Blatant Lesbian and Female erasure by the LA Times

Money quote from the article " Though Murray did not identify as nonbinary or transgender, in an effort to recognize their gender journey — which rebuffed conventional, binary thinking of the time — activists and historians have encouraged use of gender neutral, or they/them, pronouns for Murray."

R1 they are literally saying that if you don't fit heteronormative gender stereotypes then your womanhood or manhood is invalid. What homophobic nonsense

R2 Amen, brother or sister!

They are for sure going to start referring to Joan of Arc as they/them, right?

This is what she has to say about gender when she was alive “Not only are race and sex entirely comparable classes, but there are no others like them. They are large, *permanent, unchangeable, natural* classes. No other kind of class is susceptible to implications of innate inferiority.” —Pauli Murray

R5 Hmmm, now SHE will be cancelled, won't she?

[quote] throughout her entire life she identified as a female, but now that she's dead the Times has "corrected" that. They use "they/them" pronouns although she never did.

This fits SO much of woke reporting.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute.

“History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

—From George Orwell’s “1984,”

God, I hate what they are going to do to Sylvester. You know they are going to erase him. And I mean HIM.

Sylvester would have rolled his eyes at this nonsense.

So if we assume gender on them, it’s literal violence. But they’re free to impose whatever made up bullshit they want on someone who is no longer here to speak for herself. Have I got that right?

Kindly allow the Reverend Miss Murray her well-deserved repose in peace.

It’s like the Mormons baptizing the dead.

Who are these “historians”? This is an appalling and offensive thing to do. Who will they regender next?

R1, this is MY money quote:

[quote]Moreover, Murray was the first person of color to receive a JSD from Yale Law; one of the first Black writers at the noted MacDowell Colony, alongside James Baldwin; and the first Black [bold]“woman"[/bold]Episcopal priest. They also helped found the National Organization for Women in 1966

What the actual fuck is this sorcery?

"Them" is NOT A GENDER!

It worked with Marsha. They'll do it again since they need heroes, that's the only way to make sure that the gays stupidly think that they owe them everything.

R11 great point.

Someone started a thread last week asking what cultural appropriation was.

Here it is. Another group stealing from gays and lesbians and rewriting history and narratives and claiming it as their own.

Is anyone else shocked they haven’t come after Sylvester? He was a drag queen, he dressed androgynous, he was one of the first openly out and proud singers who had success. I’m surprised they haven’t claimed him yet.

But to play devils advocate, homosexuality technically wasn’t labeled until the late 1800’s.

You could argue that social concepts like gay and straight and white and black are no different than non-binary.

Like we said in another thread, Julius Caesar was bisexual but the term and orientation didn’t exist until almost 1900 years after his death.

Maybe they have a point?

Not really R19.

Same-sex sex has been going on forever, even if there wasn't a name for it.

If someone has sex with men and women, their behaviour is bisexual no matter how they choose to "identify". You can be celibate but if you are only attracted to your own sex you're gay (or homosexual if you prefer).

This is why sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identify.

R20 I was just playing devils advocate. Homosexuality has been around forever even if there was not a name.

Cross dressing and androgyny don’t represent non-binary identity the same way a man fucking another man represents homosexuality.

at least this stuff is getting some pushback from liberals now. The ACLU just apologized for erasing gender out of a Ruth Bader Ginsberg quote on Twitter, I'm guessing the editors of the LA Times will at some point address this. Especially because the New York Times just did a similar profile using she/her pronouns at the request of her surviving family and based off of her self identification and writings when alive.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the LA Times for generating this. It sounds like it's a theory that was pushed by the filmmakers in the documentary that the Times has picked up on.

It's like- Well, we couldn't win an Oscar telling the story of a trailblazing woman, but we want to tell the story of another trailblazing woman... I know- let's make her non-binary. That's Oscar GOLD!

R23 not sure. multiple other publications wrote about the film and used she/her pronouns.

Hmmm... I won't swear to it, but reading the article made it sound like the Times was playing off a theory that the filmmakers were putting forth in the documentary. This is the first I've ever heard of the film, so I can't say for sure.

Whoever is responsible for this, they should be absolutely DRAGGED online. Named and shamed. I don’t care who it is—the filmmakers, the writer of the LAT piece, the editors there… Fucking destroy them. I’d even go so far as to say they should be dragged away from their office desks, out into the streets, and egged.

This is EVERY BIT as offensive as dead-naming someone and being posthumously baptized by Mormons.

R27 Honestly, I don't care about the Mormons baptizing dead people, since I categorically consider all Mormon baptisms invalid. Really no one would ever know about those baptisms, because they don't go around publicizing them and demanding that everyone now refer to them as a Mormon.

This is different because it is changing everything about how we view the person, and it completely erases a defining aspect of HER life.

The author of the piece in the LA Times appears to be a freelance author who's last big piece was titled "the meaty tuck" all about how trans women should not be afraid to show off their bulges in public and we should not question them or bring attention to it if we see it. And from all appearances his day job is Twitter. I think rather than having their usual film critics review the film they wanted to make sure it was a black queer person.

There are many women who dress and behave in a manner we call "masculine", who identify as cisgender women. That should be respected, just like we respect a trans or non-binary identity.

[quote] The author of the piece in the LA Times appears to be a freelance author who's last big piece was titled "the meaty tuck" all about how trans women should not be afraid to show off their bulges in public and we should not question them or bring attention to it if we see it. And from all appearances his day job is Twitter.

Is it too late to bring back the death penalty in California?

[quote]You could argue that social concepts like gay and straight and white and black are no different than non-binary.

And you would lose that argument.

The Trans are so angry, so full of contempt!

"" Though Murray did not identify as nonbinary or transgender, in an effort to recognize their gender journey — which rebuffed conventional, binary thinking of the time — activists and historians have encouraged use of gender neutral, or they/them, pronouns for Murray.""

Are they doing this to men? Are they doing this to straight men?

I don't mind if the English language changes to gender-neutral pronouns, in fact, that'd be great! But I'd be pissed if the press starts to consider it a norm for homosexuals and women who haven't chosen it, as if they aren't standard men or women, or worse, as if female was something to be ashamed of. There's a bit of that floating around in the undercurrents of the trans movement.

Give them time, r18. Give them time.

[quote] I don't mind if the English language changes to gender-neutral pronouns, in fact, that'd be great!

How and WHY would that ever happen, and why would it be great?

(Spoiler alert: it won’t happen)

r15 Yeah, why not. That Marsha thing has been a total success! Without opposition from the mainstream. Already in 2020 I read multiple article by some 'art historians' and others on mainstream French media (Liberation - leftwing but still - featured several) claiming that Jeanne d'Arc was a FTM tranny.

[quote]" Though Murray did not identify as nonbinary or transgender, in an effort to recognize their gender journey —"

Murray was BORN a woman and DIED a woman, she didn't fucking have any "gender journey"!

The crass chutzpah of these tranny revisionists!

I belonged to NOW in 1970. We referred to ourselves as Trans Exclusionary radical feminists. In others word TERFS. The National Org for women has gone completely trans. Gloria Steinman got a lot of shit from them and backed down from fighting it. She is Old and when she dies they will change her too. It's disgusting. I also hate when they refer to women as Cis. Who the hell do they think they are. I think at some point there will be a huge backlash as the trans cult gets more and more crazy and people will get really sick of their shit.

Yup, once and for all, there is NO SUCH THING AS A "CIS" WOMAN!

Gender roles are very limiting. I don't blame people for wanting to be non-binary. It really is just as reaction to overly strict gender roles which only got even worse due to heavy marketing and media influence. Parents became too concerned over whether their child would grow up to be gay too. So too many of them bullied their kids into liking stereotypical boy or girl things, dressing in certain colors, playing with certain toys, etc. Non-binary is not that ridiculous when you consider how ridiculous some parenting and communities are in regards to what little kids and teens can like or behave as. I do feel we're going backwards with these labels and treating gender as akin to personality traits and hobbies.

I'm not a fan of historic revisionism. We don't know what everyone in the past who were gender nonconforming truly identified as especially if they're not here to defend themselves. It's also important to take in consideration what their friends and family said as well.

In the 50's - 70's girls were allowed to be tomboys raising eyebrows but boys were not allowed to be feminine at all. Your right R42, It has gotten much worse.

^^^ without raising eyebrows.

[quote] Gender roles are very limiting. I don't blame people for wanting to be non-binary. It really is just as reaction to overly strict gender roles which only got even worse due to heavy marketing and media influence.

Literally EVERYONE is non-binary. How the hell would anyone ascertain who’s all the way to the left or right on the gender “spectrum”? If you’re not all the way to the left (hyper masculine, Arnold in ‘Commando’, etc.), then you’re a non-binary guy. No? And if everyone is non-binary —and everyone is, because we’re human beings and not cartoons— then NO ONE is non-binary.

Don’t people stop to realize how pointless, regressive, and conservative the concept of ‘non-binary’ is!? It’s ALL. SO. FUCKING. STUPID.

To put a finer point on it:

Anyone who claims to be non-binary, or purports to recognize non-binary as some kind of special identity that deserves to be recognized and respected—anyone like that needs to be hit in the face with a fucking pie.

R45 I understand. I think what we just need to stop stereotyping hobbies, interests, colors and clothings as "for girls" and "for boys" in general. If people were not expected to conform to such strict gender expectations then there would be no need for non-binary to exist. A lot of that micromanaged gendered upbringing seems to lead back to misogyny and gay panic. Like little girls could be tomboys (but of course not too butch) but little boys could never play with dolls, cry too much, be affectionate or like pink and dressing up. The media and consumerism definitely plays a part in this as well. Look at something like Barbie, Disney or GI Joe with its regressive gender stereotyping. Easy Bake ovens and BB guns. Or how things like Boy Scouts and Girl Scout still exist despite there not being much physical differences between prepubescent children. People just need to relax and let kids be kids.

Again back on topic, we need to also stop applying modern terminology on historical figures. Especially since we don't even have evidence Pauli was a transman or non-binary. We just know she was gender nonconforming which is not that uncommon among lesbians to begin with.

I was under the impression that we in western society had made tremendous strides when it came to gender conformity. Anyone could be whatever or however they wanted, and it didn’t matter—except to maybe the most old fashioned and conservative assholes. That was one of the main tenets/goals of second wave feminism, wasn’t it? Women could be tomboys, no big deal. Guys could be studios or not macho, and it didn’t mean they were lesser men.

Now we’re regressing back to the early/mid-20th Century mentality, where if you don’t conform to the most rigid, outdated gender stereotypes, you’re either trans or non-binary. FUCK THAT!

[quote] Guys could be studios

STUDIOUS

You are absolutely correct, R48. We really were starting to move past rigid gender stereotypes. We were doing it slowly, but we were making progress. People like David Bowie, Sylvester, Marilyn, Boy George, Grace Jones, and Annie Lennox helped push androgyny forward, and helped break the rigid roles for boys and girls.

Marketing of course still insisted on pink for girls, and blue for boys, and all that regressive shit, but there was a lot of forward movement to allow girls in sports, and less of a stigma for boys behaving in a "feminine" manner.

That has reversed, and the trans and non-binary movements are incredibly regressive when it comes to gender roles. For all of their talk about freedom and fluidity they hold firmly to gender stereotypes, and insist that anyone that doesn't conform to those stereotypes is fluid, or non-binary, or trans. Androgyny is a dirty word.

Rather than continue the fight to discard outdated gender stereotypes, which is what we should be doing, we are kowtowing to a group that enforces those stereotypes, encourages hormone therapy and surgery for those who don't fit them, and "cancels" and doxes those who push back against it.

Misgendering someone, even accidentally is an open act of hostility, and a threat to their existence. You are not to assume their gender, to dead name or misgender them, or use the wrong pronouns is violence, it may trigger them and cause them to commit suicide. They, however, are free to assume your gender, label you cis, and now change the pronouns of the dead to suit their agenda.

This act by the LA Times is akin to declaring Harriet Tubman was white, or that Susan B Anthony was black.

R50, please type that out and submit it to the LA Times! Perfectly stated!

I'm getting old, and I've lived the life of a non-binary person, just without bothering anyone about pronouns. I don't identify as a man or a woman, because society's traditional ideas about what men and women should be are silly!I rejected those ideas when I was young, and went on being as masculine or feminine for my adult life, and honestly that's the easiest way to chuck gender assumptions out the window.

So I'd be all for the non-binary movement if they weren't so fixated on pronouns and grammar. Yes, they're right to discard gender-based expectations, but they're doing so in ways that are a bit silly. Like trying to come up with an easily identifiable non-binary look... don't look like a non-binary, kids, look like YOU! And the thing about pronouns is irritating and controlling, and claiming to be a discriminated-against group is eye-rolling. Being non-binary, that is neither all masculine or all feminine is NORMAL! Most people are a mix of masculine and feminine qualities, something society has forgotten so thoroughly that the non-binary kids don't have a clue.

Still, I'll encourage all the "trans" kids in the world to go non-binary rather than to medically transition. Going non-binary does no physical harm, medical transition can and does.

OP is just looking for something to be outraged about.

Pronouns aren't hurting anyone. You accuse trans people of being easily offended while getting your panties in a bunch over this shit

Fuck off, conservatives and TERFs

Are you male or female, R52?

Now, we have two dead women of merit who have had history or actual quotes rewritten to frame this current lunacy? I just can't today.

My coloncunt stinks!

r54: r52 sounds female.......

After reading a New York Times story about Puali Murray, it appears that she did have gender dysphoria and wanted to investigate getting a sex change, but was unable to at the time. The New York Times, unlike the L.A. Times, chose to use she/her pronouns because Pauli Murray always used feminine pronouns and did not identify as non-binary, and because her surviving family wishes she be referred to as she/her.

Orwell’s Newspeak is now a reality at the Washington Post:

R58 Thanks, I found that too after doing more research. Of course, the LAT writer did not even include that context and thinks it’s completely fine to misgender her simply because she was androgynous.

The guy who tweeted at r59's link has blocked anybody who criticized him or the post and made his Twitter handle protected. But here's an article:

The Tweet at R59 has been deleted.

“Pregnant people” is “more inclusive”… yeah, can’t leave out the 0.000000001% of the population: the pregnant transmen. Imagine the hell that would rain down on any corporation that didn’t pay lip service to that sizable and very powerful demographic.

Google the author if this article. It’s a they/them and looks like a tranny.

*of

.

They are fighting over her Wikipedia page about whether she was discriminated against based on her gender or sex. Jesus Christ.

R53 = misogynist scum.

R61, don’t post Daily Caller shit here unless you want to be banned.

Yep the person who wrote the review (who is NOT an employee of the LA Times any longer) is a transgender and has his agenda of transing lesbians and gays.

I say let's make this venting constructive. Write to the LA Times Editor in Chief (mail or email) and tell him/her what you think.

This thread already contains arguments that can be used, or come up with your own.

What a shock, R68.

The troon cult has no history or culture of their own. So to remedy this they appropriate from women, heterosexual or gay, and gay men.

R67, I linked it from MSN, didn’t see the original source. Which shouldn’t matter if the story is accurate.

Transgender ideology is rooted in homophobia and misogyny

[quote] Transgender ideology is rooted in homophobia and misogyny

And in very old-fashioned, conservative, sexist notions about how men and women are supposed to appear and behave.

"Now, we have two dead women of merit who have had history or actual quotes rewritten to frame this current lunacy?"

Well, if they actually accomplished something other than having a "makeup tutorials" Youtube channel, they couldn't have POSSIBLY been women!

It's interesting how cancel culture and PC was originally conservative Republicans but lately many liberals and Democrats have taken it. It was conservatives who hated things like George Carlin's standup, South Park, pornography and MTV. Now many liberals are becoming intolerant of differing viewpoints and are overpolicing free speech. Obviously inciting violence and saying offensive slurs isn't okay at all. But it's scary how any type of discussion regarding transgenderism and gender roles in general have become too risky and people get labeled "transphobic" for any reason. It's not dissimilar to how discussing race can be challenging. But we need to have open discussions in order to make any progress. I think people actually don't mind people who identify as non-binary. Hell, many people don't find they themselves fit into a lot of gender stereotypes but are comfortable with being a man or a woman. It's the pronoun policing that is annoying people. It's a bit too much to expect people to know your pronouns. Also it doesn't help many nonbinary look like their assigned gender right down to their voice. Most I know are female and still identify with femininity. Some even call themselves lesbians. So it throws people off. People who are actually transgender and worked hard to present as the gender they identify probably find it irritating. It kind of trivializes real transgender identity by making it seem gender is a feeling or personality rather than having biological components. Studies showed trans women have the similar brain wiring as women and vice versa for trans men.

I mind people calling themselves non-binary because it’s vaguely insulting (but mostly just STUPID) to everyone who doesn’t identify as non-binary.

R77 People have the freedom to call themselves what they want. You can choose to accept it, to play along, ignore it or antagonize. Most would play along or ignore it because most people avoid conflict. Rarely people who bitch on the internet express their opinions in person. Anonymity is beautiful for that reason.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]