talking to pretty obviously wanted me to keep being a guy. It does put me in a weird position, granted, because these two left-aligned pics… they seem more like the sort of thing that would attract a guy, not a girl, and I’m not trying to attract guys. I’m well aware how this works for me sexually/romantically, thanks.

Interestingly, I used to take pictures because I looked more feminine in pictures than I did in the mirror. I went from using a lot of Photoshop to using filters to using no filters to using the rear camera. Now, however, I find that I look more feminine in the mirror than I do in picture. Why is that?

Mostly, it’s mentality.

I know the blurring work is sloppy. I don't really care.

I know the blurring work is sloppy. I don’t really care.

I know that my friends are put off a bit by it, and seeing pictures like those two on the left and this one on the right leave them asking, “Um… What kind of girl is she going to attract with pictures like that?

Well…

Um…

One that licks ass, I suppose.

But no, seriously, I’m well aware of the problems it creates–I spend a lot of time thinking about that. It’s also true, though, that I’m sexually fluid–something that very few of my friends know, but may have guessed, and something which alleviates much of the problem. While I could never be with a guy in any serious way, I like having a good time. And there’s also the fact that: yes, there are plenty of chicks out there who would see that pic and be interested.

They’re not in Mississippi, though.

They think they are, but they’re not. They always end up back at that place, where they’re basically asking me, “Can’t you just be a guy?”

No… No, sweetie, I can’t just be anything except me.

I’m working on leaving Mississippi, though. I’ve got a GoFundMe Campaign aimed at that end, because it’s really important that I leave the south and go somewhere that I can live and exist in peace, security, and stability. If you’d be interested in donating or even sharing the campaign, that would be fantastic, and infinitely appreciated: www.gofundme.com/transgendermove . I’ve submitted a novel recently for publishing and have my fingers crossed for that, but that’s a long shot, you know?

Transgenderism: Who Needs To Know?

It wasn’t terribly long ago that I unfriended this transgender girl on Facebook, and I did so for a number of reasons. First among those was that she was extremely derivative of myself, essentially following in my footsteps with her online presence, but was exploiting her sex appeal and the fact that she performed shows and gained a fanbase that way. I found that to be cheap and tawdry, but that wasn’t the reason that I removed her.

No, the reason that I removed her is because of this long “Oh, poor me” post about how hard it is being transgender, and how she had once been beaten and raped by this guy when he found out that she had a penis. Her excuse was that it never occurred to her to point out that she was transgender, non-op, and that she didn’t think it was her responsibility to go around telling people that she had a penis. And while I agree in many ways, there’s certainly a grey area there, and the point at which she should have told the guy that she had a penis was long before he was taking her pants off.

People like that who think it’s everyone else’s responsibility to cater to them piss me off, because it’s that ultra-liberal, anti-progressive bullshit, and it’s much simpler than that. So let me just say for the record: Yes, if you don’t have the sexual organs that the person who you’re sexually involved with expects you to have, then it is your responsibility to inform them. I know we’ve seen shemale porn where the guy pulls off the girl’s pants and is delighted to find a penis staring up at him, but this isn’t porn; this is the real world, and you’re an entitled moron to put yourself in that position.

I’m not justifying that the guy attacked her and raped her–two pieces of information that don’t quite fit if you remember that the reason he became angry was that he did not want to have sex with what he felt was a guy. And she can argue that with him all she wants, but it’s not going to change how he feels about it. That conversation should have happened long before that point when they were getting naked. People like what they like, don’t like what they don’t like, and aren’t interested in what they aren’t interested in. There is very little someone could do to persuade me to put my dick in a dude’s ass. And while I would absolutely have sex with a shemale, I don’t consider shemales to be men–hence myself. But there’s also a wide range of people there, and it would depend more on the individual than any simple, universally applicable statement.

However, if I was removing a girl’s clothes in between drunken kisses and suddenly felt a hard dick, it would absolutely give me pause, and it might even be an enormous turn-off. It certainly wouldn’t go down like in porn; I wouldn’t grin and moan and bend down to slob on it. I don’t know if this is what the girl I’m talking about expected, or if she just expected that the guy would ignore her penis, but one thing is certain:

He wasn’t expecting to find a penis there.

A lot of men out there simply aren’t willing to have sex with another guy. This does NOT make them homophobic. Being unwilling to have sex with a non-op transgender woman, or a pre-op transgender woman, also does not make a person homophobic. People like what they like, and they have their own inhibitions. I wouldn’t want to have sex with a guy–does that make me homophobic? If I removed a girl’s clothes only to find a penis, only to find out that she wasn’t even transgender but was just a cross-dresser, I would feel both betrayed and unaroused. I have very little control over that–I’m not attracted to the male form. I like curves. I’m not going to apologize for that. And removing a girl’s clothes to find out that the curves weren’t real would ruin her sex appeal for me. This does not make me homophobic; it is simply my preferences.

If you think it’s unreasonable for a guy who is removing a girl’s clothes to expect to find a vagina there, then you should probably re-evaluate what you think is reasonable and unreasonable. People have expectations, and one of those expectations is that women have vaginas. If you knowingly go against that expectation that is shared by pretty much everyone on the planet, then it is your responsibility to let someone know that before you become sexually involved.

Does it have to be the very first thing you say? Do you have to tell every random person you see that you have a penis? Absolutely not.

My dream is to be able to just live as myself, to have a job as myself, and to just be able to exist as myself. To everyone who saw me, I’d just be a woman, and they’d know nothing more than that. My co-workers, employees, colleagues, friends, whoever–would see only a woman, and that is all they would know. They would never need to know more than that. However, the girl that I was dating? Yes, she deserves to know, and it is my responsibility to tell her. Letting her pull off my clothes and find a penis there when she expects a vagina would be betraying her entirely reasonable expectation.

I unfriended her when I saw her attempt to gain sympathy about how hard it is to be transgender, because she can get attacked and beaten “just for being transgender.” This wasn’t even remotely what happened. She was attacked and beaten for betraying someone. Whether she intended to or not, she knew that the average guy–even 99.9999% of guys–expect that removing a girl’s clothes will reveal a vagina. She knew that she was going against that expectation, and she knew that the guy expected her to not have a dick.

Her defense that “Being transgender is just normal for me, I never think anything about it” is utter bullshit. If you “never think anything about it” to the extent that you’d let someone have sex with you without telling them that you don’t have the organs that they expect you to have, then you are being wholly irresponsible, reckless, and ridiculous.

Things are no different for me. Just because it would be a girl undressing me and finding a penis doesn’t mean I have no responsibility to inform them–there are plenty of lesbians out there who wouldn’t be interested. But it’s humorous for me to note that it has only become easier for me to find interested chicks, when I imagine that the opposite would be true for a non-op transgender man who was into men. God, this terminology is so sloppy. You have to stop and think too much about what “non-op transgender man” means–what sexual organ does that person have? A vagina. This terminology is far too clunky.

That’s why I love the term “shemale” and will continue using it no matter how many transgender women tell me that it is somehow an insult to them that I use this word to characterize myself. It’s even better when they try to tell me the connotations of “shemale” like I don’t already know that it’s tied to porn–in fact, it’s rather important to me that I break that connotation, and it was an important milestone for me to see that “anarchist shemale” has me as the #1 result on Google search, beating out a fair bit of porn to get there. Breaking how “shemale” is tied to porn is a major part of the reason I use it. But do people ever ask about that? Nope. They just assume that I don’t know that shemale is tied to porn, and that I’m not aware of how I’m offending them by calling myself a shemale.

Just think about the absurdity of that, and how it so obviously requires group-think. I can’t even call myself something without it somehow being applied to all non-op transgender women. What kind of madness is that? I didn’t say you are a shemale, lady. I said that I am a shemale. If your ego and narcissism are so out of control that I can’t call myself something without you somehow making it about you, then you need a serious reality check and a firm reminder that you and I are different people. I would suggest such people remember that, first and foremost, they are individuals; they are not the characteristics they happen to have.

What do they want me to do, call myself “The Anarchist Non-Op Transgender Woman”? God, that’s so catchy! Of course! Why didn’t I think about it before? It’s so obvious! I was originally going with “The Libertarian Shemale,” of course, but swapped it out for Anarchist. I did this for two reasons. First, because I am an anarchist, and not a libertarian. Second, “Anarchist Shemale” sounds a whole lot more memorable and awesome than “Libertarian Shemale.”

facebook

You don’t own me. I can call myself any goddamned thing I want, and it has nothing to do with anyone else. I hate to belabor the point, but it’s an important one, and it has happened multiple time. I’ve been chastised several times for calling myself a shemale, told how “offensive and insulting” it is to other people, and lectured on how the word is tied to porn. I’m well-aware of the last bit, and anyone who spends any time listening to the things I say will conclude that I’m obviously well aware of that. But the notion that it can do injury to other people (because to offend them is to commit some offense upon them, to make them a victim and injure them in some way) by calling myself something is patently absurd.

Well, I got completely off track. I apologize for that.

Hey, but if you like what I have to say, you might enjoy my latest video:

Or if you’re more interested in things that pertain to transgenderism:

You could also check out my podcasts at www.ariadimezzo.podbean.com–there are 37 or 38 episodes there, most of them are Rantings & Ravings, about 1/4 of them are Food For Thought, and another 1/8 of them are Transgender Frustrations, which are mostly just me bitching about things here in the real world, not creating my own problems and then bitching because I landed myself in a horrible situation and faced disproportionate consequences.

Transgender people face real problems in the United States, and especially here in the south. I went into Wal-Mart today to buy a new microphone (I have no shame shopping at Wal-Mart), and while there I walked by the flip-flop aisle and saw a few pairs that would actually fit me. Since I wear a size 12.5W/11M, it can be hard to find flip-flops that fit. And these were adorable! But it was mid-afternoon in Wal-Mart. I couldn’t just buy a pair of women’s flip-flops. So I whipped out my phone, took a few pictures of the aisle, and sent them to a friend on Facebook, pretending that I was picking them up for someone else.

That’s the kind of real issue that a transgender person faces in Wal-Mart. I’m thrilled that this transgender chick in freaking Michigan has no problem going to Wal-Mart, and that no one will follower her home and burn her house to the ground. That’s fantastic. But what does she do with that wonderful ability? She creates her own fucking problems, and then screams and cries about them like her self-created problems are even remotely on par with actual transgender problems that people have to face all over America. I would sell my soul to be able to just walk into Wal-Mart and shop for clothes, but I can’t. I wouldn’t make it home, and I probably wouldn’t make it out of the parking lot. In fact, I would probably have the police called on me.

Oh, yeah. For sure. Some old Christian woman with her young daughter would be “creeped out” and would notify the manager. Without doubt–I mean, really. That would happen. If there was anyone else shopping in that area, that would happen. And the manager would immediately think “Pedophile” not “Transgender” and would call the police. Then, after extensive searches of me and my phone to verify that I wasn’t taking pictures of little girls in the changing room and repeatedly demanding to know why I was in the girls’ clothing area in the first place, I’d probably just be banned from the store.

That’s my reality.

So I’m not going to cut some stupid bitch slack when she creates her own problems.

Two Music Videos

I doubt I’ll normally do this, but I’m really proud of them, so…

That… is fucking bad ASS. My god.

It starts slow, but trust me. If you’re a fan of rock music, then you’ll love the way that builds and builds until, by the end, it’s just… Really, it’s my best improv work ever. I’m sure I’ve improvised better solos and rhythm bits here and there in the past, but that entire thing is just 13 minutes of improv of layering one track on another, starting from a bare scaffolding and building it into… that. It’s really cool, and I think you’ll find it’s worth watching through to the end. Turn on annotations; they explain some of the stuff I’m doing, and why the music drops off like that occasionally (it’s unavoidable with the Digitech GNX3–a phenomenal processor, but with a few idiosyncrasies).

Just so we’re clear… I can play guitar better than you, kick your ass at Call of Duty, pwn you in a debate, fuck your girlfriend, and be hotter than she is while I’m doing all of it.

That’s something I jokingly said to a friend earlier today. It was one of those typical friend conversations, you know–we were each boasting to the other, exaggerating where need be, and just making it a point to work in as many odd, random things as we could. That was the best one I came up with. Anyway. The video.

Celes’ Song and I… have a long history. There is an alternate version of this song that is more orchestral and that is called… Aria de mezzo Carattere. You may notice it looks kinda familiar. That’s absolutely correct–when it came time to select my name, I took one inspired by a song in a video game. But if you knew the song, you knew its context, and you understood the emotional ties I have to it…

Really, it’s the perfect name for me. An aria is an operatic vocal piece sung by a female, so… Obviously, “Aria” is a cool name for a transgender chick who happens to be a musician. “DiMezzo” is not as random as it seems, though, and whether the “i” should be an “e” is something I can’t even say. I don’t speak Italian fluently enough to know.

“de mezzo carattere,” however, translates to “of the middle character,” and DiMezzo translates roughly to “the middle.” Since I’m non-op transgender–a shemale–I will be perpetually between genders; thus, I am in the middle of the genders, but present as a female (tying back to “aria” being a song written for/performed by a female).

And that’s without getting into the fact that this song, and Celes’ Song, never fails to fill my eyes with tears. And this is probably the best rendition of Celes’ Song that I’ve ever played; if I hadn’t been recorded, I’d have had tears pouring down my cheeks by the end of it. Even so, I had to trim the last few seconds because there were tears beginning to fall. It’s a beautiful, powerful piece of music. For that song alone, Final Fantasy VI is worth playing.

The other is Castlevania 2’s bad-ass motif Bloody Tears, which unfortunately has been picked up and ruined by faggot bands like Killswitch Engage who proceeded to butcher the shit out of it because they have no idea how to capture emotions with music. And I can’t capture many emotions with music, but there are some… There are some that I can capture, as Your Fall From Grace demonstrates clearly.

It may be the angriest song I’ve ever written.

How about the raw emotions of this one? This one isn’t “anger,” but I don’t know how to describe the emotions it entails. But… they’re clearly there.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my music. If you’d like to keep up with the stuff I get up to, be sure to check me out on Patreon, because I post everything that I do there. My author’s page on Facebook also gets a link about pretty much everything I get up to, plus some random bullshit. You can download an entire Fantasy novel that I wrote, no bullshit and no strings attached, and read it at your leisure. I hope you do, and I hope you enjoy it. 😀

The Story of How Google Attempted to Intimidate Me Into Silence

Update

Apparently my very existence is offensive.

transgender not acceptable

Google would have me stop saying that I’m transgender, because apparently that’s offensive to someone. Since “transgender” is the politically correct term for people like me, Google is saying that I’m not allowed to tell people I’m transgender. I mean that literally. That’s literally what they said–there is the email. I only edited out my name. Apparently, my being transgender is offensive. Evidently, my existence is offensive.

I exist, Google. And I am proud to be who I am, and I will continue to be who I am whether people like it or not. You have now lied to me. You have attempted to intimidate me. And now you have told me that my very existence is objectionable. I will not give you another penny, Google. And thanks to Ghostery, you won’t get any money from me through your advertising, either, and I’ve long preferred Duckduckgo as a search engine. I will not give you money after you have explicitly said that my very existence is offensive.

Here is a podcast on the matter:

The Original Post

A few days ago, I started running ads through Google that directed people to this website, the “Trans Anarchist.” I had very little choice but to do that, because Google wouldn’t let me use the word “Shemale” in the ad itself (even though the ad leads to a website that has “shemale” in its URL, banner, and title…). I’ve contacted Google to get that worked out, explaining to them that it’s my responsibility to communicate effectively, and the most effective way that I can communicate my nature is with the word “shemale,” that the word can only be tied to pornography if we the people allow it to be, and I, as a shemale, refuse to allow the word to be inextricably tied to pornography. That’s my word. I am a shemale, so, yes, I absolutely have the right to disassociate the word from pornography.

The ad was approved, and it ran for a few days, and then I decided to change its target so that it pointed to my podcast, the RSS Feed for which is to the right. This meant that the ad had to be approved again (ugh), but I figured “That’s fine. It’s pretty much just my website, but in spoken form,” so I submitted it.

12970981_245906155760761_3481472446196141154_o

Click for larger image.

Oh, Google, you’ve stepped in it now… and you don’t even realize it, do you? That’s okay. I don’t mind that you’re a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation. I’m going to rip you apart anyway. So, Google, sit back, grab a cup of coffee, and be prepared to be ripped apart for your blatant hypocrisy and favoritism. I hope you’re prepared for this. Oh, it’s not likely that I can actually do anything about it. Don’t get me wrong–I’m well aware of that. But it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to allow such horrific hypocrisy to stand uncontested. It is my duty, as The Shemale Anarchist, to rip apart hypocrisy wherever I may find it, because it is that hypocrisy–that “say one thing and do another” bullshit–that has allowed the world to fall into such a terrible state. It is our duty, as rational, logical, and principled people, to launch assaults on hypocrisy whenever it appears.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

My issue isn’t that Google finds me offensive. Really, it’s not. I’m well aware that many people find me offensive, and I don’t care. I laughed when I saw the response, until I began wondering what it was that they actually found offensive. Because there aren’t very many things that anyone can definitively demonstrate are objectionable.

Only in a Fascist society that has lost its mind can liberty and tolerance be considered offensive.

My first thought was that it was because I was titled at Podbean “The Shemale Anarchist.” But that can’t be the case. “The Shemale” has been tied to my website here from the beginning. Could it be the foul language? Definitely not. My website contains plenty of foul language. Beyond that, it clearly can’t be the podcasts themselves. Why? Because of the RSS Feed you see over on the right. My Podcasts from Podbean feed directly to this website. If the podcasts are offensive at Podbean, then they must be offensive here. Yet my website was approved, so that can’t be the case, can it?

It can’t be that “R&R Ep 03 – You Intolerant Bastards” is a problem, because, though that does appear at Podbean, at the time it was one of the most recent episodes and certainly appeared here at Shemale Diary, as well, right there on the right, in the RSS Feed. That podcast was in both places. One was approved, one was not. So the logical conclusion is that the podcast isn’t the problem.

When I called Google Adwords (Kudos to them for low wait times and for connecting me with an American, I must say), the woman with whom I spoke referenced that episode as the problem. I objected, of course. There is worse material here on this website, and that podcast itself was (at the time) here on this website. When I requested that the disapproved ad be sent back to the approval team, I was told that it’s an automatic process and that nothing can be done about it.

That’s clearly not the case. Human judgment was clearly involved, and human mistakes are clearly what caused the initial ad to be approved. If one is offensive and must be disapproved, then both are offensive and must be disapproved. So that one of the ads made it through fine is, ipso facto, proof that there is human judgment involved and that the process is not automatic. This means the woman lied to me, but it gets worse.

Her response was that she could send the initial ad back through and make sure that both of them are disapproved. This seemed to be a threat, and I certainly took it as one. “Take what you can get,” is basically what she said, “or we’ll take away them both.”

Well. I don’t respond well to threats. Threatening to take both of my ads away if I continue to raise a ruckus about your hypocrisy is not going to have the effect you want it to have, Google. And it didn’t. So what did I say in response to this threat?

“Yes! Absolutely! Do what you’ve gotta do. If you have to disapprove both of them, fine. But since the same exact content is available in both places, you cannot justify the position that one is acceptable and one is offensive. By all means, then, do that.”

“Well, resubmit the first ad,” the woman said. “And I can’t guarantee that it will be disapproved…”

And that is the problem, lady! Don’t you see how blatantly hypocritical and deceitful that is? You clearly lied to me. If it was an automatic process, then you would be able to guarantee that the resubmission would be disapproved. Principles, their expression through Policy, and the application of these Policies is an automatic process. I know that, because I’m an anarchist. I do have principles and policies, and I do apply them without discrimination. I know exactly how principles and policies work, Google, and that is precisely why I support John McAfee. When you rely on principles, you always come to the same results. That you can’t guarantee the same result, Google, is proof that you do not rely on principles and policies.

The woman was clearly not prepared to have me call her bluff. How dare she threaten me like that, though. How dare she say to me, “If you want, we can make sure that both of your ads are disapproved. But you can instead just take the one we’re giving you, and not make us take both of them away.” No, hell no, not going to allow that.

You want to bluff me, Google? I will call your bluff. Every single time.

You can’t now hide behind your policy and say that you can’t do anything about the ad that was disapproved. That’s obviously and demonstrably false. If it was true that ad approval is an automatic process, then:

  • www.shemalediary.wordpress.com wouldn’t have been approved, because it contains an RSS Feed directly from the “offensive material.”
  • You would be able to guarantee me that a re-submission of the original ad wouldn’t get approved.
  • Which is just remarkably stupid when you think about it, because my entire point is that the initial ad shouldn’t have been approved if the podcast in question is the objectionable material, but it was, and now they’re disapproving the ad on the basis of that podcast, yet can’t guarantee that this site, which contains an RSS Feed that has that podcast, will be disapproved.

And you want to tell me that your policy justifies that insane rambling of doublethink and nothink? So I’m going to extend the RSS Feed so that it absolutely contains “You Intolerant Bastards” in the feed, and then I’m going to resubmit. And, yes, I’m going to post this and leave it here, because Google has either violated their own policy or they are unfairly targeting my podcast page.

Why do I say that? Because the only difference between ariadimezzo.podbean.com and shemalediary.wordpress.com is that one is far more accessible (being a spoken podcast) than the other (being written articles). The word “fucking” appears all over the place on this website. In fact, I did a search for the word “fucking” in the search bar, then did the “find in page”. 37 matches.

It appears once on the podcasts.

So don’t bullshit me, Google. If the word “fucking” is a problem, then you should have disapproved my first ad “with extreme prejudice.” But you didn’t. You approved it, and you’ll probably approve it again. And, yes, I’m going to have this right there at the top of the website when I submit the ad so that I know someone at Google has seen it. Either you have to approve both, or you have to disapprove both. You can’t hide behind principles and policies when I can demonstrate that you didn’t apply principles and policies. You applied some arbitrary criteria that is unknown, but you certainly didn’t uniformly apply your policies. And you clearly don’t uniformly apply them, because you still can’t guarantee that this website will be disapproved.

Ad to a website of written content that the average surfer won’t want to read? That’s okay.

Ad to a website of spoken content that the average surfer might listen to? That’s not okay.

There’s literally no other difference between the two URLs in the ads I submitted. One goes to written content, and one goes to spoken content. The content itself is virtually identical.

If you want to have a policy that means you can’t approve my ads, Google, that’s fine. I’m an anarchist. I’m 100% in support of your right to do that. And I acknowledge your right to be hypocrites, just as I recognize the right of conservatives to discriminate against LGBT people. But just as I’m going to call them out on their ill-considered position, so will I call you out on yours. Just as I’ll blast the hypocritical left for being intolerant, so will I assault the hypocritical Google.

People can say a lot of things about me. “Offensive” is certainly one of those things, and I don’t bother to deny that the average Politically Correct libtard will find me offensive, and so will most of the religious right. I really don’t care. But one thing that people cannot and will never be able to say about me is that I’m a hypocrite.

I suggest you re-evaluate your policies, Google, and the mechanisms by which you apply those policies in tandem with the criteria with which you cherry-pick when to apply those policies. Until then, you are hypocrites, and I am left to conclude, on the grounds that the only difference between the two sites is accessibility, that you merely want to keep the cause of Liberty quiet. Do I think that’s really the case? No. But I can make that case.

Oh, yes, and–since you recorded that call (as did I)–you may be interested to play it back and hear how your employee did threaten me with having both ads pulled if I continued to make a big deal about it. I’m pretty sure that making threats–even those that aren’t violent in nature–is against your policies, isn’t it? Maybe you’d like to apply those policies here. Because I don’t appreciate being threatened, and neither will I allow someone to intimidate me into silence.

That your employee tried to intimidate me into silence, Google, reveals quite a lot about what really happened here. People who are on the side of principles don’t have to intimidate people trying to shut them up. You are so in the moral wrong here, Google, that it’s astounding. Not only do you pick and choose when to apply arbitrary policies, but you also have employees bullying customers and attempting to intimidate them into submission. I don’t know what part of the world your headquarters is in, Google, but here, where I am, attempting to intimidate people into submission is not okay. It’s bullying, actually… You’re like the waiter at a restaurant who said “Yeah, the cook spit in your steak. Sure, I can send your steak back, and I can get the cook to spit in your fries, too.”

If that’s how you treat customers, Google–with intimidation, bullying, and threats to back up your hypocrisy while trying to hide behind your arbitrarily applied principles, then I don’t want to do business with you.

P.S. Enjoy the PR. 😉

Mississippi’s New “Religious Freedom” Anti-Gay Bill

As an atheistic transgender lesbian and resident of the state of Mississippi, no one could conceivably be more affected by the new law than I. For those who aren’t aware, the Mississippi Congress recently passed a law allowing business owners to refuse to serve customers on religious grounds, and it’s no secret that this is intended to allow Christians to refuse to serve homosexuals. Now, before we continue, I want to reiterate that I am an atheistic shemale lesbian in Mississippi, and that literally no one could possibly be more impacted by this bill than I will be.

And yet… I stand 100% in support of the legislation.

The fact is that Liberty means that people must be allowed to do things that we don’t like, as long as those things don’t involve force, violence, and coercion. This means that religious people must tolerate homosexuals, and not force homosexuals to be straight, not attack homosexuals, and not attempt to coerce. On the whole, religious people are tolerant of homosexuals.

Americans go wrong–especially on the Left–because they no longer know that there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance, but they are very different things. The LGBT community, and left in general, demands acceptance, but they are not entitled to acceptance, and they do not have the right to be accepted. To tolerate something is to grit your teeth, to hate every moment of it, and to do everything you can to put a stop to it while stopping short of using force, violence, and coercion. Once you use force, violence, or coercion to put a stop to it, you cross the line and become intolerant.

What people need to remember is that the religious business owners in question… are people, and people have rights. Among those rights is the right to religious freedom, the right to express religious beliefs, and the right to act in accordance with religious beliefs, but always stopping short of violence, force, and coercion, because no one has the right to use force, violence, and coercion. As long as they are not using force, violence, and coercion, though, they are not hindering anyone else’s rights and therefore must be tolerated.

It is the left and the LGBT community that is being intolerant here, attempting to use force to get their way, attempting to use the force that is the government to force religious people to act against their religious beliefs. And this is wrong. It is wrong to put a gun to people’s heads and say, “No. You will violate your religious beliefs.” I shouldn’t have to point out that it’s wrong to do that.

It’s a person on the other end of that business, and you do not have the right to force that person to do what you want them to do. You don’t have the right to force someone to be friends with you, if you’re gay, and if they don’t like gay people. They have the right to not associate with gay people, and I don’t think anyone would question that. The lines don’t get muddier when that person in question happens to own a business. They still have the same rights, and they still have the right to not associate with gay people. And you have the right to take your business elsewhere.

Why would you want to do business with someone who hates you anyway? That’s insane. So you want to have the government put a gun to these people’s heads and sell you a cake even though they hate you? I hope they spit in that cake, because you’re violating their rights by doing so.

Liberty is a very simple thing, but it’s the left and LGBT community being intolerant here, and refusing to tolerate the religious behavior of people on the right. Just as you do not have the right to force someone to be your friend, neither do you have the right to force that someone to do business with you. That person is still a person, after all. If you want to force businesses to do business with you against their religious beliefs, then you are the one in the wrong. And I say this as someone who is imminently affected by this legislation.

We must have liberty, and liberty is a two-way street. I’ll acknowledge their right to run their lives as they want, if they acknowledge my right to run my life as I want. And, realistically, religious people have, on the whole, agreed to allow us to live our lives as we want. It’s time to stop making demands of them. It’s time to stop demanding them to give everything; it’s time to meet them in the middle. Live and let live, after all.

The bottom line is that these conservatives don’t want to do business with us. These people don’t want to be our friends, and they don’t want to do business with us. Suck it up, kiddy–not everyone in the world is going to like you and want to be your friend. Put your Big Girl Panties on, shrug, and walk away. We’re not going to win them over by putting guns to their heads and forcing them to violate their beliefs.

Trying will only make them angrier, will only make them more resentful, and will only push them closer to people like Trump. We are making them resentful by doing this, by using the government as the tool of oppression against them, violating their rights and beliefs, and proclaiming, as we put guns to their heads and say “I don’t care what you want, you’re going to do what I want!” that we are the side of justice and truth. You cannot be on the side of justice, truth, and compassion while putting guns to people’s heads and saying, “You can’t do what you want to do. If you do what you want to do, if you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will throw you in prison for the rest of your life and leave you to rot.”

Pushing them with these mechanisms of force and violence, calling them bigots and hateful when they’re merely religious, and refusing to tolerate their dislike of us, will only succeed in making them angrier, and more convinced that we are the spawn of the devil. If they believe that we are spawn of the devil sent to Earth to corrupt, what do you think they will believe after we put guns to their heads and force them to violate their religious beliefs? We only reinforce their resentment, and they are resentful. They are certainly resentful at this point–the white conservative male is horrendously under assault in the country, and is not allowed to say it without being called a bigot in at least three ways. But the left’s brand of oppression has not won. Liberty and reason can prevail.

You just have to see sense. So what these people don’t like us? So what they don’t want to be our friends? So what they don’t want to sell us cakes? Plenty of people do like us. Plenty of people want to be our friends. Plenty of people will sell us cakes. We have to be the bigger person here and say, “I don’t agree, obviously, but I respect your right to do as you think as best. I still love you.”

“You homophobic monster! You’re just enshrining your hate in legislation, you bigots!” is not the appropriate response. “You must serve us! Uncle Sam! Uncle Sam! The mean conservative doesn’t want to be my friend! Get your gun! Make them be my friend! Make them sell me things! Because they should have to respect everyone, even when they disagree!”

This is why I say that the left is rife with hypocrisy.

Turn your volume down.

Again, this really does affect me. I’m a resident of Mississippi, and I’m an unemployed transgender lesbian who can’t find a legitimate job because the state discriminates against transgender people. My life is unnecessarily difficult because of the fact that I’m transgender, and a lot of places here won’t hire me because of that. If you like my writings and podcasts, please consider supporting me on Patreon, where any amount of support earns you some goodies. 😀

Grab Life By the Bollocks

Over the last few years, I’ve posted user reviews to Gamefaqs (something I will no longer do because of their refusal to post my review of Tomb Raider and their allegation that it was unprofessional–which made it all the more hilarious that I’m a professional reviewer and that the review was taken on by Cubed3, a professional gaming site…) occasionally, and one day I received a message from Adam at Cubed3, and he wanted to know if I’d be interested in reviewing for them. I jumped at the opportunity, despite the warning that it wouldn’t make me any money. I didn’t care. It brought me into the gaming industry as an insider, made me part of the press, and established more credibility as a professional writer.

At the start of the year, Cubed3 began to refocus, and I’ve essentially become the writer for the Critical Hit! series where various gamer-related controversial things are discussed. In addition, I was asked a few weeks ago to become an Editor, and I agreed.

What I learned from this is simple: do what you enjoy doing, and, if you’re any good at it, you’ll become successful with enough hard work.

“How can you say that, Aria? You’re barely surviving.”

That’s true, but there are also a few things worth noting. The first is that until six months ago, everything I wrote was credited to a different person, a dude, and doesn’t really do anything to help me. The second is that, until last month, it wasn’t even possible that I could be a successful writer: I had nothing for sale (that actually generated income for me) and no mechanism by which people could pay for content. I also once ran a website that was pretty popular, averaging roughly 100 visitors per day, but I took it down. Without doubt, that would be 500 per day, or maybe higher, by now. I’ve essentially restarted my entire writing career.

Two years ago, I was contacted by Eric Bigelow and asked if I would be interested in contributing an essay to a voluntaryist compilation that he was putting together. I did so, and was honored to have been included, but, again, you won’t find Aria DiMezzo among the contributors. So it’s no surprise, really. My writing career is basically a month old at this point.

Anyway, I was contacted about V2: The Voluntary Voice because I wrote regularly in favour of Ron Paul, and against statism and interventionism, economically and internationally. I just wrote what I wanted to write, and it began going places. I’m poised now to write an Anarchy book that was being called “What Steam Greenlight Teaches Us About Anarchy,” but I ran into a few problems. There simply wasn’t enough to say. So I’ve expanded it to be “What Video Games Teach Us About Anarchy.” Things like Steam Greenlight, Twitch Plays Pokemon, and so many other examples show us precisely how anarchy can work.

I lost everything shortly after I separated with my ex-wife, thanks to a series of monumentally stupid decisions on my part. Absolutely no one is to blame there but me. I screwed up in huge ways, and I did so repeatedly, until I had nothing left but my vehicle–which I soon lost due to being unable to pay that $550/month note. Like I said–I’d made some enormously stupid decisions in the preceding months.

So I did what anyone would do in that situation. I did what anyone would do when they had no car, no job, and no place to stay.

I went to college and finished earning my degree, utilizing my grants and scholarships to pay for it. The scholarships I earned thanks to my perfect score in the science portion of the GED, thanks to my ACT scores of 32 in Writing and 28 in Science. My lowest score was math, at 21. I applied myself, and I bounced back from my dumbassery, graduating college and earning my degree with my blood.

I got a job with the nearby Radioshack, part time, and saved up enough money to open my own company. I applied for dozens of jobs and interviewed for several, but no one ever called back (except Radioshack, which was minimum wage and only 13~ hours a week). So I started my own company and returned to working with “my colleague” to a small degree, while I reached out to local businesses and used my position at Radioshack to get clients for my I.T. company–which was fine, because Radioshack didn’t do that type of repair. Then one of the places I’d interviewed at ten months previously called and offered me a position as a slot technician making $13.50/hour. I parted ways with Radioshack on good terms and took the job.

Then six months later Harrah’s announced its closure. I’d quit a stable, relatively promising job to start at Harrah’s, and this was how they repaid me? On top of that, they announced a major project at another property and forced us Harrah’s techs to go to Horseshoe. The labor was back-breaking, and totally fucked with our schedules. They wanted us there twelve hours a day, six or seven days a week, and sometimes for sixteen hours. They were obviously willing to pay overtime, but I was in my 20s and had a social life. Plus, no matter how hard we worked, they were still going to fire us all in two months, and there was nothing that we could do to change that. They wanted to work us as hard as they could and then fire us.

So I quit and refocused on my company that I’d started because no one would hire me to any notable degree.

When I couldn’t get a job, I started my own company.

When I couldn’t get my novel published, I published online myself, and turned to other avenues.

When I couldn’t do the hormones thing through the US system, I researched the thing and ordered what I needed online.

Let nothing stand in your way. That’s the key. When you have a problem, solve it or go around it. My life has been pretty much characterized by resistance. Some of it I caused by being stupid. Some of it I caused because someone misled me. Some of it was caused by others. Some of it was caused by society itself. There is, and will always be, resistance.

When possible, take control of your life. Try to arrange things so that you are who determines the outcome of things in your life. And, wherever possible, just do what you want to do and overcome or circumvent any resistance that comes up. Because if you’re trying to do something that is even slightly out of the norm, there will be resistance. Don’t let it stop you.

Because yeah. I’m an atheistic shemale lesbian born and raised in Mississippi and entrepreneur. It’s safe to say I’ve faced some challenges in my day. 🙂 So will you. Overcome them. It can be done. You can do. Take control and overcome them.

Carpe diem.

Or, for the uncultured… 😉 … Yolo.