It’s a little weird that the National Review seems to have just now discovered the existence of “TERF”s, “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”.  Or maybe the weird thing is that in this article on current politics of trans-genderedness, when they swerve about and place the comments of some “self described radical feminists” who object to various fissures of the burgeoning matter, the common acronym isn’t used.

Three articles from The American Mercury, circa 1951, strike me as oddly fascinating.  Two articles lamenting the “new style” of literature — apparently a homosexual casting couch producing barely concealed homsexual literature which is marketed by the party-keeping gate-keepers of the literary scene .  (And here I always thought Gore Vidal considered 1946 the very brief literary scene renaissance.)  The next article proposed a “New Style” in humor — seen in the then in the infamacy television business — and quit laughing at the drag performances of Milton Bearle — you’re eating up Homosexual propaganda!  It’s about what you may suppose you’d see as a concern.  Then we get to an article matter of factedly pointing out after whatshername returned from a gender conversion surgery in France the existence of trans-sexuals in our midst — an oddly positive article, though of course with a suggestion of invisibility as they skip from one sex to another and skip towns to assume their new identities.
Naturally adding that the stake and issues very considerably, even as the milestones get shoved into a clear cut manichean whig/progressive bending “history”, but make of that what you will.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2019 at 5:23 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.