Where to start with this one? I suggest we start with the
positive, a transwoman who is self-reflexive enough to admit to autogynephilia,
is rarer than hen’s teeth. Generally, transwomen tend to be completely
superficial, and this is one of the issues that feminists take with them, all
surface, no depth. So kudos to Chu here.
However, this is virtually undone by what he writes next,
autogynephilia, he asserts, is the “basic structure of all human sexuality”.
Oh, come on! This is a classic case of projection, the pervert whose inner
belief and defence is that other people are as perverted as he is.
The assertion is wrong on at least two counts, first an
autogynephile is a narcissist. Narcissus gazes into the pool entranced, but the
person he sees gazing back at him is Narcissa, his imaginary projection as a
woman (the technical name for this is erotic-target identity inversion; I know,
it’s a bit of a mouthful). Narcissus languishes by the pool and eventually
dies. He is not productive, he does not socialise, he does not share, he does
not reproduce, rather he wastes away in self contemplation. Narcissus is a
moral, evolutionary, and physiological dead end. If autogynephilia were the
“basic structure of all human sexuality” none of us would be here, and humanity
would have become extinct a long time ago.
The second count is that autogynephilia is a perversion, a perversion is a "Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something." In order for a perversion to exist there must be an “original course”; a “straight and narrow” for every deviation. We cannot all be perverts and deviants, or queer, because then what is perverted, deviant and queer would be the norm, the original course. So, if autogynephilia were the “basic structure of all human sexuality”, all of us would be autogynephiles and Chu would not stick out like the sore, sad little thumb he is.
But that phrase is a work of genius compared to the incongruence of what follows: “The assimilation of any erotic image, is, by nature, female.” What under the high heavens is he burbling about here? Do we “vagina havers” hoover up erotic images as if we were some kind of supercharged sexual sponges? Are we all the bloody Borg? Why is the vast majority of porn consumed by men, then, what’s with that? Does Chu have any knowledge or experience of what being female actually entails? No, of course he doesn’t; he is a man an speaks like one, one who is completely lost.
This hysterical delirium continues… “To be female in every case [Wow! In every case…], is to become what someone else wants.” Verily, only a man, and only a man whose brain is half rotten with delusions of superiority and masculinity could say such a thing in the 21st century. Female is not becoming “what someone else [presumably male] wants”, tell that to hyenas, or lionesses, or wolves. This doesn’t apply to humans either, much as Chu would like it to. And only a transwoman, given that we are supposed to worship them as holy cows, even where they are dim and bovine, would be allowed to get away with saying it.
“At bottom [surely the definite article is missing here?], everyone is a sissy.” To which the natural riposte is “Speak for yourself, mate!”. Another variant of the “everyone is a pervert” of the first phrase and subject to the same objections, how can there be bottoms without tops or sissies without butches?
But he isn’t finished yet, oh no, now comes the veritable cherry on this prurient piss poor conceptual pile on… “The asshole is a universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed.” Excuse me, Chu, but only a cuntless prick could say that an arsehole is the same as a vagina. There are differences, you know. Here are several clues immediately available even to the slowest man. First, locative; “Cunts at the Front” (it rhymes, see? It might help you remember) … Arseholes at the back… Just in case you’ve gone a bit dizzy. Second, productive: Turds come out of arseholes, babies out of cunts, indeed, you yourself, Chu, came out of one. And third, sexual, and even more significant, ONLY REAL, NATAL WOMEN HAVE CUNTS, an arsehole being an entirely inadequate replacement. Women, lucky us, have both and arsehole and a cunt but you don’t; which is obviously why you’re a little confused on the issue. Simply put, then, your arsehole will not pass muster as a cunt, and you cannot access femaleness.
And there it is. Whatever name he cares to call himself, Chu is a man. He will never be a woman, he will never have a cunt or a vagina, he doesn’t know what it is to be a woman and he doesn’t actually think like one. He has confused the submissiveness that often passes for femininity, with womanhood, which encompasses the entire gamut of female adult behaviours and ways of being. He is a sad aberration who is attempting to assuage his drear reality by dragging the rest of us, but especially women, into his silly, insignificant, fantasy world, littered with rubbish and infantile ideas papered over with empty phrasing…
Chu, please, grow up, man up and get a fucking life.
