Parody is as dead as the fabled Norwegian Blue …
Question: It’s concerning to me that you’re telling lesbians they are bigoted/transphobic/vile for being exclusively attracted to females (referring to the female sex, to clarify), and accusing lesbians of contributing to the deaths of trans women by not having sex with them. Is it very difficult to understand that people have reasons for not wanting to have sex with male bodied individuals including previous experiences and also just the fact that their sexuality is inherent? Requiring sex as a form of validation from females comes across as worryingly entitled and very coercive.
Answer: There is no “female sex”.
Coercively gendering biology is violence.
Trans women are not “male bodied”. You’re assuming you know a trans woman’s biological features, for a start. Some trans women have penises, some have vaginas, some have other genitals. Some trans women have oestrogen dominant hormone profiles, some have testosterone dominant, some have other hormonal makeups. Some have boobs, some don’t. But in all cases, they are women, they are female, and therefore – as long as they choose to define themselves as such – they are female bodied.
I’m not advocating for every lesbian to be forced to have sex with a trans woman, no matter what her biology. I’m saying that anyone who automatically writes trans women out of their potential pool of people to be sexually attracted to, whilst being attracted to cis women, is a transmisogynist. You’re making assumptions about trans women’s bodies.Yes, some people may have trauma surrounding certain body parts, or just not want to have sex involving certain body parts out of preference. Sex doesn’t have to involve those body parts. Sex with a woman with a penis doesn’t have to involve that woman’s penis, just as sex between any two people doesn’t have to involve, for example, the anus.
“requiring sex as validation” is emphatically NOT what I’m doing. I’m asking everyone to deconstruct their own experience of sexual attraction and the societal cissexism that affects it. In fact, if you’re a transmisogynist, please DON’T go looking to have sex with trans women. Stay the heck away from them. They don’t need your “validation”.
That’s about as garbled a thing as you’ll ever read.
Witness the violence inherent to nature.
scratch that.
Witness the violence inherent in our chromosomes
“Help! Help! I’m being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in our chromosomes!”
After years of teh gheys claiming “don’t hate us, we were born this way.” Now if you dare limit the pool of people you are sexually attracted to, you’re just a H8r being oppressed by white-western colonialism.
There just ain’t enough popcorn …
reckon those egregious linguomisappropriators intend diamisogynists? Since, y’know, no one knows just how close the Hellenes and Latins wanna tongue-snuggle?
Sometimes I wonder if there is any recovery from garbage like this. That whole screed doesn’t even constitute “thought”, much less an informed opinion. It’s just buzzwords floating in a sea of emotion, all utterly unconsidered and unexamined. How does a society return to any semblance of sanity with schools and media teaching kids that this is good and right, and that daring to hold a contrary opinion or critically examine instead of blindly accepting is “violence”? Once out of the indoctrination system, new “adults” (in name only) are wrapped up in the self-aggrandizement circus that is social media, a funhouse mirror version of the real world that demands praise for flaws, celebrates of mental illness as enlightenment, and uses the power of the mob to force its twisted and psychotic rules into reality.
I wonder if it isn’t simply that humans are self-destructive in nature; that a society risen to the point where the vast majority live in ease without true inequities to fight plants the seeds of its own destruction by requiring less of its citizens, requiring that they be less. The people are not required to think hard, work hard, or face harsh reality, and so the idle fools, feeling (without understanding) the emptiness of their lives and being given a wide-reaching stage in both conventional and social medias, act as the stars of their own foolish dramas without even the capacity to perceive how petty and broken they are. They demand recompense for imagined slights and call upon the mob of equally empty fools to throw a collective tantrum until they get what they want. Then, reinforced and affirmed by their success, the mob moves on to the next fake wrong. Raised and indoctrinated to lack critical thought and a sense of right and wrong, these husks playing at being people can’t even realize that they are a purely negative force that contributes nothing while destroying the remnants of productive society. It’s a psychosis on a societal scale.
Unfortunately, I can’t see things like this and laugh. Facepalm sure (every freaking line of that), but then the implications of seeing so much of it catch up and become rather concerning. At some point, maybe already past, society becomes too hollowed out by this effect to sustain itself. It may continue to shamble along on the momentum of previous generations, but it’s already dead and guaranteed to collapse.
And now that I’m done being depressing, we could really use a happy story.
I saw that “Caitlin Jenner” got a judge to declare her new name and gender.
As I said at work, “You’re still a boy.”
is being raving lunatic a paying gig these days?
Ask Bernie.
This sounds like the sort of lame pleas teenage boys use to convince girls they must go forward with sex or they will die of blue balls.
How odd that transsexuals (male to female) use the same trick.
Best of Joy Division – Joy Division
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz233gJSzK0
Porter’s plea.
For anything.
I’m not getting it and guess neither is xe.
It’s only odd if you think some surgery and a little hormone therapy is all that it takes to turn a man into a woman.
That has got to be the single best summation of Leftism in all its unholy guises that I’ve ever happened to see.
I congratulate you sir.
What’s next? Oh, guess.
sdferr
Ha!! I remember my grandma singing that song!
(somewhere my mom has a few pics of her … a flapper with platinum blonde, pin-curled hair. Grandparents married in 1925 and loved to dress to the nines and go nightclubbing)
Have you heard the one about the women who went to the rabbi’s tomb and found it empty?
…some have other genitals…
Such as?
…some have other hormonal makeups…
Again, such as? (When you’re dealing with a binary set, it’s an either/or, with the extremely rare cases where it MIGHT be exactly 50/50, in a given sample, and at exactly the time of the test, since fluctuations are possible.)
I’m not advocating for every lesbian to be forced to have sex with a trans woman, no matter what her biology. I’m saying that anyone who automatically writes trans women out of their potential pool of people to be sexually attracted to, whilst being attracted to cis women, is a transmisogynist.
So either they are forced to have sex with a trans woman or they are a transmisogynist. Again, there is no third option, according to the (chortle*snicker) logic used.
In fact, if you’re a transmisogynist, please DON’T go looking to have sex with trans women. Stay the heck away from them.
While you are at it, don’t go jumping off high ledges, or go swimming with hungry sharks while bleeding from an open wound, or playing Russian Roulette with a semi-auto pistol, or…
What? I thought we were stating the bloomin’ obvious?
the Guavadoces
Hey! Blue balls are a real thing!
At least for a 20 year old.
There used to be a joke about being a lesbian trapped in a mans body. It’s hard to know what’s serious these days.
Nothing, Lee, nothing.
[…] Click on Protein Wisdom: “Transmisogynist” … yes, dears, some believe this is a thing Apparently, some transsexual “women” are distraught that many (most?) lesbians […]
I just want to know who died and made Andy Kaufman God?
Oh, is that how it works?
Cotillaen, that was one of the most entertaining and articulate rants I’ve seen on this site in a while. I officially propose that you ought to inherit ownership of this site now that its owner has apparently retired to become a full-time Golden Tee addict. However, I think you are dead wrong. I’ll explain why. The difference between the brains of conservatives and liberals is well-documented. Conservative brains have stronger fear/disgust responses than liberals. This is why you tend to overestimate the power of threatening stimuli and tend to seek to eliminate the things that you find personally odious. Conservative brains also dislike change and chauvinistally consider their own values to be not just appropriate for themselves, but part of an eternal and unchanging universal morality, whereas liberals tend to view things in a more relativistic sense. You know this, and consciously speak our against “moral relativism” and the like. Historically, there’s been nothing wrong with your more fearful and easily-disgusted minds, as responding to perceived threats with undue force has often been an evolutionary advantage. But since conservatives tend to discount evolutionary factors for their mental makeups and mistakenly attribute them to an otherworldy “moral compass,” you fail to realize that any advantage they impart to you is in fact relative to the environment you inhabit. Like dinosaurs who scoff at the idea of smaller mammals taking over the planet, conservatives cannot view their values as mutable; the world belongs to dinosaurs, it was made for dinosaurs, ever thus it shall be, and if the world were to change to force dinosaurs into extinction, it wouldn’t be a world worth living in anyway, and so to hell with it – mumbled one triceratops to another.
This article that you object to in which some academic ponce encourages lesbians to have sex with transgenders or what have you – is an unimportant blip on the cultural radar. But you treat it like a warning from the state blared over loudspeakers – because you overestimate threats. The cultural trends are slowly moving away from a state you prefer to a state that you do not prefer. Rather than admitting that your value set is one among many, you scream of doomsday. This is hysteria. Conservatives speak of society disintegrating, of “husks” replacing real people, of an environment toxic to your own values slowly coming into being, which you cannot adapt to. But I am here to tell you – it was always ever thus. I’ve never heard a staunch conservative consider the notion that, in 1950’s America, the cultural enviroment was toxic to minorities, gays, and women. But it clearly was. Do you possess the clarity of imagination to admit it? Imagine being a black American and hearing of the murder of Emmett Till and the lack of justice to his murderers. Imagine separate lunch counters. Sitting at the back of the bus. Church bombings that burn little girls alive in Birmingham. Having to defer to white people as a matter of everyday life. Knowing that whistling at a white woman could mean death. I’m not bringing up these past wrongs to shame whites or justify “payback,” only to try to make you realize, for once, that toxic environments exist for everyone at some point. You folks view the election of Obama as some harbinger of decay, while nonwhites see it as the first rays of light over the horizon. It all depends upon where one is standing.
Needless to say, gays and trans people also once lived in a nation that was entirely hostile to them. Now, less so.
But as far as I can tell, none of you realize this. You cannot understand the very concept of relative value and you cannot feel safe having the moral compass of society turn ever so slightly away from your own (see: the hysteria that Kim Davis unleashed on Megyn Kelley recently. Your political wags & pundits are indistinguishable from the writer of the trans-screed. The emphatic pro-trans writer is no more a “husk” than Glenn Beck or Jonah Goldberg. They both have political causes that focus on the interests of perhaps 20% of the population and to hell with everyone else. You see their “buzzwords” as being divorced from reality and reason – trust me, liberals feel the exact same way when your side uses terms like “sanctity of marriage.” It is, in the end, all relative, and you needn’t worry about the dissolution of a society that was always dissolved. To a 16-year old gay liberal computer programmer from San Francisco, they misperceive as many “husks” as you do. They might look back at the past and wonder, how did those sorry people in the ’50s and ’60s ever get anything done? They were a bunch of uptight, close-minded, racist, sexist, homophobic white suburbanites who ate horrid fatty foods and rotted their bodies with a constant flood of booze and cigarette smoke. Even worse, they believed clearly insane things about a magical Christ-man and his Sky Wizard Father. How could such wretched husks find the wherewithal to build UNIVAC and ENIAC, or put the first man on the moon? There must have been just enough Alan Turings to pull them through, our hypothetical 16-year old liberal would say.
Ts/dr
The cultural trends are slowly moving away from a state you prefer to a state that you do not prefer.
Those who say that all cultures are equal never explain why the results of those cultures are so grossly unequal. — Dr. Thomas Sowell
See also “Chesterton’s fence paradox”.
The “moral” ClownDeceptor stood with the Iranian Grand Ayatollah when the Iranian people asked of him in 2009 “Obama, are you with the tyrannical Iranian State, or are you with us?”. Of course, the Grand Ayatollah approves hanging homosexuals for the crime of homosexuality.
The “moral” ClownDeceptor stood with Bashar Assad when the people of Syria revolted against Assad’s tyrannical and murderous dictatorship in 2011. ClownDeceptor couldn’t both oppose Assad and keep the Grand Ayatollah at the fake nuclear bargaining table long enough that ClownDeceptor could cede the Supreme Leader all his worldly aims.
Yep, depends where those people are standing how they see the morality of a ClownCatastrophe the like of Obama. Only think of the Ukrainians watching as their nation is reduced by continuing Russian land grabs. Only think of the Georgians likewise. Only think of the poor Nigerians suffering the onslaughts of Boko Haram and how they think of the great morality of PresidentIVotePresentAndWonPenPhone.
Yet another visitor from island 110 has dropped by to school us. How wonderful.
Clean up on the fish sticks aisle?
This fits here.
Codpiece sez:
“I’ve never heard a staunch conservative consider the notion that, in 1950’s America, the cultural enviroment was toxic to minorities, gays, and women. But it clearly was.”
I’m a ‘staunch conservative’. I’ve considered that notion, and I’ve rejected it. The fifties culture was not toxic to anybody but the Commies. Women were free to be women and involve themselves in what interested them. Gays and minorities? They did fine. The well publicized exceptions were just that. Exceptions.
Minorities, at least, had intact families and a stable home life, unlike today. Ya want toxic? That was Lyndon Johnson, right in the holy ’60s.
This is real, linked fromthe top article. http://www.pronouns.failedslacker.com/
Holy cow, they’ve got botanicals:
And here I thought I was being clever in my Twitter profile.
Parody being long dead, is dead.
Fish, I stopped reading your post after one paragraph and one sentence (well, I skimmed the strawmen that followed, too). You claim, in order, conservatives overestimate threats, then that the world was changing in such a way as to destroy us, and then that we overestimate threats again. It’s like you couldn’t quite figure out how to do passive-aggressive, so you went with stupid-aggressive instead.
Since you are fine with spouting opinions as fact, here are some of my facts (satirically-labeled such since I do care about intellectual honesty and consistency) for you: On the inside, families have disintegrated (actual fact, even; look up the numbers on broken homes), decades of “war on poverty” has accomplished nothing beyond impoverishing the nation and empowering government (curiously, also an actual fact), race relations have cratered (evidenced in calls to violence and Nazi-style “race uber alles” mentality pushed by more than one non-white segment), MLKJr’s famed dream has been undone by the very ones he sought to help and their subservience to government, children emerge from nominal institutions of learning knowing less and believing more than when they entered, and a government supposedly operating at our behest takes disastrous and unpayable loans in our names. On the outside, nations a few years further down the road ours has taken collapse under their own weight, old enemies rebuild and exert new aggression, and an army of fanatics indoctrinated to love death and treat rape and murder as worship of their god wages ware and gathers their strength while declaring us their eventual target.
All of that, and yet thousands of people and their media enablers are more concerned with forcing everyone to go along with their mental illnesses and use made-up pronouns to insulate them from reality. There’s the fruits of your “relative value”. You demand we strip real, true values and morality out of society because it doesn’t conform to the way you want reality to be. You don’t like being wrong, so you declare there is no right or wrong, but humanity can’t operate in a moral void. You can play the high and mighty hypocrite and preach all day how it’s all relative, but in doing so you have created your own moral system and demand people adhere to it, claiming that you know better and we should accept your wisdom. The greatest lie of moral relativism is that it is possible. You love mocking Christians for believing in something we can not prove exists and holding a moral code we sometimes fail to live up to, but you believe in something that cannot exist and fail to live up to its impossible code every instant of your existence.
You love mocking Christians for … holding a moral code we sometimes fail to live up to
Exactly. It is possible to believe in something, yet fail to live up to it. That does not disprove the existence of the goal, merely the reality of being human. “Perfection is a journey, not a destination.”
You love mocking Christians for … holding a moral code we sometimes fail to live up to
How often do the mockers fail to live up to their moral code?
Either they have no code at all, or it’s so easy to live up to it’s worthless.
Dead solid perfect [both comments], Cortillaen.
David, if you truly believe that black people had it pretty good under Jim Crow, you must think they had it even better under slavery, right? I suspect that you’re just trolling me, but if not, you need to reexamine the inanity of your statement. If you actually believe such demonstrably stupid things, then you ought to be happy at the paranoid oppression fantasies that seem to terrify your kind. Why, once all you white Christians are stripped of your guns and property and relegated to second-class status under the New-Leftist Sharia Regime, you’ll have it just as good as blacks did under Jim Crow. You will be second-class citizens but at least your families will be intact. I’m sure you’ll huddle together happily and write some very moving white spirituals. Let me know how that works out for you! I ran your statement by a coworker of mine (55 year-old white Methodist Conservative Trump fan) and he says, and I quote, that you’re “dumber than dirt and in dire need of a history lesson.” So shush now, adults are speaking. To the corner with you.
Cortillaen, if you don’t have the time to read and properly respond, then you’re extremely lazy. I hold no hope of converting you to progressivism or even a less insane and bigoted form of conservatism. You are too much of a “husk” to ever change. I only wish to forcibly pump a single blast of truth into your brain: that your ideologies are subjective. They are not carved in stone or woven into the fabric of Creation. They are a conglomerate of inherited religious hokum, social custom, personal superstition, and economic necessity imposed by the ruling class of a large agrarian-turned-industrial nation. They are no more correct than any other ideology. There are as many ideologies as there are people, and each ideology is self-serving. You adhere to your conservative ideology because it serves you, just as liberals adhere to ideologies that serve them. There is no quantifiable moral difference between your illusions and those of others – the only virtue you have is through your actions and the effect they have on others. Capice, paesan?
You are rightly concerned that the world is heading towards disaster. But if the last few decades are to be used as evidence then it’s clear that conservatives are the last people you want in power to deal with the oncoming crush. There’s pretty much no sector of modern life that conservatives haven’t failed with. Here’s a challenge for you – explain why the one state that is totally dominated by conservative economic fantasies has gone into economic freefall. I speak of course of Brownbackistan, formerly known as Kansas. Defend that mess if you dare.
if you truly believe that black people had it pretty good under Jim Crow
Jim Crow laws were confined to the Southern states as a “pay back” after reconstruction
They were government enforced segregation statutes — you know, like the father of modern Progressive movement, Pres. Woodrow Wilson when he used executive authority to RE-segregated the Fed civil service.
Even if you were a business owner in the South during Jim Crow, you were not allowed BY LAW to serve multiple races.
It is collectivism’s lust for power that today’s Conservatives oppose, because as Jim Crow laws demonstrate,
The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen.
It is the emo-driven Left that wants guarantees in life, covets their neighbor’s property, eschews rational thinking, and has a utilitarian view of humanity. They (and you) are incapable of living in a society based on the Founders’ principles.
It interferes with your Aristocracy of Pull. You are neo-Feudalists all the way down.
More like island 100 I guess.
Here’s a challenge for you – explain why the one state that is totally dominated by conservative economic fantasies has gone into economic freefall.
Meanwhile, I will be eagerly awaiting your defense of Detroit, most of California’s urban congloms, NYC, WashDC, Austin (while the rest of Texas is doing quite well), et alia…
I mean, since they are doing SO well economically and socially.
Fair’s fair, right?
Jim Crow laws were confined to the Southern states as a “pay back” after reconstruction
All of which were run and dominated by Democrats, but who needs facts when there is a Narrative to advance?
>Even if you were a business owner in the South during Jim Crow, you were not allowed BY LAW to serve multiple races. <
the infamous woolworths lunch counter served blacks but they couldn't sit there and eat it. rosa parks sat on the same bus as whites but she couldn't sit in the front of the bus. herman cain drank from the white fountain instead of a colored water fountain in a department store. you might want to update your knowledge of jim crow south
Shocking surveillance video captures unprovoked attack on 83-year-old man
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/shocking_surveillance_video_captures_unprovoked_attack_on_83yearold_man.html#ixzz3mzfNVJjC
>All of which were run and dominated by Democrats, but who needs facts when there is a Narrative to advance? <
which narrative: blacks as a group suck or blacks as a group are "vibrant/ diverse"?
[…] “‘Transmisogynist’… yes, dears, some believe this is a thing” ~ Protein Wisdom […]
Quite so, Darleen! Thank you for helping me make my point. Let’s review what we’ve just learned. In the Jim Crow era, the government, which was full of racist white people, enacted discriminatory statutes against black people that were supported by racist white Southern people, who at the time all mostly Democrat (and now their kids all vote Republican.) It sounds like a pretty toxic situation, yes? So I’m sure you’ll agree that this David Davies is a lamentable fool for pretending that black people had it “pretty good” back then. How could they have it pretty good when they were being openly oppressed by the government?
But we’re getting away from the original point, which is that the horrible pervasive societal injustice you so aptly describe is far worse than the scattered trans-positive academic ramblings that have so spooked poor Mr. Cortillaen. When he hallucinates his shambling husk-people bringing down civilization by asking for all of us to be nice to trannies he’s obviously gone off the bend a bit. If you look at it rationally, you can see how he’s fallen into such hysteria. In the past, the majority of the population seemed to be working, working, all day long, working on farms and in steel mills and hardware stores; lugging hay, gripping tools, building houses, paving roads. All of this still happens and we have more material stuff than ever before. Then why do so many people seem idle? Why all the unemployment? You seek a moral cause for this when the simple truth is: automation and globalization. We produce so much more with so much less sweat and manpower, and the vast majority of the gruntwork has been outsourced to India, China, Mexico, and Malaysia (you have your beloved billionaire rentier class to thank for that.)
We’ve keep our “service economy” mostly afloat through an ongoing orgy of consumerist crap that no one really needs. Look at how many videogames your fucking kids play. They play those things because there’s no need for them to feed the chickens and plow the fields anymore.
This time in history has never happened before. We have not yet learned how to deal with having so much material shit but having it owned wholesale by the rentiers and doled out piecemeal to the populace at the maximum price they can exact. We are a race of primates used to stuffing our faces because food used to be scarce, and we haven’t learned how to stop eating so much. We were created in a world of endless fields and forests where the amount of work that had to be done was essentially infinite but now find ourselves in a world where having a job is a luxury that some are “not worthy of.” It is a truly strange and scary time. With so many real challenges to deal with, why does Mr. Cortillaen fret so over the sex lives of trannies?
I understand your rage. You folks are just beginning to understand how badly the Republican party and its backers have screwed you all. You see them trot out poor Jeb Bush to be their new front man and you find him wanting – all narrow shoulders and simpering grin, willing to do his masters’ bidding for eight more years while the rest of you wither away in the evacuated bowels of America. But you can’t admit that the liberals were right about them all along. So all you are left with is this directionless rage. It’s all been a bit much for poor Mr. Cortillaen and Mr. Goldstein as well. He’s not doing so hot these days.
Directionless rage > the Donald. He’s riding this wave as far as your kind will allow him to ride it. TRUMP 2016
This nonsense is about as coherent as claiming that a straight guy is “homophobic” for not wanting to have sex with other men.
I mean, DUH. Words have actual definitions. “Heterosexual” means you are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Period. The word itself does not contain any judgement or social connotations. It is simply a statement of fact. As would be “homosexual female”, AKA lesbian.
Now, I’m not sure there even IS a word for being attracted to the transgendered, be it previously male or previously female.
Beyond which, generally people don’t just declare “I’m not having sex with X”, unless they are typically hetero sexual and re-stating the resulting dimensions of that fact. You’re simply attracted to who you are attracted to. I mean, isn’t it a little hard to complain that someone isn’t attracted to a transgender person when they are not even likely attracted to every single member of the group they personally claim to be naturally attracted to. I’m a straight man, and even I’m not attracted to every single straight female on Earth. How could it then even be possible for my lack of attraction to a non-member of my own self-selecting group of prospective mates be discriminatory ?
So unbelievably stupid.
In the Jim Crow era, the government, which was full of racist white people, enacted discriminatory statutes against black people that were supported by racist white Southern people, who at the time all mostly Democrat
First, it was the governments of the southern States (which had been Democrat for generations, dating all the way back to the years before the Civil War), and which Democrat States actually seceded, rather than accept a Republican President (the first Republican President, btw), and did everything they could to keep black people oppressed and dependent on the government (much like Democrats still do today). The Northern States were even then, and are today, not afflicted with the racial animus displayed by Democrats then and now, and until the “Great Society” put forth by a man who was seeking to have “those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”, they were immune to the nonsense of racial identity, instead preferring to be Americans, rather than hyphenated Africans. And they were succeeding admirably.
(and now their kids all vote Republican.)
Just like all children who see the bullshit put out by their parents and decide to correct those mistakes to the best of their abilities.
How could they have it pretty good when they were being openly oppressed by the government?
Because those Southern States were isolated examples. (See above.) And they could vote with their feet. (And in case you missed it, it wasn’t just blacks being oppressed by those Southern States, but also anyone who supported their cause, regardless of their skin color or religion.)
You folks are just beginning to understand how badly the Republican party and its backers have screwed you all.
Yes, but we already knew how badly the Democrats have been trying to screw us all, and even “losing more slowly” is a better alternative to stomping on the gas pedal when the cliff is directly ahead. Putting the gearshift in ‘R’ is the best choice when all you see is the end of the road, assorted warning signs and empty space beyond, even if it fucks up the transmission.
What cannot go on forever… simply won’t.
“adults are speaking”
That’s just not you.
So we understand each other, my 98 year old next door neighbor said, and I quote, “You don’t know s**t from shinola.” She’s a southern Baptist and they have greater latitude with swearing than I do, so they have that going for them. You know what you have been told, not what was. That you were lied to, is evident. That you believe the lie is pathetic.
“not afflicted with the racial animus”
Not entirely true. There were race riots in many Northern cities. Not to mention racial animus in the west post Civil War.
That is a common conceit among northeastern liberals, that states that didn’t secede from the Union somehow were pure and utterly devoid of racism — and that somehow that imaginary historical sinlessness infuses them with moral authority on race.
In fact, slavery was initially legal throughout the colonies — even at the time of the Revolution itself. By the time of Lincoln’s election it was mostly limited to southern-tier states and territories, but after the Civil War freed slaves who moved north encountered what Frederick Douglass already had: rank-and-file Northerners were just as xenophobic and bigoted as the worst Southerners.
In fact, some freed slaves who went north wrote that most Southerners had actually treated them better than most Northerners.
Which, that’s pretty sad.
Assertion troll asserts.