The Opioid Epidemic and Purdue Pharma Lawsuit

When Purdue Pharma suffered a major lawsuit recently over their handling of OxyContin, I laughed at them in schadenfreude.

I knew it was a complex issue, and I didn’t know exactly how to feel about it at first.

I have recently changed some of my opinions.

.  .  .  .

As a recap: Purdue Pharma got sued because they misrepresented the addictive potential of their products, and this is being widely blamed for creating the heroin epidemic we see today.

Now, there is a little bit of truth to this. If you look at the bigger picture, things do seem a little fishy.

Through the 90s, doctors began prescribing ridiculously high doses of powerful narcotics (OxyContin 80mg pills being the most notable) and giving out opioids like candy.

Earlier in the 1970s, the manufacturers of these opioid narcotics also heavily lobbied against Ibogaine, and the governments of many nations went along with it. The United States had a similar problem with heroin addiction after going into Vietnam. The Nixon administration found that Ibogaine was amazingly effective at actually getting addicts clean, so they placed Ibogaine into Schedule I and began the methadone program.

Shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, our streets were suddenly once again flooded with cheap heroin. It was only years later that confirmed reports began circulating in the media about how we were subsidizing opium farmers there.


This coincided with a major wave of good family-supporting union jobs throughout the midwest and other areas being sold to Mexico, and shortly thereafter, China.

No one really noticed at first, because who gives a fuck about the midwest and the backbone of our manufacturing infrastructure? The coasts were still fine, for a while.

2007 saw the collapse of our economy and subsequent bailout. Banks and insurance companies took the money and ran, and when they came up bankrupt the government decided to take it out on the taxpayers so that we could still have a society. Homeowners defaulted on loans they could never realistically afford.

People who went to college defaulted on their student loan debt that they could never realistically afford.

Without jobs, without money, and surrounded by cheap heroin, it’s no surprise to me what happened next…

.  .  .  .

 It makes for a grand conspiracy: Ban the cure for opioid addiction, wantonly write prescriptions to anyone and everyone for addictive narcotics, sink the economy, take everyone’s money and property, flood the streets with cheap heroin and market a solution to heroin addiction where you just stay on other opioids for the rest of your life….

The for-profit prison system loved it, because of all the people being incarcerated.

The CIA loved it, because of all the illegal heroin revenue they were getting.
Big Pharma loved it, because they profited off both the getting people addicted in the first place and then later “treating” these addicts by making them regular lifelong customers.

.  .  .  .

But why do we place so much blame on Purdue Pharma?

They just make the shit, it’s not their responsibility how people use it, or to estimate the dangers of it.

The FDA approved these OxyContin pills. Seems to me that maybe the Food and Drug Administration should have been studying them to assess the risk they may have on the public.

Why is no one blaming the FDA???

Doctors are the ones who were prescribing the pills. Why is no one blaming the doctors?

People are the ones taking the pills. You don’t have to do everything your doctor suggests. You can ask for a 2nd opinion. You can do research on your own.

And I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy the whole “I didn’t know it would be a problem” thing. If you didn’t think staying high as a motherfucking kite on addictive drugs every day for years wasn’t going to be a problem, there is something wrong with your basic education.

And I know, I know.. not everyone had internet in the 90s.

There were still libraries.

William S Burroughs wrote in the 50s already that it doesn’t matter which opioid you use or by which route you take it: Needle or pill, heroin or hydrocodone, regular usage of high doses will cause withdrawal symptoms.
Even if you’re fucking illiterate, idk, go ask the old toothless hillbilly who lives in the junkyard and makes moonshine in a secret location outside of town what a lifetime of drinking codeine cough syrup is all about.

It’s not like people didn’t know.

Oxycodone was first invented in 1917…

 .  .  .  .

 Purdue Pharma does deserve a little blame for their role in all this, but certainly not as much as they’ve been getting.

They are being used as a scapegoat right now for all the other players involved to abscond from their guilt.Patients with chronic pain are being denied treatment and it is getting ugly.
I would like to see figures, if this could be quantified somehow, but I believe the zero-tolerance negative lashback against ever prescribing opioids to anyone is causing just as much harm to society today as the over-prescribing of them has caused in the past.

The kicker is that all of this is so easily preventable.

If you want to blame Purdue Pharma for anything, blame them for aggressively lobbying to keep Ibogaine illegal. Blame them for lobbying to keep Ayahuasca and Cannabis illegal as well.

Some patients can effectively treat their pain with Cannabis and never need to be on opioids at all.

Many Ibogaine clinics have begun using Ayahuasca for their less severe patients and having great success with it.

It is unfortunate that Ibogaine is still illegal in the U.S., but at the same time I would ask “if you’re willing to break the law and risk your life buying heroin to get high or maintain your addiction and keep from getting sick, why would you not be willing to break the law and risk your life in order to end your addiction?”

  .  .  .  .

 Read up on “Rat Park Revisited”.

A big part of the anti-Purdue sentiment comes from the fact that they based their propaganda off a single flawed study where a bunch of cancer patients who were using high doses of opioids beat their cancer and many of them got clean and had no problems with addiction.

Okay, well, a big part of our entire paradigm of how addiction works is also based on a single flawed study where they got rats addicted to hard drugs and found these rats were so addicted they kept self-administering drugs in preference of food, not even caring about being shocked by electricity.
In this study, they kept the addicted rats in isolation in cages with nothing to do.
Put any social mammal in a situation of boredom and isolation and they will do fucked up things.

“Rat Park Revisited” decided to repeat the study, except these rats were with their families and friends, in an environment where they had tons of fun stuff to play with and do whatever it is rats like to do.
They took some rats out of that environment, got them addicted to a bunch of hard drugs, and then put the rats back into the park with their friends and families.

An overwhelming majority of the rats immediately lost all interest in the hard drugs and went back to happily doing rat things.

 .  .  .  .

 Humans are the same. If someone’s life sucks and you give them a bunch of addictive drugs, yeah, they’re probably going to keep seeking the addictive drugs.

A happy, healthy person who has all their needs met – not only financially but socially and emotionally as well – has a very small chance of winding up with an addiction they can’t shake.

Big Pharma does not deserve the amount of blame they’ve been getting over this.
They are a minor player.

If you need someone to blame for the heroin epidemic, blame the bankers and stock brokers who sunk our economy.

Blame the politicians – from both parties – who wrote and signed NAFTA. Be weary of the TPP and vote out any politician who supports it.

If you don’t like your representative, fire them.

Blame the politicians who invaded Afghanistan.

Blame the CIA for making deals with opium farmers in Afghanistan and Cartels in Mexico.

Do blame Big Pharma for lobbying against Ibogaine, and blame the politicians who went along with it.

These are the reasons we have a heroin epidemic. The notions that responsible use of opioid therapy for patients who live in a free country with a strong economy is what is causing the heroin epidemic is preposterous as all the other “gateway drug” theories.

Prohibition is once again hurting more than it is helping.

We are better than this America!

“Compassionate Coercion”

Today I learned that on top of making LSD not work, another effect of Prozac is that it blocks the body’s ability to convert codeine into morphine.

That sort of amps up and tips the balance on my conspiracy theory with anti-depressants.

Prozac and other SSRIs tend to worsen depression as often as they help.

So you have this drug, that they give out like candy, that increases suicidal ideation and completion, makes LSD not work, and makes it incredibly difficult to reach sexual climax (thus causing many people to give up on or lose interest in sex altogether, and makes it quite difficult for half the population to reproduce at all).

Eugenics anyone? They can’t out outright burn the degenerates in death camps, but apparently it’s just fine to cut them out of the gene pool and try to get them to kill themselves.

But now I’m just thinking of the “compassionate coercion” program. Back in the days immediately following the Patriot Act, our lovely Attorney General at the time, confirmed werewolf and also first person to ever lose a senate election to a dead guy, John Ashcroft, announced a number of scary new ways to wage war on inanimate objects.

“Using drugs to help fight the Drug War” was one of the bigger taglines being thrown around.

Drugs that reverse or block the effects of illegal drugs was a hot topic in pharmacology back then. If you could patent something that prevents a person from being able to get high, then they can do illegal drugs all they want. Eventually they’ll probably give up when they realize it’s not doing anything.

The general public was not at all okay with being forced to take pills for an issue that didn’t even apply to them, but that’s where “compassionate coercion” comes into play. It was suggested that the moment anyone smoked the pots or shot a heroin, they could be declared mentally ill, meaning they have no say over what the government does to their body. Thus doctors would have the legal right to force them to take drugs that would make other drugs not work.  Y’know, “for their own good”.

I don’t think any of that ever passed, but now I’m wondering how long the idea has been floating around up their among top government officials.

This drug Prozac seems to make a whole lot of shit not work.

It’s obviously both, but now I’m really thinking about how much of the Prozac thing is eugenics and how much of it is not wanting the population to be able to get high.

All overt attempts to do the latter have failed miserably. We simply don’t know enough about neurotransmitters to just outright blanket-ban everything that works at a certain receptor site. In every case, the thing that a drug is doing ends up being inherently tied in with other things that are necessarily for like, living, and stuff.

Eight different states so far, in their undying quest to eradicate the evil devil’s weed, accidentally banned Tylenol for a few days before people realized “oh.. fuck lololol we can’t do that!”

You can’t separate the two. Those neurotransmitters and receptors are there for a reason! They’ve gone in one by one and genetically modified mice to not have this receptor or that receptor and every time they come out dysfunctional and retarded.

But I just keep coming back to Prozac, and how it makes so many drugs not work, and how much they’d just love to be able to dose everyone with drugs that make drugs not work.

And then I think to myself, why are there ever-increasing amounts of Prozac being found in the water?

Why is there so much Prozac in the water?


Is There Such a Thing as a Correct Premise?

One of my favorite things I learned when reading about logic recently is that logic describes the relationship between statements.

A person’s argument can still be logically valid even if it is built on erroneous premises.

The conclusion may not be a correct one, but you can’t fault the logic for that.

Or to put it in simper terms: sound arguments can be used to support idiotic premises and causes. The thing they’re supporting may be faulty, but the arguments themselves can be air-tight.

Logic is not a “what”, it’s a “how”.

You put garbage in, you get garbage out.

My question though, is “is there any such thing as a correct premise?”

Can a statement even embody the quality of “truthfulness”?

..and can you even..? (‘cos I still can’t) How on earth some of these motherfuckers even is beyond all of my powers of grokitude..

It used to bother me, as a teenager, when first confronted with these grandiose systems of thought.. sitting there in class one day being told “this is true because this is true”.

Well how do we know that that’s true?

“Well, that’s true because this other thing is true…”

It was turtles all the way down and my brain was seriously fucked for a hot minute there.

All of it – from calculus to medicine, chemistry, physics, math, philosophy and so on and so forth – they all just struck me as Castles in the Clouds.

But we were taught, later on in the higher maths, to begin calculating our margin or error along with the solution to the problem.. because apparently real life will never actually reflect the simplicity and purity of a construct such as numbers on a page. Nothing is ever that black and white, but all that mattered in the real world was to minimize that margin of error down to a magnitude where you could be reasonably sure that the shuttle wouldn’t explode.

And then a few days later the shuttle exploded.

Look at the story of modern calculus itself: You’re all familiar with Euclid’s Axioms?

An axiom is a “self-evident” principle, something which is intrinsically true, fundamentally true, so clearly and obviously and universally and always true that it need not even be questioned – nay, can not even be questioned.

The fields of mathematics, logic, and philosophy all define an “axiom” as “an assumption that serves as a basis for deduction of theorems”.

Okay, an assumption .. and Mr. Euclid most certainly did make an ASS out of U and ME and the rest of western civilization for about 2,150 years….

Until something very strange happened. In the early 1800s, almost at the exact same time but independently of one another [clearly ALIENS] a man named Bolyai and a man named Lobachevski (a Hungarian and a Russian) decided to see what would happen if they reversed one of Euclid’s postulates and built their own system using the reversal.

Lobachevski specifically reversed the one based off the assumption that parallel lines can never intersect. He wanted to see how silly the results would be if humanity had tried to build a system of thought based on the idea that parallel lines can in fact intersect.

This was initially supposed to be a fun but irrelevant thought experiment to waste away another boring afternoon, but the results were staggering and ghastly: they weren’t wrong.

There was nothing in the system he’d build that was an inherent contradiction within the paradigm he’d created. His new system of geometry (based off of “clearly erroneous” fundamental assumptions) was neither no more or no less valid than the system western civilization had been using for the past two millennia.

Not only did we now have two different systems of mathematics and geometry that were equally universally “true” and “provable” but also contradicted one another, but furthermore Lobachevskian Geometry immediately began to yield real world practical application and technology.

Later in that century, a German mathematician named Bernhard Riemann took their work one step further and built his own unshakable system of geometry based off of reversing Euclid’s first axiom.

The resulting Riemann Geometry was described by Albert Einstein as being the “best description of the world we live in.”

So I ask you, good people, what is an “IS”?

And what is ‘it’?

People laugh that sound arguments can be constructed out of garbage and fluff .. but what makes their fundamental assumptions any better than yours?

How do we really gnow anything?

Have you figured out how to even yet?

We all know the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal and the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon, but what if there is no moon?

Is it possible, that the “Thing Itself” really is just ΧÁΟΣ? That for once, we actually can get away with applying principles found in quantum physics to the macro world and that the entire cosmos and any moon to which you might point exists in a primeval state of void until an observer perceives it?

Postmodernism Is So Retro

Postmodernism is almost more of a “meta movement”, in some ways it’s a movement about movements. It’s the way Indie is the alternative to Alternative. It’s the counter-counterculture (still not mainstream but a reaction to a reaction).

Once upon a time artists just did their thing and movements weren’t really named until after they’d happened. People weren’t pretentious enough to try to name the thing while it was the thing. But once it had gone from a “this” to a “not that” it then became okay to point their fingers to the moon, because it belonged now to the annals of art history and not art.

“Modern” and “contemporary” are names we give to things that are currently going on, because they are still happening, and we’ve not named them yet. It’s a placeholder for people who feel there should be a name.

“Postmodernism” was arguably the first major art movement that named itself while it was happening.

In many ways postmodernism is like a forced meme. Instead of letting something occur organically of its own accord, people so felt there needed to be a new movement that they insisted it was one and pushed it through.

Postmodernism wasn’t an art movement because it matched the criteria for being an art movement. Postmodernism was a movement because people said it was an art movement.

I first discovered postmodernism when I was a wee teenager “a million years ago, in the 90s” to quote Beckett.

Throughout high school and college I was quite obsessed with it, but, one of the side effects of forcing a movement before its time is to be left hungry for another movement, and another, and another.

People tried to force “post-post modernism”, “pomo 33”, “nü-pomo” and myriad others into movements and they all failed miserably (because you can’t be after a movement that hasn’t happened yet – er, you can, I suppose, but they failed).

Then for many years I simply didn’t hear anything at all about postmodernism.

Round about 2010 I met this brilliant young historian and art critic who brought it up in conversation and gave me a thorough explanation as to why postmodernism had finally ended. One of the main tenants of postmodernism is the idea that “there are no original ideas, the technique and technology has been perfected, we can now make a map more detailed than the territory, god is dead, art is dead, punk is dead blah blah blah and there is nothing left to do as a species other than dissect our own shit.”

Well, humanity had finally got done dissecting its own shit and it freed things up for people to start creating again.

Who cares if your inspirations are transparent? Who cares if every single thing you do has already been done before by someone else? We know that motifs are repeated, and we’re over it. We want to hear you do the thing

“Songs are eternal. Singers merely borrow them.”

BUT, post-modernism doesn’t have to still be going on for people to use it as a style or enjoy it. People still paint landscapes and portraits with oils on canvas and it’s awesome. People still make amazing contributions using the Dada or Absurdist or Surrealist styles and it’s great.

So that’s all I meant, is that post-modernism has been dead for so long that it’s now enjoying its 2nd run as a retro movement.

But then I realized that the double meaning of my comment was that as a movement, postmodernism made heavy usage of content that was considered “retro”.

Image Macros on Bathroom Walls

You can say something online, and chances are no one will pay attention. Condense your point down to a sentence or two, caption it over an image and *BAM* it goes viral.

This goes for profound timeless sayings, funny ironies, quotes from respected figures in antiquity, lyrics to songs and so much more. 

It makes sense though. You know the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words”. It takes a lot longer and so much more brain power to read a single sentence and remember what you’d read than it does to glance at an image for even a fraction of a second and have an emotional reaction to it. 

It sticks. That added sensory input of having a pretty or intriguing picture to look at while reading the message creates an association and helps lock it into your memory banks. 

An aside to all this is animated .GIFs. I maintain they are the crème de la crème of the internet world. They are the perfect mix of videos and images.  

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then what is a thousand frames of animation with an audio track worth?

The problem with using videos for viral marketing is that you come up against a limitation in the attention span of your target audience. 

People rarely click links to videos. You have to go out of your way to decide to click it, it often opens in a new tab or window, you have to stop everything you’re doing and focus for a minute or two on just one thing. People simply aren’t going to do that very often when multitasking and scrolling through a gigantic endless feed of content.

I’ve noticed these are especially popular when quoting lyrics of a song you find particularly enjoyable or profound. You can write the quote, chances are people just won’t care, won’t even look at it. You can post the quote and link it to the video, no one will click on it. Now, caption the quote over a picture of the singer, and you start getting people’s attention. BUT, caption the image over a few animated frames of the singer on stage singing those lyrics, and it explodes in popularity. 

It’s the exact right combination of fitting into the viewers attention span and associating your message with a moving visual image. GIFs load almost immediately, require no external link, they’re pretty and colorful and moving the moment you scroll past them, and especially in the case I just mentioned, they have the added advantage of being able to see the singer’s face actually mouthing the words while you read them. 

When the average human sees another human’s face (especially the familiar face of someone they love and respect) a burst of oxytocin and other mammalian bonding hormones goes off in their system and they immediately begin to empathize with whatever message the person who created it is trying to get across. 

Okay, but that was just a tangent. In lieu of being able to animate, a captioned image macro is the next best thing. 

Anyway, back to bathrooms.  

I’m also quite interested in what I call “pre-internet memes”. I frequently talk about how almost all of the content on the internet has been “lifted off of men’s room walls“. Not just bathroom stalls either, classroom desks, textbooks, public bulletin boards, picnic tables, and wherever the hell else people have been writing those things since the dawn of time. 

One of my most often cited examples is LOLcats. They didn’t call them LOLcats back then, but people have been taking photographs of cats in hilarious positions and writing captions on them for oh about as long as cameras have existed. The earliest documented example is British portrait photographer Harry Pointer, who in the 1870s created a “carte de visite” series featuring cats posed in various situations. To these he usually added amusing text intended to further enhance their appeal. 

Another example I often cite is the story of how NASA spent millions of dollars developing an ink pen that would work in zero gravity and freezing cold temperatures, whereas the Soviets simply used a pencil. I’ve always associated that story with some of the earliest things I’d ever found online, but when reading an article about why this story is a horribly misguided piece of misinformation, someone in the comments section claimed they remember seeing this exact story scribbled on the inside cover of one of their textbooks back in the early 70s. 

Most of these memes are timeless and their origins are untraceable. The only real exceptions I can think of are memes that reference current events and/or technology that has only come into existence since the advent of the internet. It’s possible that some of those may in fact have originated online. 

What I thought would be neat is to take what we’ve learned by putting these memes online and apply them back to their original form: e.g. image macros on bathroom walls. 

Next time you’re sitting on the Porcelain Throne doing your business and you feel the need to carve or sharpie some funny or thought-provoking message, take the extra time to scratch or sketch an image of a cat, or a beautiful nature scene or the speaker’s face if it’s a quote into the wall, leaving room to carve out your message in ALL CAPS size 10 bold and outlined IMPACT font….

How the Jellyfish Jumped Up the Mountain

Death and Sex are very similar energies (equal but opposite, really). This concept is central to the Thanaterotic Mysteries.

I’ve been trying for the longest time to find a pseudoscientific explanation as to why most souls tend to pick a new body at the moment their last one dies.

For those of you not familiar, this comes from the merging of two ideas:
First, that in Buddhist traditions, “bardo” is said to last 7 weeks (7 x 7 = 49 days). A soul that has reached liberation or enlightenment can gain the conscious ability to stay in bardo longer, or manifest at any point as whatever it wants, or remove itself from the wheel of samsara entirely and never manifest as a human life again if it wants, but the majority of souls go into bardo for 7 weeks and then pop back out in a new body.
Second, a developing fetus gets a flood of DMT right around the 49th day of development. Not just DMT either, but all neurotransmitters. It takes that long for the neuropathways to be constructed, for the tracks to actually be built, and then right at day 49 it’s like *BAM* the switches are all turned on and the trains start running.

I’ve long thought of DMT as the portal or doorway between this world and the other. If the flood of DMT we receive while we die is how the soul leaves the body, then it would make sense that the flood of DMT we receive once the fetus is developed enough to hold consciousness is how the soul enters the body.

I never quite understood how or why a soul picked its new body right at the moment of death though (like, if a soul goes into bardo for 7 weeks, and it takes 7 weeks from conception for a fetus to get flooded with DMT an become inhabited by a soul, then the moment that 7-week old fetus was conceived would happen at the exact same moment that soul’s last body died). But why is this so?

Apply the alchemical Law of Attraction (like attracts like) to this and it kind of makes sense: If death and sex are two opposite ends of the same form of energy (like positive and negative charge) the energy of an orgasm would attract the energy of something that is dying at the same time. You could think of the dying body as the anode and the orgasmic release of two bodies coming together as the cathode and when those two are activated at the same time the circuit is completed and the soul rushes from one to the other like so many electrons.

plz, define your terms

I’m suddenly incredibly confused about the use of the prefix “trans” in “transgender”. Is it supposed to be short for “transitioning”, or like “trans-” as in the opposite of “cis-“?

Before I go on, I just want to say that I try to respect each and everyone’s way of identifying..even if I disagree with it or even if it doesn’t logically make any sense (I may write articles about why it doesn’t make any sense, but I try to be respectful when doing this). This extends all the way to otherkin and other “non-format” movements, i.e. if someone wants to gender-identify as a cat (or an alien, or a vampire), that’s totally fine by me and for the most part I won’t even go into the fact that “cat” is actually a different species that has genders of its own.. y’know? If you’re really demanding the right to identify your gender as “cat” then have at it *shrug* you’re a cat.

And before anyone starts hating on me for criticizing my fellow oppressed minorities or accusing me of being transphobic, let me just restate my main point in writing this: I don’t care what you do with your life or what you think you are. All of that is totally fine with me. All I’m asking is that if you’re going to pick a label by which to identify yourself, please think it through and choose a word that doesn’t mean the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say (or worse, is so ambiguous that it doesn’t really mean anything at all).

The terms “cis-” and “trans-” come from Latin origins meaning “on the same side of” and “on the other side of”, respectively.

In classical texts, the most common example of this is in respect to rivers. For example, the words “Transjordan” and “Cisjordan” exist in English to this day. If something was in Transjordan, that meant that it was across the river from the point of reference of the speaker (and likewise if it was in Cisjordan that meant it was on the same side of the river).

So it’s easy enough to see where the terms “transgender” and “cisgender” come from (at least, in the binary paradigm anyway .. which I don’t subscribe to, but I’m trying to figure out where people are coming from nonetheless). If a person is “transgender”, that means they are on the opposite side of the imaginary and poorly-defined line that separates the “two genders” as the one they were born on. If they are “cisgender” it means that they are on the same side as when they were born.

But where I see a problem developing with people who’re using this metric is that a growing number of people are using the prefix “trans-” to mean “transitioning”. As in, the process of transitioning from one gender to another.

Just to get really technical about things, the process of moving from one place to another does not say anything about where you are, all it says is where you were and where you’re going.  It references your state of being, not your location.  If you are moving from Chicago to San Francisco and are currently driving down I-80 through Nebraska and someone asked you “where are you right now?”, neither ‘Chicago’ nor ‘San Francisco’ would be accurate answers to that question.

Or, let’s go back to the river metaphor. If trans- is on the opposite side of the river, and cis- is on the same side of the river, and you are on a bridge or a boat going from one side to the other, neither “cis” nor “trans” accurately identifies where you are.

And yet, I meet more and more people every day who are saying exactly this.

This issue is becoming incredibly complex and convoluted, especially due to the fact that some people are “binary” (e.g. they think there are only 2 genders: male and female) and other people are “non-binary” (e.g. they think there are many genders or perhaps don’t even believe in gender).

Further complicating the issue is that some transgendered people are binary and others are not. Some people think that “MtF” and “FtM” count as genders and some don’t.

I know a lot of people who identify as “transgender”, but very few of these people have gotten SRS, or are saving up for it, or even want to get SRS. Many of them don’t even take hormones, but are still demanding the right to say that they are the opposite gender of what they were born as.

Among the people I consider my friends and acquaintances, I know at least one person who identifies their gender as transwoman, transman, genderqueer, genderfluid, agendered (or genderless), polygendered, intersexed, hermaphrodite, two-spirit, N/A (non-applicable), androgyne, cross-dresser and many other terms .. and almost all of these people have come to start using the umbrella term “on the trans spectrum”.

Or simply “trans” for short.

In common usage, the term “trans” has come to mean “anything other than identifying as the rigidly prescribed binary gender role you were given at birth”, which ends up meaning at least 60 different things drawing from multiple different paradigms, many of which are mutually exclusive and conflict with one another.

It doesn’t really work out very well to have a label that simply means “non-standard” or “anything other than the mainstream”. It’s like “Alternative Rock”, or saying that you are “counter-culture”. Like, okay, that’s great, you’ve just defined yourself as a negative. All you’ve done is told me what you are not, you haven’t done anything to tell me what you are.

We invent words and labels to facilitate communication and make the sharing of ideas and information simpler and easier. When you start using a word that creates mass confusion and requires more words to explain what you meant than it would have taken to just explain what you meant in the first place, you’ve failed at languaging properly. When you create a word with a multitude of different meanings that conflict with one another, it loses all of its power if you do not provide the proper context.

So what we have going on in society right now is a bunch of different people, identifying as dozens of different genders, some of whom are binary and some non-binary, all referring to themselves as “trans”.

Which would be totally fine, except for that pesky little nagging fact that “transitioning” does not mean “having already transitioned”.

It’s a matter of wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

The terms “transitioning” and “having transitioned” are mutually exclusive. By definition, you can’t be both at the same time.

I hate to be the one to rain on somebody’s pride parade, but if you’re going to insist that your gender is “transitioning” and then talk about “cispeople” as if they are the opposite of what you are, it shows that you don’t know what the buzzwords you’re using actually mean. Sorry folks.