Radphlegm Thugs

Redundant?

Of course.

Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. Simply put, we’re “stealth”. We’re confident that you realize this piece of correspondence is not meant in anyway to be interpreted as part of dialogue.

    Take this as the “fuck you” it is intended to be.

    Sincerely
    Women For Academic Freedom

    J.K.-NY
    B.N.S.-NY
    L.L.-NJ
    C.M.-NH
    M.S.-IN
    N.S.-OH
    A.E.-OH

    I’ve gotta wonder; will these freedom fighters (I wonder, are these like “The Magnificent Seven” or are they samurai type academics?) be wearing white hoods as they deliver this “analysis” of “a dangerous movement that feigns legitimacy in postmodern pseudoscience and meaningless jargon” – based in part on “Michael Bailey’s The Man That Would Be Queen and Dr. Anne Lawrence’s notions on transgender narcissistic rage”?

    (Students all have their iPhones and suchlike these days… just a suggestion for these gals to take under consideration, since they’re into “stealth”.)

    Hm. It’s gonna be problematic procuring copies of The Man That Would Be Queen, maybe these “academic women” should try pre-ordering copies of The Man WHO Would Be Queen instead?

    Likewise, maybe they should be looking for Jeffreys’ book to be published by the Routledge Press rather than the “Rutledge Press”?

    As for “Dr. Anne Lawrence’s notions on … narcissistic rage”

    (excuse me, all that’s netting in response is a LOLspasm)

    OK, I’m recovering. Examining Dr. Lawrence’s text in “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism”, we see seven instances of the qualifier may be, clearly indicative of the wondrous flexibility of the hard science (LOL!) of clinical psychology as applied to the broad class of nonhomosexual persons, as defined in Ray Blanchard’s Two-Type Theory of Transsexualism? †

    MAY BE, MAY BE NOT

    “Science is HARD!” – BARB

    It will not go over students’ heads that certain forms of contemporary thought push toward Orwellian conformity…

    Well, yeah, I’d say that’s probably going to be the case.

    Sincerely,
    Bonze Anne Rose Blayk

    † Who may be attracted only to women, to both women and men, or indeed entirely asexual. Well, Ray fits them all into the nonhomosexual box with some rather weak statistical associations from his research; I concede that that’s his privilege as a theorist… this is not exactly the most powerful theory I’ve ever seen, though I find it “kind of interesting”, especially inasmuch as I have some women friends who are blatantly “autogynephilic”?

    Alas, Ray failed in the opportunity to broaden his clinical scope and include regular natal women in his studies on “autogynephilia”… that would have been… interesting (though I imagine these “academic women” would have found the results HORRIFYING).


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

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