In the movie they even say "he's not transexual" which makes me roll my eyes.
Hannibal Lector on diagnosing him says "he's not transexual, but he thinks he is"
Because they were being politically correct back then.
I'm like yeah, Mr lector.....that's the definition of 100% of all the "transexuals". They all think they are because it's a delusion.
But the movie framed it as though there's legitime ones and illegitimate ones because they didn't want the serial killer to "portray a negative stereotype mmmmkay".
No, they're all illegitimate and buffalo bill is no more or no less than any so called "real transexuals".
For an unapologetic cannibal genius, he sure makes the effort to toe the moronic politically correct line on "sensitive issues like the legitimacy of "trans-ness" in that movie.
What a progressive forward thinker that cannibal is.
EDIT: Interesting parallel with the modern day. So Chris Chan wanted to be "Christine Chandler" and as long as he was just a "lolcow" the Internet used his "preferred pronouns".
Then when he molested his mother, the Internet started debating if he was really trans. Reddit was tied up in knots on whether "misgendering" him was worse or the act he did was worse.
Many landed on "hes not a real transgender....he only did it to try to get a lesbian girl, so we'll call him Chris Chan because what he did makes "trans" look bad.
Interesting how before he did that to his mother he magically was one and you'd be banned if you "dead named him" to suddenly one act makes his legitimacy up for debate.
To this date when people talk about Chris Chan you will have some call him Chris but clarify that they support people's gender identities but Chris isn't a true transgender, and other camps that still call him Christine and she.
AI will even call Chris "Christine" when you explicitly say Chris Chan, so AI falls on the "respecting her identity" side of that schism whereas there was no schism with lefties until he did something that heinous that made them start sweating about which is optically worse.
Pretty close modern day analogue to the Buffalo Bill diagnosis from the film.
Legitimate if you don't make it look too bad, illegitimate if it makes it look bad
Can we get them to kill themselves faster by replying, “You’re not a real faggot,” to the faggiest fag who ever did pipe smoke? Use their one-upsmanship against them?
A lot of people get confused by the fact that Hannibal Lector is a fairly anti-woman, Marcus Aurelius quoting genius. He's not a conservative. He's a high society doctor who is a high functioning sociopath. He's a smarter Killary.
Fair point, but when you look it up, at least if AI is to be trusted, which it isn't, it says that the line was intentionally included by the filmmakers to "minimize harmful stereotypes".
You can ask Grok now "why in Silence of the Lambs does Hannibal say 'he's not a transsexual but he thinks he is', and unless it's only doing it for me, Grok cites the filmmakers wanting to avoid adding to "harmful stereotypes" at the time when they made the movie.
Well yes, because Hollyweird. But Lector is like this even in the books. Hell, his name is Lector, as in the person you hire to read to factory workers to teach them.
I thought I was the only one confused at "He's not a transsexual but he thinks he is." I thought maybe it was a burn like "there's no such thing as a tranny, just a freakishly ill homosexual" or there were some additional criteria that I had no desire in learning about. Never would have guessed it was a cater to the PC crowd.
This is the sort of thing that gives credence to the idea that media literacy is dead.
It wasn't a cater. Its a fucking plot point.
The point of Buffalo bill was that he didn't think he was a woman, he thought he should think he was a woman
A transsexual thinks they're a woman, but they are not. Buffalo Bill thinks he is a transsexuals. But he is not. He's a mental hypochondriac, that's HOW they catch him.
One of the things Hannibal Lector says to get Clarice to catch him is "what does he do....he covets....so how does he covet....by what he sees".
That sounds like "transgenderism" to me. They go out of their way to emulate these physical characteristics, even to the point of mutilating their bodies to achieve what they see.
Buffalo Bill mutilates others to emulate what he sees, that's the only difference.
If the motive for "trying to become a woman" defines if you're truly a "transsexual" or not, then the definition has no meaning. The motives for all "transsexuals" are messed up and all fall on a sliding scale of mental illness. There's no legitimate, non mentally ill area on that scale for "transgenderism".
When Buffalo Bill dances in front of the mirror with his penis tucked saying he'd "do himself" how is that any different from the countless fetish based motives with modern transgenderism?
I didn't make the rules here. The left says "if you idenitfy as a woman, you are one" and if Buffalo Bill were not a murderer, but were just a quirky guy posting photos of himself on Reddit 100% of leftist Redditors would "affirm" him and would say that he's stunning and brave.
The film makers playing pretzel knots with the script in order to justify why he's an exception and "no true scotsman" thing and people like me calling that out is not a lack of media literacy, it's a refusal to buy into their "when it's convenient determines the definition"
Im going to allow you're reading to fast and missed the distinction. I dont think you did, I think you're unable to parse it. But let's try again in the interest of good faith.
Buffalo Bill DOESNT want to be a woman. Thats almost the entire theme of the movie.
In the movie they even say "he's not transexual" which makes me roll my eyes.
Hannibal Lector on diagnosing him says "he's not transexual, but he thinks he is"
Because they were being politically correct back then.
I'm like yeah, Mr lector.....that's the definition of 100% of all the "transexuals". They all think they are because it's a delusion.
But the movie framed it as though there's legitime ones and illegitimate ones because they didn't want the serial killer to "portray a negative stereotype mmmmkay".
No, they're all illegitimate and buffalo bill is no more or no less than any so called "real transexuals".
For an unapologetic cannibal genius, he sure makes the effort to toe the moronic politically correct line on "sensitive issues like the legitimacy of "trans-ness" in that movie.
What a progressive forward thinker that cannibal is.
EDIT: Interesting parallel with the modern day. So Chris Chan wanted to be "Christine Chandler" and as long as he was just a "lolcow" the Internet used his "preferred pronouns".
Then when he molested his mother, the Internet started debating if he was really trans. Reddit was tied up in knots on whether "misgendering" him was worse or the act he did was worse.
Many landed on "hes not a real transgender....he only did it to try to get a lesbian girl, so we'll call him Chris Chan because what he did makes "trans" look bad.
Interesting how before he did that to his mother he magically was one and you'd be banned if you "dead named him" to suddenly one act makes his legitimacy up for debate.
To this date when people talk about Chris Chan you will have some call him Chris but clarify that they support people's gender identities but Chris isn't a true transgender, and other camps that still call him Christine and she.
AI will even call Chris "Christine" when you explicitly say Chris Chan, so AI falls on the "respecting her identity" side of that schism whereas there was no schism with lefties until he did something that heinous that made them start sweating about which is optically worse.
Pretty close modern day analogue to the Buffalo Bill diagnosis from the film.
Legitimate if you don't make it look too bad, illegitimate if it makes it look bad
"That wasn't real transgenderism."
If the outcome of a leftist ideology was bad, then the problem was in the execution.
Can we get them to kill themselves faster by replying, “You’re not a real faggot,” to the faggiest fag who ever did pipe smoke? Use their one-upsmanship against them?
No True Transman
"Real transgenderism has never been tried before!"
A lot of people get confused by the fact that Hannibal Lector is a fairly anti-woman, Marcus Aurelius quoting genius. He's not a conservative. He's a high society doctor who is a high functioning sociopath. He's a smarter Killary.
Fair point, but when you look it up, at least if AI is to be trusted, which it isn't, it says that the line was intentionally included by the filmmakers to "minimize harmful stereotypes".
You can ask Grok now "why in Silence of the Lambs does Hannibal say 'he's not a transsexual but he thinks he is', and unless it's only doing it for me, Grok cites the filmmakers wanting to avoid adding to "harmful stereotypes" at the time when they made the movie.
Well yes, because Hollyweird. But Lector is like this even in the books. Hell, his name is Lector, as in the person you hire to read to factory workers to teach them.
I thought I was the only one confused at "He's not a transsexual but he thinks he is." I thought maybe it was a burn like "there's no such thing as a tranny, just a freakishly ill homosexual" or there were some additional criteria that I had no desire in learning about. Never would have guessed it was a cater to the PC crowd.
This is the sort of thing that gives credence to the idea that media literacy is dead.
It wasn't a cater. Its a fucking plot point.
The point of Buffalo bill was that he didn't think he was a woman, he thought he should think he was a woman
A transsexual thinks they're a woman, but they are not. Buffalo Bill thinks he is a transsexuals. But he is not. He's a mental hypochondriac, that's HOW they catch him.
One of the things Hannibal Lector says to get Clarice to catch him is "what does he do....he covets....so how does he covet....by what he sees".
That sounds like "transgenderism" to me. They go out of their way to emulate these physical characteristics, even to the point of mutilating their bodies to achieve what they see.
Buffalo Bill mutilates others to emulate what he sees, that's the only difference.
If the motive for "trying to become a woman" defines if you're truly a "transsexual" or not, then the definition has no meaning. The motives for all "transsexuals" are messed up and all fall on a sliding scale of mental illness. There's no legitimate, non mentally ill area on that scale for "transgenderism".
When Buffalo Bill dances in front of the mirror with his penis tucked saying he'd "do himself" how is that any different from the countless fetish based motives with modern transgenderism?
I didn't make the rules here. The left says "if you idenitfy as a woman, you are one" and if Buffalo Bill were not a murderer, but were just a quirky guy posting photos of himself on Reddit 100% of leftist Redditors would "affirm" him and would say that he's stunning and brave.
The film makers playing pretzel knots with the script in order to justify why he's an exception and "no true scotsman" thing and people like me calling that out is not a lack of media literacy, it's a refusal to buy into their "when it's convenient determines the definition"
Im going to allow you're reading to fast and missed the distinction. I dont think you did, I think you're unable to parse it. But let's try again in the interest of good faith.
Buffalo Bill DOESNT want to be a woman. Thats almost the entire theme of the movie.
He WANTS to be a transexual.
Considering there's no such thing as a "transsexual" human, you've just described every tranny.