As much as I hate modern trannydom, I almost hate their bizarre reaches more. it's just so absolutely frustratingly retarded.
Crossdressing (especially if it's for a purpose, like you point out), is not "transgenderism." And you don't even have to accept the premise of trannies; it's just clearly a completely different thing. There is no "gender identity" component to crossdressing to achieve a specific goal.
It would be like saying if someone impersonates a cop to commit a crime or something, that they're "trans cop," or "cop fluid" or something. No, they dressed as a specific thing to achieve a specific goal; they don't think they are that thing.
They think if they find a single stereotype or a single characteristic of the opposite gender, then it's 100% incontrovertible proof of the gay lady-boy dominion.
You saw a man holding flowers? He was giving it to a woman on Valentines day?
That's no man, it's a tranny. And the woman was a tranny until she received flowers because flowers are feminine.
Women cross dressing to get in the military is not the same as "Transgenderism"
This bizarre expansion of the term is lunacy. No Drag Queen or Cross Dresser is a Transgender. Zero of them. They are, by definition, men preforming a minstrel show of women, or frauds.
Let’s be honest. Women presenting as men — whether they were doing it to escape the stifling construct of feminine life, to stay close to husbands or brothers who went to war, or because they had what we today call gender dysphoria — have been serving in combat for centuries.
escape the stifling construct of feminine life
Doubtful. But we're already talking about an extremely small percentage of women, so oddities are more likely to be present among them.
to stay close to husbands or brothers who went to war
Was going to laugh at this, but it seems like most known female Civil War soldiers followed their husbands to war. Strange, but alright.
or because they had what we today call gender dysphoria
You might have had a lunatic in there (among the other lunatics), but considering these were all women up until they joined, and "men" up until they were kicked out...I'm going to go with no. Only one is mentioned to have kept up the ruse post-military; Jennie Irene Hodgers, or "Albert Cashier." It's claimed she was living as a man before the war, too, "to live independently" according to the wikipedia page. I don't know her thought process of course, but this is more likely the first category, "escaping feminine life," than some tranny nonsense.
But really why I wanted to call attention to this paragraph is...look at the glaring fucking omission from WaPo. It doesn't even occur to this fuck that the reason could have been...patriotism. They believed in the cause, and wanted to fight for it, and had to pretend to be men to do that. Not even a listed potential reason. Despite being one of the predominate reasons for being willing to go shoot at people and get shot at.
Option 4 the author missed (where 1 was rejecting femininity, 2 close to husband, etc...) It's late in the war and some woman lost her husband, brothers, and sons in battle. She has nothing to live for and is driven to avenge their deaths or follow suit. She disguises herself and enlists to fight. It's also the civil war so "F those Yankees/Southerners, they must pay"
I thought feminists were all about Female Empowerment Boss Babes (tm)? How could the author miss a much more plausible and compelling explanation?
But really why I wanted to call attention to this paragraph is...look at the glaring fucking omission from WaPo. It doesn't even occur to this fuck that the reason could have been...patriotism.
I think almost all of these "journalists" know they're making shit up.
Some of them do it because they're idiot lefties who are happy to draw absurd conclusions in order to prop up The Message.
Others are willing to say anything as long as they get paid to write, and they know this is what you're supposed to say when you work at WaPo.
I'd guess that the majority fall into the first category, but tbh I wouldn't be surprised if it were the other way around.
I wish it was more useful, but there is of course a massive selection bias; they all got discovered. So we can't read too much into their competence, but it is a funny list. Another thing that could be selection bias, or could just be how it was, is almost all known female soldiers were Union. A few standouts from the list:
Sarah Collins...was discovered to be female before her regiment left for the front.
Huh. Imagine going down in history for that.
Compton saw considerable action during the war, serving in seven different regiments, holding the record for the most reenlistments. While being treated for injuries after a riding incident, the doctor revealed her status as a woman, and she was discharged. In her eighteen months in the army...
Wait. Okay. Sure. Whatever.
Elizabeth A. Niles...She remained undetected, and mustered out in September 1864, with her husband.
One of the only ones on the list not caught.
Frances Elizabeth Quinn...She enlisted over five separate times throughout the war...Each time she was eventually discovered to be a woman and discharged from the military. In Alabama, she was captured by the Confederate Army and force-marched to Atlanta, where she was shot during an escape attempt.
Oof.
Laura J. Williams was a woman who disguised herself as a man and used the alias Lt. Henry Benford in order to raise and lead a company of Texas Confederates. She and the company participated in the Battle of Shiloh.
An actually interesting sounding story...and no corresponding wiki page.
Female union soldier captured during a Confederate cavalry raid..."In order that she might follow to the field her warlike lord, she had enlisted as a private soldier in the same company with him, and now claimed to be excepted from the rest of the prisoners as a privilege of her sex. It was decided, however, that this modern Jeanne d'Arc must share the fate of her comrades for the present, and further decision in the case was left to the Richmond authorities."
Haven't read it yet, but the counterpoint is that those women needed to dress up as men in order to become eligible for serving.
As much as I hate modern trannydom, I almost hate their bizarre reaches more. it's just so absolutely frustratingly retarded.
Crossdressing (especially if it's for a purpose, like you point out), is not "transgenderism." And you don't even have to accept the premise of trannies; it's just clearly a completely different thing. There is no "gender identity" component to crossdressing to achieve a specific goal.
It would be like saying if someone impersonates a cop to commit a crime or something, that they're "trans cop," or "cop fluid" or something. No, they dressed as a specific thing to achieve a specific goal; they don't think they are that thing.
They think if they find a single stereotype or a single characteristic of the opposite gender, then it's 100% incontrovertible proof of the gay lady-boy dominion.
You saw a man holding flowers? He was giving it to a woman on Valentines day?
That's no man, it's a tranny. And the woman was a tranny until she received flowers because flowers are feminine.
DELIVERING FLOWERS TO WOMEN IS INCEL TERRORISM
hence their hatred of traps a few years back. They cannot stand the idea of a person crossdressing for aesthetic and not delusion.
We both guessed correct.
Pretending to be a man to fight in a war doesn't make you a tranny.
They always have to twist info to (try to) get a win.
Exactly. They never claimed to be men
Women cross dressing to get in the military is not the same as "Transgenderism"
This bizarre expansion of the term is lunacy. No Drag Queen or Cross Dresser is a Transgender. Zero of them. They are, by definition, men preforming a minstrel show of women, or frauds.
Doubtful. But we're already talking about an extremely small percentage of women, so oddities are more likely to be present among them.
Was going to laugh at this, but it seems like most known female Civil War soldiers followed their husbands to war. Strange, but alright.
You might have had a lunatic in there (among the other lunatics), but considering these were all women up until they joined, and "men" up until they were kicked out...I'm going to go with no. Only one is mentioned to have kept up the ruse post-military; Jennie Irene Hodgers, or "Albert Cashier." It's claimed she was living as a man before the war, too, "to live independently" according to the wikipedia page. I don't know her thought process of course, but this is more likely the first category, "escaping feminine life," than some tranny nonsense.
But really why I wanted to call attention to this paragraph is...look at the glaring fucking omission from WaPo. It doesn't even occur to this fuck that the reason could have been...patriotism. They believed in the cause, and wanted to fight for it, and had to pretend to be men to do that. Not even a listed potential reason. Despite being one of the predominate reasons for being willing to go shoot at people and get shot at.
Option 4 the author missed (where 1 was rejecting femininity, 2 close to husband, etc...) It's late in the war and some woman lost her husband, brothers, and sons in battle. She has nothing to live for and is driven to avenge their deaths or follow suit. She disguises herself and enlists to fight. It's also the civil war so "F those Yankees/Southerners, they must pay"
I thought feminists were all about Female Empowerment Boss Babes (tm)? How could the author miss a much more plausible and compelling explanation?
I think almost all of these "journalists" know they're making shit up.
Some of them do it because they're idiot lefties who are happy to draw absurd conclusions in order to prop up The Message.
Others are willing to say anything as long as they get paid to write, and they know this is what you're supposed to say when you work at WaPo.
I'd guess that the majority fall into the first category, but tbh I wouldn't be surprised if it were the other way around.
I can't wait to hear their thoughts on Mulan...
I was curious. List of female American Civil War soldiers.
I wish it was more useful, but there is of course a massive selection bias; they all got discovered. So we can't read too much into their competence, but it is a funny list. Another thing that could be selection bias, or could just be how it was, is almost all known female soldiers were Union. A few standouts from the list:
Huh. Imagine going down in history for that.
Wait. Okay. Sure. Whatever.
One of the only ones on the list not caught.
Oof.
An actually interesting sounding story...and no corresponding wiki page.
LOL.
Seems pretty logical you wouldn’t want people with mental issues and and a high rate of suicide in the military.
Don't forget Mulan! Ftm tranny in ancient progressive Chyna!
I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find lying going on in the mainstream media!
What do you call 10,000 WaPo journalists at the bottom of the ocean?
An improvement?