Comments

Nip and Tuck — 15 Comments

  1. … welp, one arrest for aggravated assault coming right up. Unless the ‘bathroom law’ hasn’t come in for whatever state this is set in, which would mean that our crossdresser would know it’s *illegal* to walk in there, and thus not be insisting on his right to do so.

    Given that he did, one would imagine that it’s actually legal for him to go in there, so grabbing someone by the testicles with a metal implement *will* result in 1) arrest, 2) charges being laid.

    See, this is where I have a problem with the other side of the matter. This strip (and the one before) is a particularly biased strawman where the offending character is basically a bloke in a dress. Did you know they use electrolysis to get rid of facial hair? Take care to *actually look feminine*? No? Good thing it wasn’t a masculine looking woman – there’s some pretty delicate flesh down there that those pliers could do serious damage to, and holy CRAP would there be trouble in the camp then.

    Gender dysphoria is a thing. This particular strip … does not address the situation well.

    Sorry, but that’s the way I see things.

    • It is tragic, belonging to the humor impaired. Do get help.
      Yes, gender dysphoria exists… our complaint is that it’s not being treated like a mental illness but as a ticket to privilege. You don’t give a man who insists he’s Napoleon a goofy hat, a squad of french riflemen and a train ticket to Waterloo; you shouldn’t be giving a man who insists he’s a woman a dress, a free pass to the little girl’s room and an appointment with Dr. Weeniewhacker. And you sure as hell don’t demand that everyone else chuck sanity out the window and play along with either one to avoid hurting their feelings. That people like you exist who thinks he has a LEGAL RIGHT to such things simply because he wants them puts all of it beyond the realm of farce.

      And yes, he has five o’clock shadow. Because if he hadn’t some OTHER inobservant, humor-deficient type would have come along squalling about Otto “violating that poor ugly woman” and “assuming she’s a male just because she’s unattractive.” And yes, violence– because, in case you didn’t notice, it’s a COMIC STRIP featuring talking animals, redneck humor and hardcore comedic violence. Playing stupid just to be annoying seems to be a hobby with the self-anointed left-wing Defenders of the Faith.

      • He’s not demanding a legal right to use the wrong restroom, though. He’s pointing out, and rightly so, that this is an aggressive strawman done for nothing more than making a point. What happened to you, man? Your comics used to be entertaining, but now all you can seem to do is post overpoliticized “humor” that’s about as funny as Amy Schumer.

  2. I’ve been meaning to ask these questions of somebody that holds this view, and it seems like something you care about, so-

    1) What about the 1.7% of people that are inconclusively gendered at birth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex Where are they supposed to pee?

    2) If somebody looks like a man but goes into the woman’s stall (because they’re trying to follow your rules for transgender bathrooms), you’re in the exact same situation your comic just lampooned where they’re going to get beat up for trying to pee. How would you expect this to work?

    3) I’d be more creeped out with having MtF transgender individuals in the bathroom with me than I would be having FtM transgender individuals in the bathroom with me. How is this better?

    4) How would this be enforceable? I don’t want the government to be tracking people’s genitals and recording which bathroom people go into.

    I will admit I favor the other side of the argument from a political standpoint anyway, but I’m honestly curious if there are answers to these questions.

    • 1. Hypothetical back at you: We have speed limits on the road…. But what about someone driving a pregnant woman to the hospital? Does that make speed limits “unfair”? You don’t base your morals, ethics, or policies on rare exceptions or around people out on the far end of the bell curve. And trying to lump in people with an actual biological or genetic deformity with those who willfully misgender themselves is a morally repulsive attempt at equivocation.
      2 and 4: If you didn’t have transexuals or transvestites trying to pose as the opposite gender and making a big political fuss trying to get into the wrong restroom, you wouldn’t have the problem in the first place. Did the government “track people’s genitals” BEFORE the mass misgendered crusades began? No, because people are generally law-abiding, and are (by law) assumed to be in compliance with the law until demonstrated otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt (a woman walking into the ladies’ room and seeing one of the other “ladies” in there whip out their willy would constitute sufficient proof, I would think.) That is how law is SUPPOSED to be exercised— enforced when someone is demonstrably breaking it. The reason there is any problem at all now is that the misgendered movement has demonstrated a willful desire to violate social mores and break the law as a public gesture of defiance. Either way, the Law is not enforced preemptively; people are assumed to be obeying the law unless witnessed to be doing otherwise. We wouldn’t need a border wall or border guards half as badly if we had a State that promptly deported illegals the moment they were caught; We don’t need guards at the restroom doors, if we had officers willing– and permitted– to go in and roust them out when caught in the act.

      What is being skirted around is that this is a side issue. The bigger, real issue is that transexualism, transgenderism, tran-whateverism should not be validated or enabled in our society in the first place, any more than we would tolerate any other exhibitionistic deviancy. A moral, sane, and healthy society treats such dysfunctions as what they are– a DYSFUNCTION– and demands that such things be treated or at the least restricted from the public square. A moral, healthy society does not tolerate such things, and it does not embrace them and it CERTAINLY does not pander to them.

      The fact that the debate has reached the point where we are now arguing whether your wives or daughters should be unknowingly sharing a restroom with an emotionally disturbed, possibly self-mutilated man in a dress is only a marker for how far we have been walked back from where the line in the sand should have been drawn.

      • In regards to your bolded part all that was once said, and in some places still is said, about homosexuals. Would you say the same thing? If yes, why? If not, why (especially why homo is ok but trans is not)?

        To me a moral, healthy society DOES NOT exclude anyone because of dysfunctions (any dysfunction) but rather helps them to the best ability society currently has to fit in and be as much a functional member of society as they can be. But out of curiosity, why should we shun these types of “emotionally disturbed” people compared to all the other emotionally disturbed people that they may share a public restroom with without knowing about their condition? What makes these people so bloody dangerous that we must shun them at every opportunity?

        Equating trans with exhibitionism is just bad since the real ones are not doing it to draw attention but rather because they feel something is wrong with them. They just want to live in what they feel is a normal body. If our technological and medical level deems that transitioning them is the “best” all-around treatment then so be it.

        • 1)The immoral does not become moral simply because it wins a popularity contest. Homosexuality is still wrong and still a sin.
          2)You’re not helping them by enabling them.
          3)So you don’t like trans with exhibitionism. Or are you just evading the point? The point is not the exhibitionism, the point is the open flaunting of morals and standards.
          4)I know a man who thinks his “real” body is a dragon. I know of a woman who thinks that her “natural” state is to be blind, and who poured bleach into her own eyes to achieve it. I MET a man who is having himself cosmetically altered a step at a time to become more and more like his “real inner self”– a tiger, complete with tattooed stripes, teeth deformed into fangs, a cleft lip, implants under his forehead and cheekbones, and piercings through his cheeks that double as “whiskers.”
          I also know that those who get their body surgically altered to treat their gender dysphoria FAIL. All claims aside they still wallow in depression, anxiety and misery, and commit suicide at a frightening rate— usually after admitting their self-mutilation was a mistake. And countless psychiatrists and doctors are coming forward, condemning this practice as a horrible failure and the WORST thing to do for these people… and being ignored.

  3. A transsexual who’s gone all the way through the process isn’t going into a restroom to perv on the other inhabitants (in fact, it’s more likely to happen in a MALE restroom, given the existence of the amazing invention, the TOILET DOOR, whereas male toilets have urinals where anyone can see your dangly bits). Nope, they’re going in there to urinate or defecate, whichever they need to do.

    And of course, let’s not forget what happens to MtF transgender people when they hit prison. I’ll give you a hint: if the prison system decides that ‘he’ is legally a man, and puts him into a male-only prison … welp, you can imagine what happens next. A LOT. More than once, this has resulted in the death of the person involved.

    Also, ‘possibly self-mutilated man in a dress’? Showing your prejudices much? Seriously. It’s a delicate surgical procedure that costs thousands of dollars. NOBODY does it to themselves.

    Call yourself a Christian? Might want to show some of that Christian charity.

    • His reasons for going in are irrelevant, he’s not to go through that door in the first place.

      And you say that terrible things happen to sexually mutilated men in prison? Imagine that. Perhaps they shouldn’t try to solve their sexual/emotional issues by mutilating themselves in the first place.

    • Your second point is so hilariously stupid I can hardly stop laughing. You go to prison you get to play “don’t drop the soap” no matter what your real or imagined gender is. That’s how it always will be and the solution for that is to stay OUT of prison, which is amazingly easy if you use your head for something besides a hat rack.

  4. If you’re going to argue, kindly do it in good faith.

    1) They aren’t ‘self-mutilating’, any more than someone getting tattoos, or correcting a birth defect is self-mutilating. They are getting a surgical procedure. Also, I know of several FtM trans who are quite happy in their new bodies. Cites for your examples please?

    2) Christian charity, nil. So noted.

  5. They aren’t “correcting” anything, they are maiming themselves to try and live out a delusion. And don’t speak of arguing in good faith if you’re going to try and equivocate between getting a tattoo and having your genitals mangled, professionally or otherwise.
    And especially don’t try to whinge about “christian charity.” You don’t want Christian charity, you want the nearest Christian at any given moment to pat you on the head, give you a lolly and tell you “what a good boy you are!” regardless of what you’re doing.

Leave a Reply