a syllogism–if pat robertson is a liberal, lierre keith is stupid

Jasper Wilcox

Evangelical preacher and all-around bad motherfucker Pat Robertson recently made comments on  The 700 Club that he has no objection to sexual reassignment surgery. In a recent article from the Huffington Post, Robertson is quoted as saying:

“I think there are men who are in a woman’s body. It’s very rare. But it’s true — or women that are in men’s bodies — and that they want a sex change. That is a very permanent thing, believe me, when you have certain body parts amputated and when you have shot up with various kinds of hormones. It’s a radical procedure. I don’t think there’s any sin associated with that. I don’t condemn somebody for doing that.”

If we could look past Robertson’s old-timey and vaguely insensitive language this could almost be mistaken for a progressive statement.

Pat Robertson: “[Being transgender]…is not a sin.”

It is, after all, a more level-headed thing than Lierre Keith (of Deep Green Resistance) has ever said. Keith believes male-to-female transgender people are spies, collecting intelligence and reporting it back to the patriarchy. She believes transgender people are a by-product of pornography and ubiquitous social perversion.

While Pat Robertson is surveying the sky in search of new horizons, Lierre Keith remains embroiled in a semantic war that has been annoying since 1970  

To say the least, this news comes as a big surprise.

In the past, Robertson and Keith have had much in common. They are both long-time millennialists and members of evangelical doomsday cults – they both love to hear their own voices spoken aloud – they both have gray hair, they are both senile and incontinent, and they are both completely out of touch with the rest of humanity.

This parting of ways seems to suggest a real disconnect between smaller cults and their establishment counterparts.

While Keith struggles against the waves of progress Robertson is on-board with the rest of the world, chilling on a deck-chair and soaking up the sun.

Keith seems to believe (as opposed to Pat Robertson) that Transgender people are socialized to be transgender. She does not seem to understand that what makes Gender Dysphoria real is that a cis-female (so-called “biological female”) socialized to “act like a girl” ends up, despite her upbringing acting “like a boy”. It’s this very simple pretext that makes everything Lierre Keith has ever said worthless and stupid.

Lierre Keith, who has written up a whole new language for dealing with reality in English, refers to her position as Radical Feminism, in effect co-opting the term. Further, she exhorts anyone who disagrees with her, calling them nothing but milquetoast, mealy-mewthed  “Liberals”.

There comes a day when left becomes right and right becomes left but nothing really changes except the words.

Lierre Keith has come full-circle from progressive to crazy homophobe and Pat Robertson is starting to sound like the Mahareesh.

It brings to mind that one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation when the Borg, or whatever, try to convince Captain Picard that 2 + 2 = 5 but Picard – whose mind is like a steel fucking trap – could not be convinced.

Two plus two equals four, Lierre Keith…


6 Responses to a syllogism–if pat robertson is a liberal, lierre keith is stupid

  1. owen1218 says:

    It’s nice to see the liberal crowd finally locating its true allies– the extreme right. Pat Robertson hasn’t said anything here beyond his usual bigotry: he’s only modified it a touch to make it more palatable for the 21st century. For him, men have “men brains” that make them the natural ruling class, and women have “women brains” that make them naturally submissive and dependent on men. The only tweak here is that now the dominating class can include biological females, and the submissive class can include biological males. So long as the class dynamics remain, what does it matter?

    Also, nice work calling a LESBIAN a homophobe. I can imagine your reaction to someone calling a gay man a homophobe, or a trans person a transphobe, but hating on women and hating on lesbians is always fair game for your sort, isn’t it?

      • i never knew lierre keith was a lesbian – if that is the case it seems even more bizarre that she’s so dogmatically anti-trans. i’ve been to a lot of fabulous parties on capitol hill (the one in Seattle, not the one in Washington DC) and never heard any trans-phobic rhetoric at any of them. seems like keith is a small minority even in the lgb(t?) community. i have never heard a lesbian or gay (or bi, or q) person ever show anything but solidarity with transgender people. i think that when the dust settles i will continue being invited to fabulous parties on capitol hill. i’m also reasonably sure that lierre keith will not be at any of them.

  2. Owen says:

    Then you haven’t been paying much attention. Lesbian feminists have been the most vocal of anyone in criticizing transgenderism and queer theory, cf. Sheila Jeffreys’ Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective. She writes, “Queer politics, which celebrates transsexualism, should be seen not just as unsympathetic to lesbianism, but as being in direct opposition to lesbian survival.”

    • you’re right! as a rule i don’t pay attention to books (especially books that try to create disunity in my wonderfully awesome group of friends). instead i pay attention to my community. my community extends to the places where i live. i spend my time in three places – in the barrio in yakima, washington – on capitol hill in seattle and (most of my time) on the streets in portland.

      when i go downtown in portland and catch my friend sydney i don’t see in my mind’s eye a book about transgender people, i see sydney. i don’t judge sydney based on a book i read about transgender people i judge sydney based on sydney.

      what possible good would it do me to make judgements on sydney based on some book? that’s not what i’m trying to do.

      sydney’s a girl, owen.

      books about queer politics are theory. they’re theory written not by medical doctors, not by psychologists but by political scientists. not the hard sciences but social science.

      sheila jeffreys is a political scientist not a medical doctor or a psychologist.

      lierre keith isn’t even a political scientist – for the life of me i don’t know what kind of degrees lierre keith has – i always thought she was a nutritionist…

      how does that qualify her to talk about medical science? lierre keith is hostile to the idea of medical science…

      i will continue to be nice to people in my community… that’s what this is all about… being nice to people… and being especially nice to the most vulnerable people in our communities – because they deserve that… because the world is mean and fucked up enough already… and i don’t know which bridge you sleep under, but down here we all need all the help and solidarity we can get.

      so take that shit somewhere else, owen…

  3. I have reawd ssome good stuff here. Definitely worth bookmarking for revisiting.

    I surprise how so much attempt you set to create the sort of
    fantastic informative website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: