Jessica Yaniv and the Return of the Cooing Doves
Jenn Smith
It has been a while since I was last published in either the mainstream or the alternative press, but with the current furor over the Jessica Yaniv case I thought it would be important to interject a transgender perspective that is at once critical of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) and the fiasco currently unfolding there involving the transgender identified Yaniv, while at the same time cautioning the reader about getting distracted by prevailing narratives that take our focus off bigger issues.
Set right here in my home province of British Columbia (indeed centered only 20 minutes from where I live), the Jessica Yaniv story has become far too bizarre, expansive, and convoluted to hold my attention in all of its particulars.
The story has suddenly gone global because of the strangeness and apparent outrageousness of a transgender person that claims to be a woman despite having male genitalia and who is suing a large number of biological women because they refused to perform a Brazilian wax around Yaniv’s groin.
The media has been focusing on the fact that Yaniv is a pre-op transgender that still has male genitalia, as if this disqualifies him personally from being classified as a “woman.”
Yet this same media constantly refers to Yaniv using female pronouns, and also seem blissfully unaware of the fact that the vast majority of MTF transgenders still have male genitals – even the prettiest ones.
Coverage of Yaniv’s story has been massive recently, particularly in the conservative press. More and more keeps coming out about Yaniv’s sordid past and strange proclivities, such as the alleged luring of young girls into sexual conversations and a bizarre obsession with female sanitary napkins.
The more I read about Yaniv and the more interviews I saw with Yaniv, the more convinced I became that Yaniv may be suffering from mental health issues.
If my suspicions are true and Yaniv is somebody with mental health problems, that would mean the media is currently having a field day beating up a mentally ill person, which while understandable is perhaps not good form. Whether or not Yaniv indeed has mental health issues does not excuse Yaniv’s abysmal actions, but it should inform our actions in terms of what we focus on.
Despite the fact that I, as a transgender identified activist, am well-known for criticizing the most intrusive and destructive transgender laws and policies while defending women’s rights, I have reached a saturation point with the unending stream of lurid Yaniv stories and accusations – I am at a point where I now must say, “enough, can we get back to the macro issues here?”
The micro or person-specific issues have to be ironed out by the proper authorities (police, mental health workers, etc.), the rest of us should be interested in the macro implications of what the Yaniv case is telling us.
The Yaniv case has a lot of similarities – in terms of how it has been treated by the public and the press — to the Karen White case in the UK – a case that saw a transgender-identified male (White) put into a women’s prison, where White allegedly immediately began raping women inmates.
Whatever Yaniv has been doing recently or over the past few years, we have to come back around to the fact that Yaniv is actually not the problem. The MSM want you to believe that Yaniv is the problem, just like they wanted people in the UK to believe Karen White was the problem there. Neither one of them were reflective of the real problem, they were merely symptoms — the real problem is a system that has been founded upon a denial of the importance of physical reality that caters to such things happening in the first place.
The Yaniv case (like the Karen White case) reflects the dangers of untethering your laws and policies from knowable, testable, shared physical reality.
We now have lawyers debating the meaning of “a Brazilian” or a “Brozillian” in the BC Human Rights Tribunal hearing for Yaniv, and saying that “Brazilian has a specific meaning”; but what should be debated in this case instead is the word “WOMAN” and the fact that “WOMAN” has a specific meaning — a very important meaning.
We would not have to debate the meaning of “brozillian” etc. if we had stayed tethered to our previously sound KNOWLEDGE of what a woman is.
We have always known that a woman is an adult human female (with a nod to Posie Parker in the UK and the dictionary). The word “woman” is informed by physical reality and a specific identifiable thing in nature that existed long before there was a word to identify it and which has been known to humanity since the dawn of time.
That physical, biological thing gives us the word; it is not the word that gives us the thing. The word “woman” does not inform reality; it is reality that informs the word “woman.” A woman is not an illusion. A woman is not an appearance.
As the East Indians all know, appearances are not reality, illusion is not reality: that is Maya. A woman is not an appearance or an illusion, a woman is a specific thing, and we all know it. And all these people that have surrendered the word “woman” and its long understood meaning are partially to blame for what is happening now. And now they are wheeling out the big propaganda guns again — the same magical propaganda guns that helped blast holes in reality and get us here in the first place.
We are now seeing a return of what I coined over two years ago as the transgender “cooing doves.”
A video is now making the rounds featuring super sexy transgender sensation Blaire White (featured in the title art), who has arrived on the scene to save us all from that nasty ‘ol bad trans Jessica Yaniv.
I once labeled White a “cooing dove” (I could have just as easily used the term “purring sex kitten”) in order to describe how such pretty transgender figures were being used as a propaganda tool to sooth and convince a reluctant public regarding changes in laws and policies. Like a transgender version of Elizabeth Montgomery, with a tinkling sound and twitch of the pretty nose, White appears on the screen sucking suggestively on a lollipop, jiggling silicone breasts in a low cut top, and tells us Yaniv is not a “real trans,” and that White will now vanquish the mean troll “fake trans” that “does not even try to look the part,” and save women from such terrible creatures in the future by speaking incantations of “common sense.”
Mesmerized by Blaire White’s witchy gender transitioning powers (and extensive cosmetic surgery), women en masse begin dropping their guards, while thinking “but she sure looks like a real woman, surely she needs our help?”
Meanwhile, male talk show hosts like Steven Crowder and other horny (albeit repressed) media people will eagerly rush to interview White again and drool dropped-jawed at how much White looks like a “real woman,” while at the same time thinking things like “if I was in jail …. Blaire would do just fine,” although most would never admit it.
I am sorry if this last comment offends anybody, but there are a legion of men out there that think just this way. White does not have a half-million followers because White is so smart; White has a half-million followers because of sexual illusion.
I suspect we will soon see Blaire White’s transgender friend Theryn Meyer doing a version of the same shtick in Canada and maybe Paris Lees in the UK, all cooing, batting their pretty transgender eyes, wiggling their noses and fake boobs, and talking about how they are “real trans” women that have come to save everybody from the mean old fake trans.
But don’t let them do it to you again. The problem exposed by the Yaniv case is, and always was, allowing the notion that a male can be a female (a.k.a., a man can be a woman).
It is not possible no matter how pretty a male is. It is an illusion. It is Maya. Maya is not reality. Such breaches of privacy, personal autonomy, and security for women that the Yaniv case has shown us cannot be prevented in the future without a recourse to absolute truth and physical reality, because you cannot write things like “men must be super feminine and sexy to be considered a woman” into laws and guidelines designed to protect women.
This is an argument I have been making in my controversial public talks for two years, and for which I have been thoroughly and deceptively demonized by mainstream media and LGBTQ organizations.
It was the surrender of truth and physical reality that got us here in the first place and it is only a return to truth and reality that will guide us back to sanity. We have been the victims of a magician’s illusion. It is time to finally reveal the magician’s secret: the secret is that not only does the magician not saw the pretty woman in half on the stage, but that the woman is in fact a man and no body parts have been severed whatsoever.
As a transgender person myself I can tell you it is okay to be trans and to recognize your biological sex. It is okay to be a man. It is not a shame to be the sex you were born, even if you choose to dress and express in ways associated with the opposite sex. As for changerooms etc., it is not women that need to allow feminine males into their spaces, it is men. So can we please get back to focusing on the big issue, and not allow ourselves to be fooled again by the re-emergence of the “cooing doves.” (Note: The aforementioned Posie Parker recently made an excellent short video discussing this subject from a woman’s viewpoint and it is well worth watching).
Jenn Smith is a 54 year-old transgender identified male (biologically male) with degrees in history and political science. Jenn is a writer, a public speaker, and a political activist, He lives in British Columbia, Canada, where he has been fighting on the political front-lines for over two years to protect vulnerable children from being confused and indoctrinated by transgender ideology in schools, and for the rights of parents to shield their children from this ideology. He has also battled to protect women’s rights and safe places, and warned of the dangers transgender ideology poses to freedom of speech. He can be contacted via his blog or his Facebook page.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I just thought I’d add an another piece of fake transgender news just in – I lived for awhile at the end of the street where the alleged axe-wielding transwoman went crazy in a 7/11. One story said the crazy behaviour was due to hormonal treatment, while others came up with other BS explanation for it.
You can tell she’s a biological woman in the video.
https://youtu.be/Xv0uvHAbtFQ?t=177
Now they’re telling us she’s de-transitioning in jail. LOL.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/trans-woman-de-transitioning-in-jail-as-court-reviews-sentence-over-axe-attack-20190802-p52d5q.html
Evie Amati is a transwoman – a biological male, who has now decided that they wish to transition to a man again.
You mean they told us she’s a transwoman and now she’s de-transitioning.
I said when I first learnt of this ludicrous hoaxery a year or so ago that Evie was a biological woman (it’s always reasonably obvious, isn’t it, unless the person is a Thai Kathoey or similar – though admittedly transition processes are becoming more sophisticated and it probably helps the younger you are) and I had to laugh when I now see they’re telling us she’s de-transitioning. It’s truly farcical just like the Jessica Yaniv farce.
Do you really think that “transitioning” means having any surgery? Only a tiny percentage of transgender people have any surgery, and in Australia there is no requirement to have surgery in order to change sex on your birth certificate.
I don’t see why you have such a problem believing this.
A transgender woman is a biological male.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7319669/Evie-Amati-hacked-7-Eleven-customers-axe-begins-transitioning-process-bars.html
https://www.outinperth.com/chris-smith-says-the-evie-amati-case-should-be-a-wake-up-call/
https://7news.com.au/news/crime/axe-attack-jail-term-affront-to-justice-c-367314
Yes I know that a transwoman is a biological male. What I say is that Evie Amati is a biological woman. The story they spun about her being a transwoman is false (I said this about a year ago) and now the de-transitioning story they’re spinning is false too – because she has always been a woman – biologically and any other way.
You can tell she’s a biological woman from the video they showed before she went to jail (allegedly) and where she is now allegedly de-transitioning.
https://youtu.be/Xv0uvHAbtFQ?t=177
It’s pretty straightforward, andy, they spin loads and loads of false stories.
My sincere apologies, Andy. I posted on FB about Evie being a biological woman and someone told me they knew her pre-transition and she is, indeed, a transwoman. However, when I asked if the axe-wielding was real the person didn’t respond so I have no reason to doubt in that regard and that really is clear. OMG! They just snow is in fakery so much it’s hard not to get carried away with it.
Elsewhere on this increasingly bizarre planet, finally some common sense is being applied where biology trumps gender!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/49185299
I now expect severe retaliation against the IAAF and the Swiss by the usual actors for being so “hateful”, “racist”, etc.
That is certainly good news Frank, a step in the right direction, although looking at it more closely reveals that it is less than perfect. In the case of Semenya of course the person cannot help what they were born as, but on the other hand the authorities have known about this for ten years. The other shocking point is that all three podium places at the 2016 Rio women’s 800m, were taken by athletes with XY chromosomes – Semenya, Wambui and Niyonsaba, all thletes who would have gone through a male puberty.
The IAAF has also not banned these athletes from all events, only ones between 400m and 1 mile.
I would like to see sports categories divided on the basis of chromosomes, as part of the biological passport which all elite athletes have to have.
i should have known the author was canadian; i never heard the laughable term “east indians” until i moved here. it’s especially ironic given the article’s focus on linguistic realities. you can just say “indians”. if a trans “woman” with a penis shouldn’t insist on being called “she” then the natives here shouldn’t be called “indian” because some eurotrash psychopath labeled them as such circa 1492.
Names identify and distinguish groups of people in colloquial usage; they are not assigned by psychopaths for evil intent or laughable purposes. Names evolve over time and sometimes become obsolete or evolve due to social changes; sometimes they don’t.
No, you can’t just say ‘indians’ if you wish to identify a disparate group of people for purposes of description.
‘Indian’ was the name used to identify North American native people, and was and in many cases, still is, used by them to describe themselves in both Canada and the States.
‘West Indian’ is the name used for Caribbean Black-mixed-with-everything-else people (and is used by them to describe themselves and even white people) who come from the West Indies (itself not a laughable name).
East Indian is the name used to distinguish people who come from their home country India from other Canadian people described as Indians.
Then of course, there’s the East Indies, but East Indians don’t come from there.
Moving to another country with different terminology and linguistic usage can be quite confusing; I do sympathize, but understanding the culture is much of the experience.
I would like to suggest that Flaxgirl is spamming this topic, because the articles which have been posted by Flaxgirl have nothing at all to do with the JY article.
Please remove them.
Apologies. I really only meant to post the one comment pointing out the similarities between JY and the Frankfurt story but I kept adding to the Frankfurt comment as I found more things out. If you click the down arrow at the bottom of my first comment it rolls all the other comments up. Just to let you know OffG are not super strict about staying on topic and obviously I didn’t just bring in Frankfurt out of nowhere.
Actually, andyoldlabour, it occurred to me that as you use the word “spamming”, you don’t understand my reasoning for including the Frankfurt incident in my original comment where I compare JY and Frankfurt. The original meaning of spam is unwanted advertising emails. Obviously Frankfurt is not that. So what do you perceive my reason to be for including Frankfurt in my comment and why do you object to it rather than see any value in it?
Are there any news sources which you believe?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/man-accused-of-pushing-boy-in-front-of-frankfurt-train-had-psychological-problems-1.3972016
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/29/boy-8-dies-mother-pushed-on-train-tracks-germany-frankfurt
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-boy-dies-after-being-pushed-in-front-of-train/a-49785190
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49155293
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/bystanders-howled-horror-boy-8-18798238
Andy, I believe you are simply making the assumption that a significant number of news sources telling the story is testimony to its veracity. The evidence shows otherwise. In fact, what the evidence generally shows is that each news outlet varies the story so that the anomalies multiply. I have to say your linked articles provide a fantastic way to illustrate this phenomenon.
Irish Times
“A 78-year-old woman was also shoved by the man, but she fell before reaching the edge of the platform.”
The Guardian
She added that the man had intended to push a third person on to the track, “but she was able to defend herself”.
DW
… the attacker also tried to push another man onto the tracks as the Intercity Express train was approaching, but the would-be victim managed to avoid falling onto the track.
BBC
The 40-year-old suspect attempted to push a third person but failed.
The Mirror
Picture caption – Police say the man may have tried to push a third person onto the tracks
Text – The police spokeswoman said the man tried to push a third person onto the track but the woman managed to defend herself.
Have only seen anything like the following in the Mirror.
“Another witness said the station was “full of children” at the time, and the train conductor was screaming.”
If you think that there is any reason to believe the story other than the fact that it is published by so-called “respectable” media, please tell me what it is.
Andy, to help you, that kind of behaviour is called trolling. I agree, it’s annoying, and that’s the purpose of the troll.
Cheers Frank, yes I did use the wrong term. It could have been frustration of course.
So what’s the link between JY and unnamed mother and son pushed off train platform in Frankfurt by an Eritrean?
Both stories are improbable and the reporting contains anomalies … and we see an AGENDA, don’t we? A BIG AGENDA, A BIG BUTTON-PUSHING SITUATION.
JY
Screenshots of text conversation with no datestamp
The inappropriate use of the word “retorted”
The shoddy reporting generally with details you’d expect missing
MOTHER AND SON
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/29/boy-8-dies-mother-pushed-on-train-tracks-germany-frankfurt
Questions:
Why does it say “it was possible to arrest him while he was still in the station”? Why would this be pointed out – isn’t it normal to be able to arrest people in stations?
Why do they not know for sure where the suspect is from? Why is he still only a suspect?
Why were six platforms closed for several hours?
Why are absolutely no names and no details even of the station given?
Why does it say, “German police have said”? Why, in this digital, big brother age, is everything so unclear?
Why does it say:
“Witnesses told police a man had approached the woman from behind without speaking and pushed her on to the track.”? What about the boy?
“Passengers waiting for trains in Germany are being advised to scan the platform for distressed or troubled faces and to stand at least two metres away from the platform edge.”
Doncha love it?
And in the second case, at least, if not both cases, they’re playing on FEAR. Oooh, platforms are dangerous, somebody might push us onto the tracks and we might get killed by a high-speed train.
I missed the picture caption. It says Frankfurt’s main train station. Frankfurt’s main train station? Hello? You don’t say “Frankfurt’s main train station”, you give the name which happens to be Frankfurt (Main) station (the full name of Frankfurt is Frankfurt am Main) – but they haven’t capitalised Main and they’ve put the possessive with Frankfurt so it’s a generic reference rather than denoting Frankfurt (Main). So high speed trains go whizzing through Frankfurt’s main train station do they? Frankfurt’s not a city they always stop in or perhaps the high-speed train is going to stop at another station in Frankfurt, not Frankfurt (Main) but a lesser station?
OMG! This is unreal.
Just looked it up. It looks as if all ICE (InterCity Express) trains that go in Frankfurt’s direction, in fact, either terminate or start there – seems like a bit of an interchange. Perhaps the speed the train was going as it was pulling in or pulling out of the station was enough to kill the boy though certainly the way it is expressed is as if it was going at speed.
https://www.eurail.com/en/get-inspired/trains-europe/high-speed-trains/ice
“The boy was hit by a high-speed ICE train and killed instantly.”
Frankfurt (Main) Hauptbahnhof(for short HBF) translates to:
Frankfurt (no translation needed)
(Main) (name of the river where the city is located at)
Haupt- (main)
bahn- (train)
hof (station)
Haupt-(main) has nothing to do with the Main river. You don’t even pronounce the name like the english word main.
The stations name is “Frankfurt (Main) HBF” because there is more than one city called Frankfurt for example: “Frankfurt an der Oder” whose train station is named “Bahnhof Frankfurt (Oder)”.
Looked up the story in SMH.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/a-refugee-pushed-a-boy-under-a-train-and-reignited-germany-s-race-debate-20190731-p52cbz.html
Reported:
“… just before 10am at the country’s biggest train station, a man on the platform suddenly pushed a 40-year-old woman and her eight-year-old son into the path of an oncoming inter-city train from Dusseldorf”
Anomaly:
If you look up Monday’s schedule from Dusseldorf to Frankfurt the only train that might fit involves a change at Cologne (in which case wouldn’t it really be the Cologne to Frankfurt train?) and it arrives at 10.13am not shortly before 10am.
https://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?ld=3762&protocol=https:&seqnr=6&ident=cq.02141462.1564637432&rt=1&rememberSortType=minArrival&REQ0HafasScrollDir=1
Oh dear, I need to be careful. There are a number of things that show stories are fake but I need to be more careful and not just grab at anything. There was a train arriving at 9:48 so I guess that fits “shortly before 10am”, however, there are ample other things that indicate fake.
But really why not say the 9:48 from Dusseldorf in any case?
Hello, thanks for the article. At the end it says ” it is not women that need to allow feminine males into their spaces, it is men.” As a straight male I have never thought about this and in my ignorance did not realize this is an issue. But I guess it is? Is this part of why were are here now? Because men have made non-straight males feel they are not welcome in the bathroom/changeroom?
I don’t know but as a straight male I now take advantage and use “women’s” washrooms when needed. (single person ones, not actual women’s washrooms yet) If people trans or otherwise can pick their gender and washroom why can’t I? If someone says something I can say they are discriminating against me.
I made a point earlier that this “event” shows evidence of fakery, eg, the alleged screenshots of a text conversation shows no timestamps and I also said it seems as if it has a button-pushing agenda. George agreed on the seeming agenda but no one has responded to my question of whether text conversations ever don’t show timestamps.
There’s been lots of discussion about transgenderism though.
I rest my case.
Just to add: of course, it’s a good thing to discuss the issue if it needs discussing but it’s a great problem if the discussion is triggered by fakery. That is a very serious problem.
I simply do not believe all this stuff allegedly going on in Germany. I haven’t looked at it closely enough to judge but it seems so improbable and thus likely to be fake and it really frightens me as I think it harks back to Nazism and WWII. It is very, very frightening.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/29/boy-8-dies-mother-pushed-on-train-tracks-germany-frankfurt
When I first started to realise news was being faked I immediately thought of Nazi Germany. It occurred to me that what’s happening is the exact opposite but the same in effect – I can just imagine many Germans saying, “Hey, they’re killing people in gas ovens” and being ignored, rubbished and VILIFIED. Now when I say to people, “Hey, they’re NOT killing the people they say are being killed,” I get ignored, rubbished and VILIFIED – “How dare you! People died! If you came round to my house and told me my son didn’t die I’d punch you in the face! How dare you!” The taboos around death are very dangerous. You need to disengage from that taboo if you wish to know the truth. Ultimately, it’s heading in the same direction. The novel, Maestro, I’ve just finished focuses on the character of an Austrian pianist married to a Jewish singer who realises too late the reality of what was going on and perfectly illustrates my fear.
Please, I beg you, scrutinise all instances of alleged killings which may have a push-button agenda or any news at all where an agenda might exist.
Just a quick scan of the various reporting of the mother and boy pushed off a train platform shows the words “alleged” and “German police have said”. Why so uncertain?
I don’t know any Marxist who is pro this nonsense so If love to know which (Trotskyist) professor would have made this popular amongst the rich herd
Just read a most illuminating story on Sputnik News about Mz Jessica Yaniv who they report has allegedly made vile, racist comments about Sikhs and Muslims, and who comes across as just a vicious, attention seeking narcissist, as well as being a bully and control freak.
The sort of person most would avoid like the plague, irrelevant of what sex they are or how they define themselves.
Indeed there are numerous stories all over the net regarding this attention seeking pervert. the very fact he has had the audacity to make a human rights complaint really does do a disservice to people genuinely suffering transgender dysphoria. Which should be treated with sympathy as a psychological issue not a physical one.
Just comes across as a really nasty person, and that he appears to have deliberately targeted immigrant workers to get his private parts shaved, knowing they would probably decline. Says all you need to know how much of a lowlife and manipulative person Yaniv is.
On a tangent Q.T, its good to be sceptical about things online, tho hope you find useful information on the Neoliberalism Softpanorama site. Whole subsections just on the role of the media alone.
Hope your day goes well.
Chuckle, I’ve said it before & i’ll say it again Gezzah, surely you mean . . .
Neoliberalism SOFTPORNORAMA !
Lol, sleep well 🙂
The number of trannies in the UK was estimated at over 130,000 in 2018.
There was an estimate of 700,000 for the US, but that dated back to 2011.
But it probably all depends how you define it.
it probably all depends how you define it.
Indeed.
If a “transgendered person” is defined as “a man trapped in a woman’s body”, or “a woman trapped in a man’s body”, then the number of such people is zero, because these ideas are inherently self-contradictory and impossible.
On the other hand, if a “transgendered person” is defined as “a person who believes they are transgendered”, then the numbers are rising rapidly, as the fashion becomes increasingly popular. Who wouldn’t want to be the guaranteed winner of the Oppression Olympics?
I’m going to define myself as a zebra next week.
The week after that, I’m going to define myself as a lamp post.
Oh Jesus.
I have economic dysphoria i identify as a billionaire but have no money, please donate now to my cause.
Great article. I love reality and Jenn Smith!
‘To reduce the population by creating sterile human beings.’
So where’s the conspiracy?
When someone takes the hormones they need for “treatment”, they are prescribe expensive medication for life, one that requires lots of medical attention. These people are cash cows for the medical industry. Unfortunately, there are not a lot actual transgender people in the world today. So why not make more? I think that big pharma is shilling youth forums, and paying off doctors and therapists to convince people that they need these hormones.
The average trans person, when discussing their time before transition, fits a simple mold. An awkward nerdy teenager who doesn’t act like a stereotypical manly guy and doesn’t fit in with jocks and “tough guys”. However, that description probably describes a large portion of the population. That’s where the medical company’s take advantage. By convincing completely normal and healthy people that the need help during a low point in their lives. High school sucks, but once you leave it gets better. University and the real world isn’t high school. But pharmaceutical companies are convincing people that the problem isn’t that high school sucks, but instead they are suffering from a serious medical problem, and they need treatment now.
On the off chance circumstances actually warranted it, it would be a lot easier to help a boy who thinks he’s transgender by giving him testosterone than it would be to give him female hormones and hundreds of thousands of dollars of cosmetic surgery??
How much of this whole craze is caused by low testosterone due to soy and xenoestrogen consumption from plastics? Infecting our water?
Or, let’s go further, how much of this is caused, perhaps, by the general state of our nutrition and food supply? We have GMOs, vaccines, chemtrails, and virtually a whole rash of electromagnetic “wash” that is bound to affect human physiology, inclusive of sexuality. Not the mention the odd thing that “trans people” are given estrogen rather than testosterone?
I wouldn’t know if this is a pattern or not, but what’s disturbing is that there appears to be a pattern, and why not capitalize on and attempt to drive the phenomenon, and increase profits from what may be an “environmental problem” which Big Pig pharma and its chemical-industry allies in “agribusiness” might be causing in the first place? And, if one grants that high octane speculation, then one has to ask if indeed the pattern is correct: is there a trend to force feminization on such people through lifelong female hormone prescriptions, rather than masculinization through male hormone injection?
https://gizadeathstar.com/2017/07/big-pig-pharma-trans-gender-movement/
Dr Michelle Cretella hits the nail on the head:
>> “The issues of gender reassignment would seem to be ready made for an unstable parent, double bonus when that parent finds an equally unstable medical professional.
Child Abuse: Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy was identified by the FBI Behavioural Science Unit in the 1980’s. <<.
http://poracponders.com/politics/transgender-munchausen-syndrome-by-proxy-and-child-abuse-same-side-of-the-coin/
(..) What is apparent, from such first-hand accounts, is that transgender activists have created a narrative — a script — that is being promoted in the mental-health establishment, and the online transgender community then acts as Pied Pipers leading vulnerable youth toward “transition.”
Teenagers who immerse themselves in online communities are often socially isolated — treated as outcasts at school or otherwise alienated from the majority of their real-life peer group — and this isolation makes them especially vulnerable to those who seek to influence them. By identifying as transgender, these isolated teens may easily gain a sense of belonging that is lacking in their day-to-day interactions with peers.
Synthetic communities appeal to adolescents because group membership is a source of identity at an age when young people are struggling to define themselves as individuals. The greater a teenager’s feelings of alienation, the more outlandish their chosen identities are likely to be. Young people who are basically happy with their family and social lives, and optimistic about their futures, are as unlikely to announce they are “genderqueer” as they are to become radical Muslims. However, the ordinary emotional turbulence of adolescent life is such that even a popular and relatively well-adjusted teenager may at times be vulnerable to exploring synthetic communities. A growing body of research indicates that anxiety and depression are correlated with higher levels of social-media usage, and the association of rapid onset gender dysphoria with intense online involvement is almost certainly not coincidental:
Reports online indicate that a young person’s coming out as transgender is often preceded by increased social media use and/or having one or more peers also come out as transgender. These factors suggest that social contagion may be contributing to the significant rise in the number of young people seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. . . .
Young people can find plenty of in-group validation online. There is an incredibly positive climate around being trans in many places on the Internet. . . .
Young people on reddit and other social media sites explain that they started wondering whether they were trans because they enjoyed creating opposite-sex avatars in online games and liked the clothing or hairstyles of the opposite sex. (..)
https://theothermccain.com/2018/05/17/synthetic-community-social-media-and-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria/
“A video is now making the rounds featuring super sexy transgender sensation Blaire White (featured in the title art)…”
There’s something about her that reminds me of Telly Savalas. Maybe it’s the hair.
Sorry, but ‘gender’ is for French nouns; we human beings are grouped by sex instead, and there are two sexes only: male and female. If you’re unsure as to which you are, and you really just can’t bring yourself to look between your own legs, then there are labs that can check your chromosomes for you.
I have had it with the Cultural Marxists and Postmodernists who insist that homosexuality, for example, is biological, while one’s sex is merely a ‘social construct’. Their contrary-to-reality claptrap makes me think of O’Brien in 1984, telling Winston Smith that “two plus two equals five”. They are spreading malicious lies, and they are doing it to destabilize our civilization and distract us from the crimes of our masters.
Enough is enough!
Our psychotic omnicidal civilisation: built on genocide after genocide; war after war; that has murdered every indigenous person it ever met; raped and enslaved the rest of the globe and used its resources and peoples as nothing but a tax and rent farm; is racist, sexist, white supremacist, ethnocentrically exceptionalist and patriarchal to the core; that has all but destroyed the environment, and murdered by debt money countless species to maintain our entitlement; poisoned everything with its instrumentally rational values; and severely curtailed any real chance of prosperous survival for future generations so we can have unhindered bourgeois consumerism now …that murderous abomination of a civilisation?
Yep, them cultural Marxists and postmodernists (made up bullshit terms that assuredly point out a dearth of understanding of critical theory and post-structuralism; etc) …they sure fucked it up for the rest of us entitled Eurocentric Anglophone white folk by pointing this out. We were doing so well up to the sixties. That postmodernist (if we are playing hard and fast with categories) Frantz Fanon really upset the patriarchate order by pointing out Europe was built on the wealth of Africa and the enslavement of its people. Let’s put all the criticism under two convenient made-up labels and get back to traditional nuclear family orientated genocide and ecocide of the planet and its racially inferior peoples uncriticised.
That civilisation?
Bravo I salute you sir. (hope i got the noun right)
Thanks. And yes: you did get the noun right–at least based on the last time I looked between my own legs!
“Sorry, but ‘gender’ is for French nouns;…”
Yes, and sorry for it the French certainly should be. But
“we human beings are grouped by sex instead, and there are two sexes only: male and female.”
is about as close to scientific bullshit as one can defecate in public and not be charged with rampant circumstantial bestiality.
Never heard of intersex, Seamus?
https://anunnakiray.com/2017/12/25/difference-between-hermaphrodite-and-intersex/
There is the language definition of gender but there’s another one applying to people:
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
My goodness! There are transgender people in probably every culture and always have been just as there have always been people attracted to those of their own sex. I have a friend who is more-or-less a lesbian but has had relationships with men and as far as “women” go tends to prefer transmen. I’ve read the singer, Beth Ditto, tends to prefer transmen too. There are many different preferences and inclinations – it’s a diverse world.
Any examples of saan peoples of southern Africa having transgenders? I suspect not, when you have more important things to worry about you probably don’t question the laws of nature.
The laws of nature? There are many things in nature that aren’t the “norm”. Nature is unbelievably diverse.
Can’t find any of saan but below are links to examples of transgender among other African peoples, indigenous Colombian and native American.
https://medium.com/@janelane_62637/the-splendor-of-gender-non-conformity-in-africa-f894ff5706e1
https://www.france24.com/en/20190627-trans-indigenous-women-eke-out-tough-living-colombia-0
https://lgbtqhealth.ca/community/two-spirit.php
I’m sorry what are you attempting to prove with the links?
Firstly these are written by western liberal journalist with a transgender agenda certainly the first one is literally nonsense.
Secondly i said complex societies well these are still complex human societies, its kind of embarrassing that these liberal progressives are being so blatantly racist as to imply that these tribes are some how ‘primitive’ (for want of a better word) examples of transgenderism in nature LOL. The only difference between them & you & me is our reliance on technology, they actually may have a more complex society LOL.
The Saan people are a remarkable ancient race of people (they have my deepest respect) that up until 100 years ago had probably maintained an uncorrupted hunter gatherer culture since the beginning of their arrival in southern Africa, tens of thousands of years ago, sadly their culture is all but gone because of the western corruption of Africa with their indigenous land rights taken away from them. I’m confident you wont find any example of Saan trandgenderism.
I think I can respectfully agree to disagree, Question This. I think there’s no point continuing discussion. Happy to leave it here.
If a female is lesbian, then they are attracted to other females (not transwomen), and if they are more or less lesbian and have relationships with men – human males – then they are bisexual. If however these lesbians have relationships with human females and transmen, then they are indeed lesbians, because transmen are in fact human females.
I have no problem with other people’s sexuality or how they identify, but I do have a problem with people who try to push their ideology, force others to accept it, rather like some religious fundamentalist.
Men who dress up as women because they envy and admire them has always been part of the human experience. Women who hate men but dress up and behave like them was always a little more puzzling.
I have known many of both sorts of individuals and never had a problem with it – it’s what some people do.
It was more fun when all this was underground, and people discovered their preferences (or often grew out of them in the process). Now that it’s mainstream, there are Pride Months where there used to be Pride Days, and kids are being recruited and indoctrinated beginning in primary school, it’s a fad that’s becoming tedious and undoubtedly quite confusing for … pre-hormonal kids.
There was actually a CBC Canada show on the other week called ‘Drag Kids’, which was promo’d on their kids’ site, as well as their regular programming site, presumably to educate adults how normal this should be.
https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/kid-drag-queens-sashay-their-way-into-the-spotlight/
It’s the Trans Lobby Agenda to “normalize” pedophelia and fetishes. It starts with grooming children with these Drag Queen Story Time and teaching “gender theory” to 5 year olds. It’s SICK.
Indeed Annie, it is a very dangerous progression. Have you heard of “Desmond is amazing” a young prepubescent American boy who performs for money at gay clubs, or maybe the “puppy walks” in London, where grown men dress up in fetish gear – puppy masks, leads etc. and walk around London parks in groups?
So what happens when the membership exceeds 101 Dalmatians?
And have their owners had them spayed?
Good piece. This Yaniv character is either psychologically disturbed or a deliberate “shit disturber” as the Canadians say. Treating him/her as some sort of victim of prejudice and bigotry is just pathetic and a symptom of our politically correct times where adhering to the “correct” speech codes is more important than revealing facts and truth.
Mainstream media outfits like the CBC, which recently ran a one-sided piece championing Yaniv that mentioned nothing of this person’s history of bizarre and deliberately provocative/offensive behaviour because they have fashioned themselves as “pro-trans”, is not only disingenuous and shameful for a supposedly serious media organization, but it also tarnishes the collective reputation of trans people who conduct themselves like respectful citizens and just want to get on with their lives.
Focusing on glorifying freakish outlier “attention whores” like Yaniv only serves to give the public the impression that this kind of behaviour is representative of all trans people. This cowardly journalism thing no doubt fuels the prejudices of people who will use the CBC’s hack job to help advance an agenda that seeks to conflate incidents like this with the behaviour of regular trans people who are nothing like Yaniv. How very ironic for a “pro-trans” outfit!
The takeaway here is that self-censorship and cowardice in the face of Orwellian political correctness can, and does, backfire and harms the very people these misguided actions are supposed to protect.
Regardless of whether Yaniv is representative of trans people or not, This travesty is a direct consequence of both self id laws and the demonizing of anyone who suggest being gender critical while remaining based in reality.
Thank you, Jenn! You are awesome! You are brilliant! <3
Does anyone really give a toss about all this gay and trannie crap?
There was a guy at work who was into extremely fat women.
Anything under 25 stones and he just wasn’t interested.
That’s okay for him.
So long as everybody else doesn’t have to join in, pay for it, obsess about it, say how wonderful it is, join in taxpayer funded marches to promote it, employ activists to brainwash primary school children about it, and turn the whole world upside down to accommodate it, that’s fine.
If somebody says we should all pour custard in our shoes, we are not entitled to attack them, but we are entitled to laugh at them. It’s the same with this.
There is a tiny number of children born with undeveloped genitalia whose gender is unclear. They deserve all the help they need and we should all wish them well, but that’s as far as it goes.
You can ride whatever hobby horse you like and climb aboard whatever bandwagon you like. Just so long as you don’t insist everybody else has to ride it or climb aboard as well.
I admit that I’m unsure about the logic behind gay pride parades. I really couldn’t give a toss if people are gay or indeed anything else as long as they observe that old condition about doing it with other willing adults. But to loudly proclaim what they do in a big public display seems deliberately provocative to me – as if they are trying to create a disturbance. And then we get our little shouting match between the right-on “strut your stuff” brigade and the old fogey “wouldn’t have beeen allowed in my day contingent. In other words: the customary divide-and-rule policy. And who honestly gives a shit what folk do with their genitalia in private?
Should have been closing quote marks after “wouldn’t have been allowed in my day”.
I would like to know when someone is going to organise a ”Heterosexual Pride March”?
This is probably one of the very few sites where I could get away with saying this, but I have felt for a long time that, generally, this issue really boils down to attention craving by bored, lazy people who are terrified that their lives are meaningless to other people too.
I admit, however, that I am talking from the perspective of a person who has been fortunate enough to have had to work all his life at a university job which simply doesn’t allow for “boredom time”. Not that I have ever found it difficult to overfill my time with hobbies either.
From what I understand of paedophile rings too, despite the bottom apparently falling out of one man’s allegations of high-level addiction to this abomination, it is the people who either have everything, or have so much free time that they feel they have everything, who are looking for increased excitement in life in weird places which seem, to them, to offer “meaning” which they have not experienced since their mothers abandoned them long ago.
Perhaps that all sounds rather callous, but I do pay attention, and I can definitely see a pattern along these lines.
Of course I am not saying that all bored, rich people are paedophiles, or that they have transgender tendencies, but I am saying that nobody should be so rich that they don’t know what to do with their lives except to crave attention.
“….attention craving by bored, lazy people who are terrified that their lives are meaningless to other people too.”
Well, yes – welcome to the affluent consumerist West who spend their every waking minute obsessing over the state of their hair, clothes, “attitude”, “image” etc. Granted – they were encouraged to do this by a ferociously exploitative capitalism ever eager to create constant dissatisfaction to fuel sales as well as creating ever multiplying demographic groups. This latter phenomenon was one of those handy multipurpose propositions i.e. it was necessary in order to boost sales while also intensifying the old divide and rule strategy. I sometimes wonder if these multiplying gender definitions have something to do with this marketing/political strategy ploy?
Exactly.
Say you had a 10-11 year old son and you took him to a strip club with you. He’d see some topless women. The next day you’d get a visit from social services to put the kid on the at risk register. You’d get freighted off by the boys in blue, and depending on their mood at the time they might charge you with child abuse and take the kid into care.
Say you took him on the Gay Pride march instead – and parties of primary school children have been as part of legally required programmes – “because nobody can be left out.” He might well see full frontal nudity, all kinds of ultra weird S and M shit, gays having sex in public, God knows what else. Certainly makes Sodom and Gomorrah look pretty tame. I don’t know what effect that would have on a young kid, but it sure as hell frightens me.
On these things you can see very young kids mincing around in revealing clothing and being leered at by adult homosexuals.
But if you did that, you’d be lauded as right on, politically correct, liberal, enlightened, and a model of good parenting.
What is it about these gays and trannies that they need to make an exhibition of themselves in front of the vast majority of people who couldn’t care less about how they get their jollies?
Why can’t they just get on with it and leave our kids alone?
You’re very well informed, but you’ve forgotten the central issue, the Zionist angle….
Great comment mark: does anybody really remember the ‘Istanbul Convention’ and apparent absurdity & the blatant latent hypocrisy & lies of the Bulgarian PM Borisov ?
https://www.euractiv.com/section/freedom-of-thought/news/istanbul-convention-spells-trouble-for-bulgarias-ruling-coalition/
And this, ladies & gents, is precisely why the vast majority of Bulgarians rest in poverty.
We really do have more pressing matters to discuss, like Corruption …
CORRUPTION IS THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURE …
And these pathetic distractions, (when laws exist for the prosecution of violence inside or outside of any marriage), merely accelerate the systemic death of the true Bulgarian Culture, by design, with the imposition of Sociopathic Agendas … and yes I mean the designs of the Corrupt, who don’t give a flying fuck about Culture or Bulgaria, in future.
Some body, including Interpol, should be asking questions to PM Borisov about the private ownership of CEZ Electricity providers, not some transgender agenda !
On this planet earth, we have a species – Homosapien, which has evolved over tens of thousands of years.
We divide Homosapien into two categories of sex – male and female. How do we divide them? We divide them by identifying chromosomes – male XY, and female XX. In a very minute number of cases, humans are recognised as being “intersex”.
Sex is based on biological, scientific fact, it is absolute.
Gender on the other hand is a social construct, where people can identify as whatever gender they choose, or to be gender neutral, however one thing is of vital importance – human beings can NEVER change sex, it is impossible.
What we are experiencing at the moment, is gender being used as a political tool, to allow male bodied persons to enter female safe spaces, and to force/coerce females into doing anything the male bodied person wiches.
In the UK at the moment, around 50% of all transgender prisoners- males ID’ing as female – are incarcerated for sex crimes, Karen White being just one example.
There was a UK fell runner Lauren Jeska who is transgender. Jeska won several UK titles in the Women’s category, before brutally attacking two members of British Athletics, when they were querying Jeska’s sex.
There are several other male bodied athletes competing in the women’s category in various sports – Kate Weatherly (NZ Mountain biking), Rachel McKinnon (Canada track cycling), Laurel Hubbard (NZ weightlifting), Hannah Mouncey (Australia handball).
All of the above have very obvious male advantages when it comes to competing against women at sport, but alas, the sports ruling bodies – IOC, UCI, IAAF etc – seem to have closed their eyes and looked the other way, as if they wish to see women forced out of women’s sport by – MEN!
Several notable ex women athletes have spoken up – Martina Navratilova, Sharron Davies, Kelly Holmes, but have been brutally shouted down and threatened by transwomen and their “woke” folloowers.
At the Rio 2016 Olympics, all three medalists in the women’s 800 metres were XY chromosome athletes, the most notable being Caster Semenya.
Although there are more important issues in the World at the moment, it is worth drawing attention to this, because it has the potential to negatively affect 50% of the population.
“We divide Homosapien into two categories of sex – male and female. How do we divide them? We divide them by identifying chromosomes – male XY, and female XX.”
Correction: for “We” read “Antidiluvean, shit-for-brains dickheads.”
In a very minute number of cases, humans are recognised as being “intersex”.
Read instead “Proportionally similat to those in other societies, up to half a million or more North Americans suffer from significant genetically induced disorders of the ‘normal’ sex-determining human chromosomal structures.”
Hear Hear. Jonny Yaniv is not doing anything extreme for a transgender person as far as I can see. If she wants her hairy balls waxed by professional cis-female depilators that’s surely within her rights. Probably she has a significant genetically induced disorder or her normal sex-determining chromosomal structures, as described above. You go girl.
Well Boot Hill, what you are suggesting, is to allow a male bodied person to sexually abuse a female, because I don’t know what else you would call it – forcing a member of the opposite sex to touch your genitalia.
Well, thankyou for your ignorant response. I said a very minute number of cases, which is around 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births, I would call that minute.
You are suggesting a figure of 1 in around 750 which is still minute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
“…thankyou for your ignorant response.”
You’re welcome. Thank you for yours.
“You are suggesting a figure of 1 in around 750 which is still minute.”
No, I am taking a guess at the figure for the entire range of physical sexual anomalies related to male/female primary and secondary expression, including hormonal, psychological and other expressions, whether SRY or otherwise engendered.
S/he is bringing a civil lawsuit against a bunch of female beauticians who, apparently, wish to reserve the right to refuse service on any grounds, with or without explanation. I personally support such a right in any privately (as distinc5 from state) owned business, anything else risking the “tyranny of the majority”. Also, as there are, presumably, c.f. male gynecologists, plenty of male beauticians who would be happy to serve her, I’m not sure why one of them would be objectionable re depilatory services per se unless s/he were pursuing some wider objective.
However, s/he has apparently chosen to take her right to be served by any business, private or otherwise, to civil litigation. At that point, provided that the courts agree to hear the case (and legal costs follow the line of any judgement) it becomes solely a private legal matter, anything else risking “the tyranny of the majority”. In a different jurisdiction, courts held that, although gay marriage had not at that time been legalized, the committed Christians running a private bakery were at fault for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a homosexual couple. While the best advice is to avoid as far as possible placing oneself in the hands of lawyers, it is up to the plaintiff to choose whether or not to sue and it is up to the courts to decide whether or not to hear the case and, if they do, to determine their judgement. Not yours, mine or anyone else’s. Otherwise is to risk “the tyranny of the majority”.
Subsequent to the initial judgement, it is equally the right of either side, alone or with the support of any group wh0 feels they also have been negatively impacted, to seek leave to appeal, on and up to the amendment or introduction of appropriate legislation or “official policy”. Legislation and “official policy” are, of course, often a combination of “the tyranny of the majority” with the asininity of the law and the “rules”, but they do provide the only broadly socially defensible thus “peaceably challengable” expression of both.
There are no “tiny minorities” in the case of an individual’s subjection to natural or social “affliction”.
If I may have another go at this, I’ll link to two pieces that I looked out while waiting for a delayed lunch. I haven’t had time to check them fully but at first reading they look OK on the reasonably accurate journalism score. Both show the subtleties involved in considering the greatly expanded understanding of genetics we have uncovered since only a chromosome count seemed to form the entirety of gender expression (subtleties that clearly go right over the head of many agenda-driven militants on all sides of the matter).
https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448 deals with the complicated ethics of the Semenya case (who, incidentally, is conjectured but not confirmed to have the old XY = unequivocal male problem) and
https://theconversation.com/what-makes-you-a-man-or-a-woman-geneticist-jenny-graves-explains-102983 goes into the broad outline of the now much more and still rapidly multiplying complexity a properly nuanced consideration of the biology of sexual expression involves.
Do I expect this info will make a difference to your, andyoldlabour’s, mission to untie complicated knots using antique swords? Not really, but who knows?
The “big issue” is identity itself …identitarian Being. Who are we? Who really are we?
That the current answer is: “We don’t know” is a given. Radical eliminitivism of ourselves seems to be the answer – especially ecologically. But biologically and psychologically: we are confused …very confused.
That we think we are not confused: and rationally certaintise that belief ontologically (creating fixed identitarian concretised-existent Beingness) encapsulates the entire problem of the 21st century philoso-political narrative. There is no fixed; individuated; independent; individual; time-independent; or mind-dependent Being. Our ontological constructivism is totally out of control.
This cannot be addressed in its symptomology – the individual confusion identitarian politics creates – it has to be addressed at the roots of the culture that is creating the symptomology. This is not a superficial issue: nor one that will simply go away. It is paradigmatic. Identity is largely a performative role – one we create in our interactionism with culture and environment. There is very little ‘innate endowment’ that is genetically hardwired. Most of our identity is acquired and ‘epigenetic interactionism’.
Welcome to psychology wars. If you do not follow such things – there are two main schools. Chomsky/Skinner radical behaviourism and cognitivism – which is ‘diembodied’ – versus Piaget/Lakoff’s embodiment. Of course, there are many more protaganists than that – but the debate is highly political, as I see it. Conservatives and Classic Liberals – like Harvard’s Steven Pinker – favour Chomsky …and progressives favour Lakoff.
I’ve tried to introduce the concepts of ’embodiment’ and ‘disembodiment’ before by raising the question: “How can we do politics if we do not know who we are?” Or as George Lakoff would put it: “How can we do 21st century politics with 18th century minds”. Minds that are extremely maladjusted to the 21st century postmodern technocratic environment. The short answer is that we cannot: and the results – or cummulative consequentionalism of the results – are apparent in out blatant disregard for our environment.
We are carryine the ontological baggage of centuries in our cultural conditioning. Cultural conditioning that orients us away from the environment and self-recursively introspectively ever inward …to the point of totalised introversion and dissociation from biophysical ecological reality. Our solipsism is killing us.
I’ll have to leave it there, because I already know that no one else can, or perhaps even wants to, what embodiement entails for identity and politics. Which is perhaps the greatest debate that we are not having as a society: because we think we already know who we are. We do not. It is only in the last 40 years that science has become to realise cognition might be embodied. Well, hello – WTF have you been thinking for the last two millennia!
And if we do not know what disembodiment entails: that is because philoso-politically …we still think that way. From Aristotle – following Plato – we have immaterial independent minds floating around somewhere in a world of forms and substances. As confirmed by Descartes – the mind is an unextended thinking thing …or zeropoint of self-absorbtion, as I call it.
Where is it? I can make this radical claim: putting mind in body and body in environment is the political Zeitgeist issue no one is considering. Embodiment changes identity and politics radically and forever. Something we should address before it becomes to late.
No its not about who are we at all,its about what sex are we & that’s a simple question to answer, look between your legs, I accept for a tiny minority that may be confusing.
This problem comes from our distancing ourselves from the natural world & i don’t accept that’s anything to do with evolution, its political ideology, because i’m damn sure there were no neanderthal transgenders.
It’s Neo-liberalism preventing the rest of us being what we want to be & know what we are, a part of the natural order of things! I’m not in the least confused by this.
QT: surely you could see I am taking the overarching view? I maintain we cannot have a proper adult debate without the deep contextualisation of the archetypal ideas that are playing out. Clearly, no one here agrees.
Ideas do not just pop up in our heads: they come from somewhere …but not just independent minds. The simple way to account for this is that we do not construct the language. Private independent languages do not make sense and cannot communicate ideas or coordinate behaviours. If we can accept that language is a largely a shared public domain – socially agreed – then we can start to see where ideas and identities come from. They are not wholly our own. Currently: identity is mainly culturally created and socially acquired. The reason that some people are choosing to reject this is not their social deviance: it is symptomatic of a broader cultural degeneration. We are all victims of capitalist cultural deviance. Shouldn’t we be at least a little empathetic toward the most confused?
Language and culture orientate us in certain ways. Technological postmodernity orientates us self-referentially inward toward ourselves. Modern culture is hedonistic, narcissistic, and solipsistic. You and I may not be: but culture is largely a hyperreal spectacle. Taking the overview does not invalidate the individual who has managed to avoid being confused. But surely you would not deny that the culture itself is confused in its identity? And we are all victims of this neoliberal epoch of violence?
If we only take the individualist view of this: we will never move to a less confused, more authentic identitarian successor culture. The world is extremely fucked up; sectarian; identitarian; and self-absorbed. Where do those proto-identities come from? Out of our heads? Or are they intrinsic in the neoliberalised culture we are automatic subjects of: whatever we think?
The generation of a political ideology like neoliberalism belies the culture of individual, independent genesis. Even if you trace it back to Walter Lipmann: where did he get his ideas from? From millions of ideas absorbed into cultural linguistics. Ideologies evolve from philosophical ideals. The way culture has evolved is deeply sick: there’s hardly an argument to be had there, is there? Understanding why involves deep transpersonal insight, says he to himself.
I am not alone in concluding that it is not possible to be well adjusted to this sick culture. Krishnamurti said it long ago. I guess it is a waste of time trying to understand the deep reasons why? I do not suppose that our identitarian crises; our cognitive crises; our psychological crises; our mental health crises; our economic crises; and our ecocidal environmental crises could all have a singular cause? One that is the inexistant existency of a self, a mind, or a fixed own-being identitarianism …which is why culture is breaking down? Or that all of this is predicated on the individual roots from which culture, political ideology, economy, ecology, and economy share?
We do not just have gender issues: we have everything issues …manifest as a permanent everything crisis. One that you are right is saying takes us away from the natural order. The roots of which bifurcation I was trying to expose.
Neoliberalism and identitarianism share the same root: one that can be healed by a new theory of mind based on embodiment. For the no one who is interested.
I do really enjoy reading your philosophizing, though perhaps your posts are sometimes a little difficult for the likes of simpler uneducated people like me to absorb. So forgive me if i haven’t seen the bigger picture here.
But this is a bigger issue than a few men dressing as women hiding their genitalia because they are confused about what they are. Its bigger than individuals rights not to have their feelings hurt.
I refer you to a reply i just made to Mark I hope the link works, but you’ll find it if you scroll down.
As you rightly point out this is a move away from the natural order. My go to place for guidance on how to conduct my life comes from the laws of nature my values & principles are based on those provided by my deep respect for the natural world.
This is a fight for survival, its a political battle but none the less a very serious fight against the tyranny of Neo-liberalism. Its a dirty nasty scrap, there’s no room for being nice & not hurting peoples feelings.
I agree we are in a struggle for survival. In the vain hope that somehow humanity may move toward a positive successor state to late epochal neoliberalism – rather than just tear ourselves apart for the access to the last drop of oil, the last unit of cryptocurrency, and the last sheaf of GMO biotech wheat …we would have to understand the generation of the identitarian ideas that got us here. The cognitivist computer metaphor is apt: GIGO …garbage in-garbage out.
Civilisational culture is unnatural: predicated on separation (dualism); hierarchy (dominion); and self (sense of ownership = private property rights; sense of agency = instrumental reason). The ‘society of self’ is solipsistic, hedonistic, narcissistic …and degenerately so. Separation is at the roots of the language and cultural conditioning …so much so that sociolinguistics can be taken as the cultural Code. A culture that thinks ritualistically in dualisms can only deconhere over time.
It’s as simple as this. It’s a simple binary choice where only one answer is valid (Law of Identity). Every choice in the meta-system of choices denies the existence of half of the universe (Law of Excluded Middle – no compromise position available. If not A: B must be true).
If you look at the singular perspective – no problem – but over an indeterminate duration and an infinity of choosing …the perspective of language is very limited. Along with all the infinity of dichotomising differentials that have been made to form the sociolinguistic Code …there is perhaps an even greater enemy – repetition.
Repetition takes somewhat arbitrarily defined concepts and makes them ‘real’. It is these axiomatised concepts of self and other fixed identitarian indentities we are acculturated into. Unfortunately for you and I, just as the inevitable consequences of infinite assumptions and axiomatised dualised cognition are hitting crisis point.
The ability of language to make sense is not arbritary and therefore infinite. According to Chomsky, we can just add grunts and hisses and the next generation will use their innate Universal Grammar to expand the language. Language is limited by its core concepts – which can be said to be embodied. This makes language quite finite. When the word count and excessive ideation exceed the conceptual structure of language to convey sense …language begins to deconhere into arbritariness and loss of meaning. When language breaks down by becoming over-abstract meanings can’t ‘transact’ …culture breaks down too. Which is where we are at.
The solution is to quell the proliferation of evermore abstract ideation by switching from ontology to epistemology – ideas that refer to actual concrete realities (like penises and vaginas). But that also rules out abstract entities like ‘minds’; ‘selves’; and independent identities categorised as Being. Ergo: we need a new culture predicated not on separation – but on connection, interaction, and inter-relatedness …aka embodiment. That is when we realise the problems are not confined to single issues. The problem is the monolithic ontology of dualism: playing out as it always will …destructively.
Errm, not sure i’m qualified to even read that let alone understand it , so again if i didn’t quite understand what you were conveying, sorry.
But yes I agree humanity is on the last furlong in its race to extinction, because the more complex we make civilization the greater the pace toward the finish line.
One thing i did get from your reply is the part on the human condition, where we have this uncontrollable desire, need, to ‘own’ property, to have control over things, (perhaps including the narrative of the meaning of our increasingly shallow lives) which i think is the single most harmful action our species imposes on the natural world, “control”, that’s what liberals are managers & control freaks.
“The ability of language to make sense is not arbritary and therefore infinite. […] Language is limited by its core concepts – which can be said to be embodied. This makes language quite finite. When the word count and excessive ideation exceed the conceptual structure of language to convey sense …language begins to deconhere into arbritariness and loss of meaning. When language breaks down by becoming over-abstract meanings can’t ‘transact’ …culture breaks down too.”
Or (different strokes being for different folks; different rhymes for different climes):
However, it remains, still, the case that:
I’m not sure its possible to have a rational discussion with someone who writes:
“The generation of a political ideology like neoliberalism belies the culture of individual, independent genesis. Even if you trace it back to Walter Lipmann: where did he get his ideas from? From millions of ideas absorbed into cultural linguistics. Ideologies evolve from philosophical ideals. The way culture has evolved is deeply sick: there’s hardly an argument to be had there, is there? Understanding why involves deep transpersonal insight, says he to himself. etc blah blah ”
But then the writer apparently lucidly states:
“one .. can be healed by a new theory of mind based on embodiment.”
Is this embodiment the same as feeling around in my underpants and saying “Look I have embodied a penis! I am female, ….. but wait a sec… am I really a male?”
Well, if I say I am male, its straightforward.
If I say I am female, well its going to be complicated. I’d say that looking at the crude results available today, the surgery is not quite there yet.
Ideally you’d want some sort of machine that operated on a sub-molecular level which just genetically altered your body into whatever female type you wanted. And back again of course in case you decided that being female was not what you wanted after all. Perhaps you want to become some weird hybrid, its okay, just pay more money for the optional extras.
I think until this sort of thing becomes technically possible its just best to stick with what you’ve got. Otherwise you’re undoubtedly headed for a case of schizophrenic surgical self-mutilation.
“I maintain we cannot have a proper adult debate without the deep contextualisation of the archetypal ideas that are playing out. Clearly, no one here agrees. […] Neoliberalism and identitarianism share the same root: one that can be healed by a new theory of mind based on embodiment. For the no one who is interested.”
Oh stop rabbiting on about this purely illusory aspect of ‘the problem’. A lot of people are proto-interested, i.e., they agree, they just do not know how, in the context of their individuation, to be ‘interested’ enough to begin to find the courage to realize it. We=they don’t need a statement of the problem–history is littered with them*–we=they need an insight into how to take a first step into (not ‘towards’) an un individuated ‘solution’.
…I wonder if she/he/it would be worrying about waxing if she/he/it were about to be bombarded??….or if the whole planet burns out….will she/he/it be thinking on waxing?…mmm…
A guy claiming to be Jesus is dancing in Kenya, Bezos is planning for Elysium and the prince Bin Salman is projecting “all-seeing eye” futuristic city …the ideal Panopticon…knowing if Moon landing was real or fake determines the meaning of everything…
…and now waxing (something critical to human survival!!!) is being denied to a woman that is not a woman,nor a man that is a woman or a woman that will be, a man that was but not quite yet…..
Hey! Arent we already f*** nuts??!!!
…. meanwhile kids are dying of starvation in Yemen, fascism is on the rise, human species is going down….
“Father, forgive us; for we don’t know what we are doing!!!!”
Oh Lord!!!
Its the classic case if you give an inch they take a mile.
I’m going to say it right off, my own opinion is that deviant sexual behaviors are unnatural & a symptom of a sickness in society (i’m not interested in picking on individuals).
Liberal politicians told us accepting homosexuality as normal wouldn’t harm society, we were told same sex marriage wasn’t harmful to society, we were told accepting transgenderism was normal & it woudlnt harm society & look what has happened! Where does it end? Incest? pedophilia? Bestiality?
We are now being told what to think & what we must say all in the name of equality, interesting how equality acts were brought that mysteriously infringe on human rights of free speech & thought. We mustn’t allow Politicians to take away our right to say what we believe or stop us from critical thought.
It is a scientific fact that a man can not become a woman & vice versa, full stop there is nothing else to consider. I don’t accept the term genda, the division ends with sex, biological male & female, its function is to reproduce, it is only possible for members of the opposite sex to raise offspring. Its time we stood up against this insanity before it gets out of control (if it isn’t already).
I personally feel what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of the states or anyone else’s business but you can not force others to facilitate mental illness & corruption of the perception of natural processes, I have no issue with people doing what makes them happy but we have to stop pandering to minority groups degenerate conduct as if all things are equal because they are not.
gender* not genda
Transgenderism is not an extension of gay rights, it’s implicity hostile to them even if some LGB activists support it. Today we have male to female transwomen who are attracted to females and who have male genitals insisting that it’s discriminatory for Lesbians not to consider them and their “lady penises” as sexual partners because they should be attracted to the intangible qualities of the person instead, the intangible “femaleness” of their male genitals, and Lesbians should not put off by the physical fact they have male genitals. Transactivists call this “The Cotton Ceiling”.
I’m heterosexual and physically attracted to women, I find intangible qualities like wit, intelligence, attitude and shared tastes sexually attractive only among those with female bodies. My heterosexuality is thus primarily physical, so is homosexuality, men who are attracted to men are attracted to male bodies. But transgenderism attempts to argue we should be attracted only by intangible qualities like someone’s identity, in which case we could be attracted to anything. If we seek intangible qualities like say kindness or humour we could find it say animals or children, indeed the reason bestiality or paedophilia are abnormal is because of physicality, animals have non-human bodies, children have not physically developed functioning sexual features. If you attempt to take physicality out of sexual attraction then there is no hetero, bi or homosexuality. This is also why I’ve always objected to the feminist idea of “sexual objectification of women” it implies attraction shouldn’t be physical, that’s another issue for now, but I do think that ill thought out feminist argument has influenced the transactivists in their dismissal of the physical fact of sex.
Further most gender non-conforming children, like boys who like playing with dolls and dresses, turn out to be gay men as adults. The transgender activists would be pushing them all to take hormone blockers and transition so they wouldn’t become gay adults in the first place, effectively bringing an end to homosexuality. There is some evidence many parents bringing their kids to gender reassignment clinics are homophobic, that they would rather have a transgirl than a gay son.
I think it’s simplistic to lump the transgender self ID ideology in with gay rights in a slippery slope argument. The transgender ideology draws on some different sources.
You’ve conflated something with something I never said. Sorry I don’t recognize the term gender. Its an academic fabrication to suit a political ideology.
I really don’t care what people do with their genitals, that’s their business, they have no right making it my business. You have every right to be what ever you like in your own mind, you just don’t have the right to be what ever you like in my mind & politicians have no right legislating otherwise.
A lecture on deviant sexual conduct doesn’t interest me in the slightest. You have your personal beliefs & values i have mine, i’m willing to respect you are entitled to yours so i expect the same consideration.
That being the laws of nature, biology, physics & chemistry & in those laws, a man can not become a woman! Further more as you have pushed me to discuss this, your rectum isn’t an entrance its strictly one way, an exit, a rubbish chute. If your talking about rights NO its not right to put your penis in another persons rectum & and its not right that men can morph into women or vice versa. But that’s their choice & good luck to them as long as they don’t drag me into it.
If some one comes to you and says i’m sexually attracted to goats what advice would you give them?
If you had actually read my post you’d have noticed I said I was a hetero male and that basically all I was saying was that Gay rights or homosexuality and Transgender ideology (which I’m opposed to) don’t exist on a continuum, which you were assuming. Otherwise I was somewhat agreeing with you on TRAs at least.
Your knee jerk defensive response and language exhibits a number of personal trigger points, in particular your repressed anal fixation. I said nothing whatsoever about anal sex or “rectums” but YOUR imagination jumped straight to vivid descriptions, getting all excited by your own disgust over how horribly dirty it all is and what is or isn’t the proper use. As a heterosexual man myself I don’t spend that much time pondering anal sex between men, I’ll leave that to an expert like yourself, who sees it everywhere and just just can’t seem to get it out off your head.
Firstly i wasn’t being personal i meant a generic y0u. Secondly i stopped reading when the explanation of sexuality was mentioned.
I wasn’t assuming anything because the point of my comment was the actions & agenda of politicians subverting our basic human rights to free speech & thought. Not actually anything to do with the trans or gay community. Which i think you would have realized if you had taken the time to read the context of my post.
Like I said I have no interested in the gay or trans community that’s up to them good luck to them live & let live i say. i just don’t feel the need to get involved with their deviant conduct
You can save the armchair psychoanalysis for someone else, psychology isn’t really science you know that don’t you?
All this gay shit is always just the thin end of the wedge. They are never satisfied.
(I’m talking here about militant, aggressive, politicised, campaigning homosexuality. There are probably millions of others who just quietly get on with their lives.)
There is a sort of planned multi stage programme.
1, Tolerance.
“We’re not doing you any harm, so just leave us be and let us get on with it.”
Perfectly acceptable and not a problem for the vast majority.
2. Acceptance.
“Accept that what we do is perfectly okay and just as good as everybody else. And you have to make wide ranging changes in everything to accommodate our needs.”
Civil partnerships, gay marriages, rights of gays to adopt children. Official forms changed from “Details of mother/ father…..” to “Details of Parent 1/ Parent 2……” so as not to offend them.
Again, most people are willing to go along with this, however grudgingly.
3. Celebration.
Non homosexuals who have no interest in the issue are required actively to celebrate gay culture and life styles.
Public funding for gay celebrations.
Politicians and celebrities enthusiastically endorsing gay spectacles and gay life style.
Homosexual indoctrination targeted at nursery and primary school children, something that is required by law.
I did a job for a while where people were given questionnaires – “What have you done to promote gay rights this month?”
4. Participation.
People who have no interest in homosexuality are required to enthusiastically join in.
Parents are required to accept the targeting of their children by gay and transgender activists.
5. Punishment.
People who fail or refuse to join in with sufficient enthusiasm are targeted for punishment, because they are “homophobic.”
“This is against our values.”
“There is no room for such people in our organisation.”
Firemen who refuse to take part in a gay parade are disciplined and fined.
A housing manager who says to his friend on social media (on his own time) that he thinks gay marriages are “a step too far” is sacked from his job.
Campaigning gay and media organisations scour the country for bakers who don’t want to make gay wedding cakes, or people in B and B accommodation who don’t want gays. They are prosecuted and threatened with the loss of their livelihood.
Steps 1 and 2 are always just a stepping stone to 3-5.
Yes you’ve nailed it, that’s exactly what i’m talking about. It is ideological social engineering by unaccountable sociopaths working to advance their own agendas. Power over all of us.
I think here the issue is we are as a country to accepting, to tolerant, to generous, (human nature) & its used against us. As you say the vast majority of people really don’t give a toss what people do in the privacy of their own homes. So these minority groups just keep taking advantage until it actually starts to have an impact on the health of society & every individuals life.
This once again all comes down to liberal ideologies, its exactly the same thing they are doing in the labour party with antisemitism, first you adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, people think fine ok, murmur a little dissatisfaction with bits of it but go along with it to fit in, then they start to punish those that dissent, they use the R & B words to shut down opposition & ostracize individuals to quiet them, where does it all end?
A police state where your basic individual human rights are eroded to nothing! This is nothing to do with equality or discrimination its about total control, absolute domination of the social narrative, its about shutting people out, to shutdown any opposition. Liberals actually use discrimination & our own social need to fit in, as political weapons against us, look at how many posts in this comments section, skirt around saying they aren’t really comfortable with homosexuality or transgenderism, always qualifying their comments with i’m ok with it but. Why because everyone wants to be included, they fear being called out. Again we come down to Liberal hypocrisy! They implement equality laws to exclude people from society that refuse to fit in. its absurd that we continue to be manipulated like this.
I had no idea Jessica Yaniv even existed, until I read this article. “Getting distracted by prevailing narratives that take our focus off bigger issues”. Like the consequences of Neoliberalism for example? Like having Trump, Johnson, Morrison, Netanyahu, and Bolsonaro in positions of power. Like the farcical fraud of Russiagate that has dramatically heightened tensions in the World. Like the increasing censorship of the internet, and the ever growing surveillance of literally everyone. Like the monumental environmental destruction caused by the pathological greedlust of the 0.01℅ and their sycophantic pilot fish. Like the ever growing number of homeless. Like the destruction of countries that refuse to kneel to the Empire.
Many more examples I could give. You’re right Jenn, there are much bigger issues out there. Whatever happened to treating others how you would like them to treat you; regardless of race, religion, skin colour, sexuality, IQ, nationality, whether someone has four limbs or two limbs.
And I say the above as a gay man, which I’m reluctant to do – as for me, its how you are as a human being, and how you treat others, and having solid ethics and a sense of spirituality, of connectedness, and I also don’t like sticking labels on myself. Just be who you are. Simple.
This issue is a serious issue probably far greater than the examples you list.
This is about survival of our species, men aren’t evolving into women this is a contrived attempt to subvert nature & our basic human rights to think for ourselves, hold our own beliefs & freedom to say what we think!
It is the imposition of a political ideology to advance an agenda of neo-liberal authoritarianism. This is far more important than did Trump pay off some Russians to help him into the white house! Its about the police state, about the corruption of our perception of nature.
Are hurt feelings more important than basic human rights & functions? I’m all for equality & an end to discrimination but how far are we willing to allow this to go? Some things are just more important than lobby groups agendas.
My favourite Utopian dream concerns the idea that both men and women are evolving into a future human existence where “attachment” to earthly things, including gender, will no longer have the exaggerated significance they have today.
Somewhere in one of Henry Miller’s books there is a reference to “every young soldier who has discovered what his balls are for thinks he has discovered the meaning of life”, or words to that effect.
There is also an inspiring idealistic quote from Rudolf Steiner which carries a similar message in much more beautiful language (from 1915):
“There hovers before us as a high ideal a form of community which will so encompass this epoch of culture that civilized human beings will quite naturally meet each other as brothers and sisters.”
Even if that does seem extremely optimistic for our modern taste, we shouldn’t forget that it does exist, along with the rest, as a real goal, and we are quite free to choose it as such, if we wish.
Gender isn’t earthly, because gender doesn’t exist! Dreamers are unlikely to evolve & homosexuality only has one road to travel, its a dead end to extinction.
The very thought that humans are some how able to traverse the barriers of the natural world into something other than reality is abhorrent to me, not at all a beautiful thing. I take guidance from the laws of nature on how best to conduct my life, i really see no benefit from a sci-fi utopian future.
The biggest problem with humanity is they make everything to complex where it doesn’t need to be.
I am certainly not talking about “traversing the barriers of the natural world”, but just doing some objective research into where those barriers actually are.
The natural world is as real to me as it is to you, and sci-fi has no interest for me either.
Not sure what you mean by “gender doesn’t exist”, though…
Gender may exist in some peoples minds its just not a tangle natural thing. Whats is a none binary person exactly? I can’t quite put my finger on it.
I actually think human civilization has actually surpassed the notion that we are still subject to the laws of nature. We are of course still as reliant on the web of life as we always were we just don’t seem to realize it, we as a species have somehow come to think we are bigger than that, oh what fools we are.
tangible (i do hate auto correct)
All of what you have listed are important, and so is this top down psyop in which people are being made to willingly or reluctantly ignore reality. This trans agenda has made exponential gains and is embraced by most political and legal entities as well as being pushed by all the usual propaganda outlets for the ruling class. Compare the political and legal thrust of this “human rights” movement to any which has preceded it, It is unprecedented. Despite its embrace by supposedly progressive factions it is actually very regressive. Rather than throwing away gender stereotypes and allowing that males and females can have any preference for clothes, foods, activities, this agenda delineates everything into girl and boy boxes, and then cements those ideas as facts. It pretends to be pro homosexual, and yet the transing of children is the ultimate conversion therapy, using puberty suppressors and cross sex hormone to simulate the opposite sex and a hetero-normative relationship. If the ruling class is able to so severely divorce the populace from reality that people accept that sex can be changed, where will we find the will to resist any of the lies justifying any horrific course of action they choose. We already see that far too many jump on the “responsibility to protect” justification for our overlords to commit crimes against humanity. Now parents. whose main interest is the well being of their children, are willingly allowing their children to be mutilated and have their sterility and sexual function removed from them. It is as if the last grains of resistance is being attacked and removed. And it is being ignored by people like you who feel it is merely a distraction, and enabled by the Social justice warriors who enjoy the virtue signalling points they get without realizeing how well they are actually serving their overlords.
I meant fertility not sterility, and the sexual function I refer to is that which is absent or significantly diminished as adults, by the use of puberty suppressors and cross sex hormones.
I fully agree, Joan, with your view (it is one that I have held, in one situation or another, since the late 1960s then with regard to transvestism – of males) that the transgender “movement” and its supporters only reify ever more strictly the boundaries of what constitutes the socially acceptable presentation of the (gendered) self, particularly for females, but also for males.
High heels, skirts/dresses, prinked hair, make up, pronounced breasts and so on for women/females (the sexualizing of the female body wherein females are, as in the 19th C, “the sex”), a liking of pink in clothing and ambience, frills and froth, while as girls playing with dolls and toy tea services for example is all but mandatory. Males are not expected to emphasize their physical sexiness to anything like the same degree as females and in western cultures the notion of males – as children or adults – wanting to wear pink, or lemon yellow, for example, or play with dolls definitely raises questions. (I recall reading a couple of years ago in the LRB an article on transgender in which the example of a little boy who wore a pair of pink crocs to school – he liked pink – provoked his teacher into speaking with the parents suggesting that their very pre-pubescent child needed to see someone about his “obvious” gender dysphoria!!!!!)
Males who would be taken for women – operated on or not – have done much to ensure the continued strength of these attitudes. To the detriment of females who have no misapprehensions about their “gender” or sex or sexuality (the trans movement has – of course – consciously blurred the distinction between gender and sex; feminism of the 1970s made clear the difference but that cuts against the grain of the trans movement) but who also have no wish to conform to social-cultural gender norms.
As someone who, growing up in the 1950s with parents who were not liberal, I am amazed at how easily they accepted my demand at age 7 that I never be given a doll or anything related to dolls again (such boring toys, fit only for taking apart to see how they are constructed – and that’s boring, too). Books, paints, paper, crayons, pencils – right on. But not another doll, ever. I hated (and still do) the color pink, frills, flounces, dresses and so on. Jeans (dungarees back then) loose shirts (T shirts now) – yes, those were the real deal clothes. Not that I didn’t have to wear high heels, skirts and so on for some of the jobs I had. But I always used to think: if men are so keen on these things – let ’em wear them. And men’s clothes – jeans, shoes, t-shirts are so much more comfortable, looser and hardwearing (thus cheaper in the long run) than women’s. (And clothing preferences have zero to do with sexual preferences – I am as straight as they come, and always have been.)
Were I to have grown up over the last fifteen or so years, my “toy” preferences alone would have been cause enough for my parents or teachers, or what have you to believe I had gender dysphoria.
As for transwomen competing against real women (I refuse to use the trans movement’s term) in sports (theater, film, opera… a return to the time, not that long distant when women were not allowed on the stage) – unfair, simply that. And making it even more unfair: how many transmen would be able to compete against real men and stand any chance of winning?
I do not care what someone’s sexual preferences are (so long as the object of desire can give full and free consent); not my business. When men who want to be taken as women tell me how I should react to their demands, that I should accept them as women like myself (really? you have menstruated then? had children then? gone through the menopause then?) then I object.
And if you really want to be a “woman” please learn about her anatomy – it is only respectful of that identity to want to assume. Females have three “holes” not just the two that males have. Therefore the vagina is not the “fronthole” as apparently not a few men who would be women seem to think.
This has been bothering me for some time, i risk making a fool of myself but at my age who cares, i’ve now worked up the courage to ask so here goes & please note I was trying to be respectful in my considerations. But am i the only man in the room that’s thinking it?
Three holes?
Am i just being naive? Have i forgotten something in my senility?
1- urethra
2- vagina
3- anus
LOL thanks, that’s actually a relief, though i’ve never thought of #1 as a hole, but then never given it much consideration.
This is likely the attitude – and belief – of the young men who call a vagina the “fronthole” (leading one – at least – online medical website to also begin using this term, in order to make transwomen “feel comfortable”; apparently real women don’t need to feel comfortable or have their bodily structures respected).
If you’re male you only have two – the penis and its urethra being dual purpose: the route for both urine and seminal fluid. And the anus.
As Ramdan points out female bodies have 1. a urethral opening (hole) and this is located near the beginning of the vulva; 2. approximately in the middle of genito-anal area is the vaginal introitus (opening/hole) and 3. to the rear the anus the third hole.
I’m perhaps a bit long in the tooth for a biology lesson but thanks for taking the time to reply
I suspect the reason (as a man) I never really consider the urethra a “hole” is perhaps I shudder at the thought of anything going up it. (not sure if that makes me homophobic)
My wife a RGN takes great pleasure in describing such procedures to see me cringe. I have to say in my defense i don’t like hospitals & doctors (I’m certain that does make me a Nosocomephobic)
Question This – I never thought of any of these anatomical features as “holes” before I read what (some) young males would be women called the vagina. Pretty demeaning, I think.
I guess, I see a hole as a opening or an entrance to me 2 out of the 3 are certainly exits. ( i’m certain that now makes me sound very homophobic)
But I can relate to what you say here, i feel the same about a transman strapping a plastic dildo to her leg! Its demeaning to what it is to be a man.
Men are mostly arseholes LOL
Joan…. I agree with you, and your reply actually. I admit I don’t know much about transgenderism, and no it’s not wilfully ignoring it on my part, its due to the more pressing matters like the Doomsday Clock being at 2 mins to midnight, like the tinderbox tensions in the Persian Gulf, like Deutsche Bank’s impending collapse, the slaughter in Yemen… A whole vast myriad of things Joan, that I don’t wake up one day and go ‘oh, transgenderism is a real threat to humanity’. The ruling classes are screwing all of us, and grounding us into the dirt, regardless of what sex we are. Thanks for your reply.
Apologies for switching topics! But I thought I might be excused for adding this to your list of “bigger issues” – because my impression is that most people are unaware that 5G is a real threat to life and health. Don’t be conned by the seductive advertising. As Jeremy Hunt let slip, it’s about “much more” than faster mobile and internet speeds (does the average user need that?). The “much more” is partly about vastly enhanced surveillance and data collection. Do we really need our fridges to ‘talk’ to the washing machine or make supermarket orders without us? How many of us can’t wait to have a driverless car?
5G technology comes from the so-called ‘defence’ industries. It’s actually a potential weapon which could disable you or even kill you if the ‘system’ identifies you (rightly or wrongly) as a threat.
I came across a recent (April 2019) expert report commissioned by the European Parliament which should have stopped the rollout in its tracks. This is what the experts wrote:
1.7. 5G Electromagnetic Radiation and Safety
“Significant concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G. Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G, but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.
The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations outside the laboratory.
While the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.”
Once again, apologies if this is ‘old hat’ for Off-G’ers- I’ve haven’t been receiving Off-G notifications for quite a while. Not sure why.
There’s a very long list of things we both could mention, but I actually don’t know a great deal about 5G – have been focusing on other things admittedly. Thanks for your reply and the info Paul.
There was a recent thread on 5G. Go find it and post there.
Admin, kindly move this comment to 5G thread, because the current conversation of Transgender here is really excellent, and very important, we really don’t need people hijacking it for other agendas, thank you.
Is it all about gender or is it about narcissism?
Perhaps vanity has overtaken sexuality as the most potent force on our planet.
We can even give it a name:
Kardashian syndrome.
narcissism? ego?
Sure, narcissism (and ego) is a part of it. However, it is undeniable, there are global forces exploiting every issue and every weakness in nations and humans to 1) Divide, 2) Weaken, 3) Distract all those affected.
I went to give you one thumbs up, and my phone gave you three instead. They want all of us to be like the Kardashians, and to commodify ourselves… Someone needs to do a thesis on the psychological impact of Neoliberalism after 35+ years.
Vanity is the word.
I don’t even think of Kardashianism as beautiful or sexy.
It’s just shiny and symmetrical – like a pair of army boots…
Lately, as I see so much fakery in the media I see no reason to believe anything they say unless there is clear evidence of it and we can be sure people aren’t “acting” in roles, especially where button-pushing issues are concerned. I find it hard to believe that in salons where they wax both male and female genital areas, the staff are going to get upset about waxing the male genital area of a person who identifies as a woman. It might be understandable if the salons only waxed female genital areas but if they wax both male and female genital areas you wonder where the problem lies. I tend to think that people who are OK waxing both male and female genitals would be pretty accommodating – it’s not a job I’d feel entirely comfortable with myself regardless of sex or gender. It’s true I haven’t researched the subject but I tend to think it seems like yet more button-pushing nonsense.
Part of the problem is that the 16 women aestheticist salon workers who were being sued by Jessica / Johnathan Yaniv had already indicated that they only provided intimate-area and other specific beautification services to biological women. He seems to have focused on visiting these salons even where there were nearby salons indicating they did men and women.
Some of the women being sued came from religious backgrounds whose guidelines forbade them from seeing or touching the penis and scrotum of someone who was not their husband. For example, one of these women was a Sikh who operated a home business and had small children at home.
It seems that this Yaniv person is using transgenderism as a tool to push his own not-so noble prejudices about individuals belonging to a different ethnic, religious or socioeconomic background. I doubt he really cares about transgender people or transgenderism but is only interested in what he can get out of exploiting it. Meanwhile people who are genuine transgenders get tarred with a sordid reputation they do not deserve from sociopaths like Yaniv.
The same could be said of Karen White who saw in transgenderism an opportunity to get into a women’s jail so he could find more potential rape victims.
The issue is that these are not isolated cases, there are similar cases going on around the world where men use transgenderism to force their way into women’s spaces. The sporting world is seeing transwomen tearing up women’s sports. Sporting organisations that try to stop transwomen from invading women’s sports are mocked by the media and by self-styled cultural commentators. As Jenn Smith says, these men need to be forced to go back to their own biological male spaces. But who in politics, in law, and in other cultural arenas is willing to say so?
Thanks for the illumination, Jen. Regardless, I have a hard time believing this story. Who’s to say that Jessica Yaniv is not simply an actor (I don’t mean she’s not real in other aspects of her life, I just mean in this particular scenario) and that these 16 estheticians do not really exist – or if they do, they’re simply actors – or it’s just a kind of trumped-up case that is meaningless so it’s only marginally legit. I know that people will think I’m crazy saying this but I see fakery all the time – I cannot say this is as I haven’t researched it sufficiently but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me. This just feels like button-pushing to me and as Gezzah says – it’s all distraction. I simply cannot be bothered with it.
It’s funny I’m just reading the novel, Maestro by Peter Goldsworthy, obviously based on the novelist’s life when he was a schoolboy in Darwin I’d say in the 60s. The maestro, his Austrian piano teacher, cuts out bizarre, hard-to-credit stories from newspapers (although some of them no doubt are true) – and they’re just like today’s.
One thing I noticed is that the alleged screenshots of her dialogue with the underage girl, Jessica Rumpel – Rumpel?? doesn’t show timestamps.
I don’t think he denied doing the texts.
Assuming it’s all fabricated she wouldn’t deny the texts – she would be in on it. But we have to wonder why the screenshots don’t show timestamps – they always let us know when it’s a fabrication with various clues such as sloppiness, over-the-top implausibility, etc.
Does anyone know of phones that don’t show timestamps in text conversations? And can anyone see any contradictions, things that don’t add up, apart from the general sense of implausibility – or farce as Ramdan calls it.
Why are you referring to a male bodied person as “she”, someone who has variously used the names Jessica and Jonathan.
I use the pronoun that fits the gender the person seems to identify with and Jessica has said she hasn’t had genital surgery but that she has “transitioned” … for what it’s worth as I see the whole thing as a fabrication so who knows what’s what in reality. I’ve gone with “she” but perhaps “he” applies better but as I believe the story is a fabrication I don’t think it really matters – if others refer to her as “he” I respect that choice. I never see the reason to refer to someone as he/she/it though. I think that feels very insulting.
In the case of Chelsea Manning, she is an intelligence asset and the film Collateral Murder is a fake, nevertheless I think she is a genuine transwoman so no reason not to refer to her as a woman even though she’s fake in terms of her whistleblowing. But who knows maybe she just looks very, very happy being photographed as a woman but isn’t, in fact, a genuine transwoman – she is an actor after all. I’d bet money that part of her payment was her transition job – looks top notch to me.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html
I’m a libertarian by heart & nature, so i respect peoples free will to follow their own principles & do their own thing.
e.g. yours to be politely respectful of others wishes.
But in doing so you facilitate this nonsense, the insanity of anyone’s belief a man can become a woman or vice versa. Personally i feel its demeaning to men for a woman to pretend she is a man by putting a plastic dildo down her trousers & insisting everyone call her a man. & I think all men are ares-holes LOL, including myself.
Are you OK with fraud? Because that’s essentially what it appears the growing number of transgender activists are.
Then there’s the human rights abuses associated with the transgender agenda, which i’ve touched on earlier & concerns me much more.
You could be right this may be yet another contrived liberal fabrication to change the law in favor of the transgender agenda. Progressives everywhere are just salivating at the mouth for this person to win his case, so the madness can spread & our human rights are eroded away even further. We don’t have many left.
Transgenderism is a natural phenomenon, it is not fraud. Perhaps there’s a whole lot of crazy political stuff going on about it but I don’t know what it is as I don’t pay a huge amount of attention.
Like you, I believe in human rights for people to live how they want to but regardless of human rights, transgenderism is natural, it occurs in many peoples of the world. It is not a “construct”, although no doubt it can be made to be one, but it occurs naturally just like homosexuality and bisexuality. These phenomena occur in nature, regardless of what kids are taught at school and human rights. Not that I defend it on that basis – it doesn’t matter if it’s “natural” or not in terms of human rights, just sayin’ it is natural. People are born intersex and sometimes naturally do not identify with the sexual anatomy they’re born with – it comes out of nowhere – they may not even be familiar with transgenderism but they “know” they identify as the “other” sex. It’s true, sometimes people transition to the other sex and transition back again but that is very, very rare.
We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Transgenderism isn’t natural neither is homosexuality. Its a symptom of a sickness in an over complex society,maybe an identity crisis if you like. I don’t like to conform to a stereo type either.
Firstly the vast majority of trans people that are allowed to freely express themselves wear overly feminine or masculine clothing they consider meets that stereotype. That’s a clear indication what they are suffering is a psychological disorder, a cultural construct.
Its wrong to conflate trans sex with intersex or indeed to conflate all forms of transgender into one big pile!
Transgender (there are species that can change sex, that have evolved to do so during their life-cycle, its not through choice) or homosexuality does not exist in the natural world. I have never seen a single example of a true homosexual ‘wild’ (that’s an important distinction) animal. Homosexuality is a sexual preference for one or other sex. Other animals sexual reproduction is exactly that. If homosexuality were genetic & existed in nature it would lead to a dead end road to extinction, in fact it could not be passe on genetically because there is no artificial IVF in the natural world.
I have heard Richard Dawkins make excuses for homosexuality but even the best biologists are political animals & he’s a fully paid up liberal.
People asserting they can change sex is fraudulent it is scientifically impossible for any species of primate to transition from one sex to another even intersex can’t, they are not transitioning into another sex like a larvae into a butterfly.
That you aren’t concerned about your basic human rights of free speech is a much bigger worry
QT,
I was interested in your comments on the seeming desire of the majority of transgender people to fit a stereotypical physical image of the sex they choose to ‘identify’ with.
I watched a documentary series a short while ago following the transition of a number of transgender people. It appalled me that, as well as going through sex reassignment surgery, many of those transitioning from male to female were also encouraged to undergo facial plastic surgery to make their features “more feminine”. So their cheekbones were enhanced, their noses narrowed and their jawlines chiselled away to form a pointed, cleft chin. I haven’t any of those features and it disgusts me that the people undergoing the surgery and those advising them and operating on them would clearly regard me as failing to live up to the feminine image as deemed by them. Likewise I don’t wear make up and don’t have my hair regularly styled, and don’t wear tight skirts that could pass for a wide belt. And no, I don’t consider myself to be an appalling specimen of womankind!
It struck me as paradoxical that on the one hand we are supposed to recognise and accept the diversity of transgenderism in all its forms, yet on the other hand, in doing so, the acceptance within society of non-transgender women who are natural and do not bow to pressures of society to conform to a certain ‘ideal’ image is being compromised.
Exactly the vast majority identify with a stereo type of what they perceive a woman is, but as you know a woman isn’t defined by the clothes she wears, how she wears her hair or if she wears make up, you get feminine men & masculine women, but the the former is still a man & the latter a woman.
A woman is defined by her name she has a womb conceives & gives birth to a child & breast feeds that child in its first years of life!
Of course not all women have children or are medically able to but they are born with the equipment too. & anyone fraudulently claiming to be a woman is demeaning to real women. And when i see headlines in the news claiming a man has given birth or has breast fed his child it makes my blood boil.
I say be yourself & no matter what sex you are born if you want to wear dresses & lipstick that’s your choice live & let live i say, but i’m not going to facilitate a lie
I am not conflating intersex and transgender. I understand they are two different phenomena.
When people “change” sex no one’s saying that they have “biologically” changed from the sex they were born with. They are changing whatever they feel comfortable with surgically, hormonally, dresswise, whatever to do what feels comfortable for them to be the gender they identify with.
Homosexual activity absolutely exists in other species. Whether other animals can be identified as “homosexual” or not is irrelevant. Certainly homosexual activity happens frequently.
Transgenderism exists in indigenous cultures, not just in “over-sophisticated”, if you will, cultures such as ours – here is an example in African cultures:
https://medium.com/@janelane_62637/the-splendor-of-gender-non-conformity-in-africa-f894ff5706e1
But I don’t give a rats really about what’s natural and what isn’t – live and let live is all a say.
If you haven’t changed “SEX” biologically , then you haven’t changed “SEX”.
There is not one single example of homosexuality in aWILD animal species, because it serves absolutely no function.
SEX is about form & function absolutely not about emotions. Every living species lives to pass on its genes, that is an impossibility if you have SEX with something of the same SEX as you. Sex is conflated with love, which have connection in that to raise young successfully its advantageous to have a bond between both parents.
African societies are just as complex as any western society, its blatant racism to suggest they are some how more primitive & erroneous to suggest that all the fancy dress of tribal custom doesn’t have a factor in transgenderism.
Transgenderism could be consigned to history in in one simple action. Abolish all clothing & artificial body paraphernalia. If everyone walked around start naked there would be no transgender.
The term trans in itself is fraudulent, they aren’t transitioning from one thing to another. They aren’t changing anything.
Nature is everything, natural is the most important issue to all living things, because its the difference between survival & extinction.
Yes people should be able to wear what they like & be true to there emotional state, i.e. feminine or masculine. BUT how can you claim to be a woman or want to be a woman when you have no idea what its like to be woman because you were born a man!
I’m assuming you know what a true woman is right?
And just to add, lots of things are genetic but they don’t apply to the whole population. What fascinates me is identical twins where one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual and they’ve grown up together. What are the factors there?
Thanks for your post & proving the point transgender is entirely a psychological disorder, the answer is they have separate brains & perceive their environment differently.
If it ain’t genetic its environmental. & trans can’t be genetic because they can not pass on their genes if they are truly transgender!
We hear this all the time. What I have never been able to grasp is what it means in practice to say that someone born, and physiologically recognised, as sex A “identifies” as sex B. Those who apply this criteria in determining whether someone should be regarded as transgender or not would appear to be simply applying very narrow stereotypical characteristics and qualities which they classify as being unique to either a sex A person or a sex B person. But do such distinct characteristics and qualities actually exist? Of course they don’t.
I am middle-aged, but have no idea what it means to be “a man” as I have never been one so how could I claim at any point to ‘identify’ as a male? And vice versa. Growing up I liked dolls and the colour pink, but I also liked playing football and playing ‘cowboys and indians’. I’ve always preferred the ‘laddish’ company of men to the company of women. I know men who wear pink shirts and are sensitive, caring and sentimental individuals. But they are men who are sensitive, caring and sentimental and happen to like pink shirts. They and I would be horrified to think there are people who believe that we should recognise and embrace our ‘transgender’ inclinations. But this is what is happening to our young people and children and physically and psychologically destroying hundreds of lives.
If encouraging children to embrace transgender inclinations means that they will do things they wouldn’t naturally do and grow up to have surgery performed when they wouldn’t have done that without earlier “encouragement”, then that’s a terrible thing, however, I don’t know what is involved in this “encouragement” and how it is affecting children.
I just read Rupert Everett’s autobiography and he said that he wore his mother’s skirt for a number of years as a child and his parents didn’t try to stop him, however, it just sort of happened that when he went off to boarding school he “naturally” stopped wearing the skirt. Obviously, Rupert Everett is gay and mixes with transgender people, nevertheless, he has not grown up to be transvestite or transgender himself – yet.
If you google this person, you will find that HE has been accused of sending unsolicited sex texts to under age girls & surprise, surprise, identities as a lesbian transgender woman. It is also reported that HE as a school assistant (not sure of HIS title) held a pool party for students but insisted that parents & carers were forbidden to attend.
These things maybe a simple slure on this persons character, (obviously i cant personally verify them) but they were raised in the Human rights tribunal in his case against the salons that refused to service HIM.
See comment below on text screenshots.
Flaxgirl, you may need to read this from the Economist )October 2018. JY is not a very nice person at all.
https://archive.li/0JTpO
No, but do we believe the story?
In the snippet below in your linked article it says JY cannot be named for legal reasons – pretty hilarious, no, as she’s gone ballistic all over the media. We are told JY “retorted” – this is strange vocabulary in the context. The person reporting wasn’t there and it’s an emotive word. Immediately, from her “retort” we go to “jy complained to BC’s human rights tribunal”. Isn’t there a bit left out here?
If anyone has compelling evidence this is not a fabricated farce, please let me know otherwise I choose not to believe it. God knows, it could be real but until compelling evidence is given to me I choose not to believe it, nor do I wish to give it any more thought.
This is a far more serious issue than genitalia!
There’s no point getting into the debate about gender, because its a cultural construct as is gender dysphoria a cultural quirk. We have to focus on the political agenda behind this.
Its an unfortunate truth that discrimination is a natural phenomenon helping us to navigate life for our own survival, equality is a liberal unobtainable myth whilst we live in a world ruled by the FIAT monetary system!
Now I’m not saying we should all be racists & sexists, i’m saying we can not allow liberal ideology to corrupt our perceptions of nature or allow them to shut down our basic freedoms of speech, thought, protest & dissent. This issue is far more serious than pandering to shallow lobby groups for minority rights.
Its agenda politics, transgender is just another ideology to meet a political objective we should all be worried what that objective is because it sure as hell isn’t equality.
The people who Yaniv was targeting were working from home, and only offered waxing services to women. Yaniv argued that as a transwoman he was a woman, and that by refusing to wax his meat and two veg, they were discriminating against them. Yaniv is a vexatious litigant and has put at least two of these women out of business.
But do we necessarily believe the story? Could this be more of a theatrical fabrication?
Is a farce flaxgirl, with or without professional actors: Is a farce!!!
I see what you mean, flaxgirl. When a story emerges and it is just so perfect for a certain agenda then I get suspicious. This Yaniv matter seems like a piss-take or, more like something deliberately concocted to encourage a blustering bigoted reaction.
Who cares? Its all just a banal and meaningless consumer choice like everything else. Sexual preference, gender preference, party preference – no more meaningful than ‘brand’ preferences in the grand identity juggling scheme of things. Sex used to be taboo and mysterious. Now its everywhere and its just got boring. Its marketed and exploited just like everything else. Its curious how this trans-gendered phenomenon arises at precisely the same time as gender reassignment surgery becomes a marketable product in need of customers?
Its nothing new. People have always played with boundaries and rules. Since ancient Greece, throughout history men have always dressed as women in theatre, we all grew up with pantomime where women are played by men and men are played by women. Does anyone really find this shocking or in any way radical or subversive? Homophobia? No-one is ‘scared’ of homosexuals. How about homo-fatigue? I’m 56 and I seem to have been watching the gay parade for all of my life. Does this parading never stop? Why does anyone feel the need to parade their sexuality in the first place? Given the real issues raised by imperialist globalist neoliberalism and our slow but sure transition to totalitarian surveillance societies these transgender issues are a complete waste of critical energy.
These are examples of transvestitism, transgenderism is actually erasing transvestitism, any gender non-conforming male in history is now being defined as a “woman” likewise for GNC children. That is reactionary because it narrows down the possibilities for both men and women, you can’t be a man with a taste for things associated with femininity you must be a woman, if you are boy and like flower arranging, dresses and cuddly toys, or a girl who likes football and toy fighting, then transgenderism argues you are trapped in the wrong body and require expensive medical interventions for your entire life.
That is not playing around with boundaries it’s imposing them, it’s claiming that gender isn’t something that evolves from whatever body you are born with in combination with socialisation and cultural roles, but that there is an innate and absolute gender identity inside people’s psychology, that if you are male but “feel like a woman” then you are a woman although nobody can ever know what it feels like to be anyone else. A male born person can only “feel like” their own fantasy of being a woman.
And in this case it endangers women, almost all males are capable of physically over powering almost all women and know it, thus all males are potential dangers to women whether they wear a dress or not, even if they are post opp, they should not have access to areas where females are vulnerable.
Thanks for the reply, but I find what you say quite confusing. You state that: “transgenderism argues you are trapped in the wrong body and require expensive medical interventions for your entire life. That is not playing around with boundaries it’s imposing them” If this is the case then we must necessarily understand these transgendered males as being the unfortunate victims of ‘transgenderism’. Yet having clearly stated that this victim-hood is imposed upon these people, you somehow reach a conclusion that all males are potential dangers to women whether they wear a dress of not and that even if they are post-opp they should not have access to areas where females are vulnerable. That conclusion doesn’t sit well with your previously constructing the ‘transgendered’ as systematic victims making it difficult to decide whose or which side you are on in the debate. Personally I think the adult ‘transgendered’ male for whatever reason is fully complicit in constructing themselves as such and it is not something that is being forced upon them. Since one cannot biologically cross from one gender to another then all one can do it play around with the conceptual and hormonal and chemical boundaries.
You state that there is a qualitative difference between transvestitism and transgenderism but that ‘difference’ can only be maintained if one accepts the claims of transgenderism in the first place and it is not clear whether you accept those claims or not or the grounds upon which you wish to object to them or not. Your conclusion seems to rest on the disqualification of the claims of transgenderism which can only render men in dresses as being transvestites, regardless of their post-operative condition yet you still maintain some kind of valid distinction between transvestitism and transgenderism or suggest that it is actually possible to ‘erase’ transvestitism or that every gender non-conforming male in history is now being defined as a woman. Really? When or how did this historical redefining take place? It could only take place in the minds of the theoretical ‘transgenderists’ and is meaningless to the rest of us who do not accept their explanation.
I get to a certain extent where you’re coming from and understand some of your concerns. But if we really have to go into critical analysis of this phenomenon we need to go back to the postmodernist roots of this and also identify how a politically charged branch of Anglo sociology borrowed a postmodern conclusion without any due recognition of the basis from which postmodernism reached its conclusions and all that entailed. Further I would say that from a postmodern critical perspective my question in this would not necessarily be directly concerned with the questionable claims that are being made around ‘transgenderism’ but also include a critical examination of what precisely informs and motivates certain men into wanting to very publicly stake the claim to be women in the first place.
Postmodernism wrongly gets a lot of the blame for this area of identity politics in that following Simone de Beauvoir’s the Second Sex, it accounts for the human subject (thus also gender subject) as a fictional de-centred social construct. You get close to this when you say that “gender [is] something that evolves from whatever body you are born with in combination with socialisation and cultural roles”.
If a little awkward, that view is perfectly consistent with postmodern theory. However, in terms of postmodernism and its own logical consistency, having ruled out the human subject, there is no way that Anglo sociologists touting their newly formed identity politics can logically arrive at the essential conclusion “that there is an innate and absolute gender identity inside people’s psychology”.
From a postmodernist perspective there is no such thing as the intrinsic human essence/subject or innate and absolute gender identity inside people’s psychology as you put it. Critics wrongly state that postmodernists are being logically contradictory in this but it is not postmodernists who are making the claims of identity politics, it is sociologists working within critical and cultural studies that are guided by critical power theory and disciplines such as critical discourse analysis whose practitioners converted from the theoretical foundations of Marxism and the critique of capital and class struggle to one based upon an analysis of power struggles drawn from Nietzsche and to a certain extent Foucault. This transition took place in the early 1990s following the fall of communism. Identity politics has very little or anything to do with postmodernism and has everything to do with critical power theory. This phenomenon is also totally misunderstood as ‘cultural Marxism’ when it has nothing to do with Marx either.
From a strictly postmodern or post-structuralist perspective, the elision of the human subject means that there is no intrinsic subject to be oppressed as such and if anything power actually positively constructs its ‘subjects’ if you follow Foucault to his necessary conclusions. Once one arrives at this theoretical point then there is clearly no basis for the political critique and complaints of identity politics as the operations of power could never simply be those of simple acts of oppression and resistance.
In terms of strategy, the reason that postmodern theory makes the anti-subjective move is to completely free people from existing classifications and restrictions as to what being a ‘man’ or ‘woman’ might actually be by cutting away the grounds for any appeals to a male or female essential nature that has historically been used to restrict anyone’s potential becoming.
The whole point of the postmodern critique is that it theoretically allows us to invent ourselves in new experimental ways and was not intended as a justification for simply switching from one ideologically pre-loaded identity to another, especially so if that holds negative implications for the individual.
This elision of the human subject does not provide the basis for the so called postmodern free for all. We might be contextually constructed but that doesn’t mean we can ignore contexts as contexts are absolutely everything. When Derrida wrote there is nothing outside the ‘text’ he was not talking about books or texts as such, he was referring to the phenomenally massive complexities of contexts which we find ourselves suspended within. There is nothing outside of the context, but the fullness of contexts are never even knowable or conceivable as such.
Once we accept that context is absolutely key, then from a postmodern perspective you need to have been born with a female body and had all the historically good and bad experiences of how the people and institutions in your environments in all of your experiences reacted to that bodily signifier which inform how we all end up thinking of ourselves and gender and sexuality are but small components of any identity. We could similarly talk of a short identity or a fat identity or an ugly identity or a bespectacled identity as our appearances effect how people react to us and treat us. You cannot arrive at such empirical real world experiences by reading books on feminism as much as men can try and sympathetically read them. From a postmodern perspective there is no way that a man can simply choose to become a woman as the historical contexts of experiences which are absolutely crucial to the forming of a female gender identity are simply not available to men, even if we conceive of this as a kind of social fiction.
To put this another way, there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of Elvis Presley impersonators around the world and most of them dress exactly as Elvis did, may look quite like him and have a similar singing voice. I don’t doubt that most of them have even entertained the notion that Elvis might have in some way been reincarnated in them or that they had somehow channelled the spirit and soul of Elvis to the extent that they might completely believe themselves to be Elvis. Would it really be a hate crime for any of us to say that yes you look a bit like him, dress like him and sing a bit like him but you do realize that you’re not actually Elvis don’t you? Does anyone have some kind of human right to declare themselves to be Elvis Presley any more than a man can claim some kind of human right to declare themselves to be a woman?
Even if it were theoretically possible to stake a claim to meaningfully substitute a fictitious male identity for an equally fictitious female identity, then the postmodern response would be – well maybe yes in principle: but why on earth would you actually want to do that? Why are you choosing to reclassify, identify and reposition yourself as what some theories would recognize as a negatively ‘oppressed’ victim? But that in itself is a loaded conclusion in that the majority of women who reject the ideas of feminism do not see themselves as oppressed victims.
Such a negative view of the female identity can only be understood within a highly reductive view of the world through the lens of critical power theory that sees all human relationships in terms of endless struggles of domination, oppression and resistance largely organized in the case of transgenderism or homosexuality around a suspense created by maintaining a discreet but unsustainable binary opposition around the concepts of an oppressive ‘normality’ and that of an ‘abnormality’ that is conceived of as a force of ‘resistance’ thought to be in opposition to it.
This proves very interesting in the case of identity politics because feminists previously found themselves to be identified within the progressive left as the oppressed resistance in opposition to the patriarchal male oppressors. Now we find that in objecting to or questioning the newly created class of the oppressed that are constituted by the ‘transgendered’ that feminists find themselves being re-classified as oppressive TERFs and have now been shifted to the opposite side of power’s binary oppositions and have received all the usual mass threats and abuse that we have become depressingly used to from the progressive Nazis. You can read extensively about this phenomenon at the link below.
https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/
I get the impression you might have done a lot of reading around feminist sociology and critical power theory. It all sounds rather bleak to me in that you universally imply that all men only obsessively think about over powering women all the time and that you universally encourage all women to perceive all men as potential dangers. A very few men may feel that way, but then some men and women want to become policeman and politicians to hold power over us: but most of us are actually not interested in policing or over powering anyone. In fact the only people who really seem interested in policing and ‘over powering’ people and their ideas are the progressive Nazis who tout the absurdly reductive machinations of power as being those of a simple binary opposition between acts of repression and resistance. This view entirely ignores the huge complexities of power relationships (if you wish to understand them as such) which can be viewed as a phenomenally complex, systemic version of a generalized Stockholm syndrome. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a good deal of people are entirely complicit either consciously or semi-consciously: in seeking and creating the conditions for their own self-destruction or victim-hood even down to this very particular case of ‘transgendered’ men adopting, parading and flaunting the most reactionary or what they hope to be the most incendiary of claims in order to create the theatrical scenes of ‘conflict’ as they dare the supposedly ‘oppressive’ domain of ‘normality’ to publicly censure them. Its all very ‘performative’ and theatrical in the transgendered manufacturing and staging of the platform for their own narcissistic cause célèbre. But then sections of the LGBT community have always been steeped in the theatre of drag queens, drama queens and caricatures of camp males as just so much performative role playing. The post-structuralist feminist Judith Butler has previously drawn attention to the ‘performative’ aspects in all of this and immediately drew the full social media onslaught of heavy criticism from the progressive Nazi Gestapo and was forced to retract or modify her statements.
Of course, this yearning for celebrity and being the centre of progressive attention is one potential motivation for why men want to make the claim that they are women. Another reason as you are clearly aware: is that they are seeking access to women’s spaces for all the wrong reasons, just as paedophiles seek access to children’s spaces claiming they are loving caring people who feel the need to work with children. One cannot hold such claims up to a light in order to find a watermark of truth or authenticity when a paedophile speaks and that is also true of those making transgendered claims. Again, its not just the specific nature of the claims that people are making that we should consider, but also the motivations behind those claims which need to be examined with close critical scrutiny and that it is a mistake to consider any such claims at face value or as being self-validating.
You sound like you’re in a bit of a kerfuffle there Simon. Transgenderism is a ideology, as such it has ideologues and followers, and I was saying NGC children can be victims of this ideology not all TRAs. Meanwhile almost everyone born with a male body is physically more powerful than almost all women, males are larger and even when they are not they have denser bone and muscle structure and faster muscle responses, nothing changes that.
Transvestites make no claim to actually be women, they just like to wear the clothes, transgenders claim to be a gender different from their body no matter what they are wearing.
I agree, I think post structuralism has been misunderstood by both TRA’s and often their critics, although perhaps some theorists still deserve the blame for that misunderstanding. I’m a critic of identity politics and transgender ideology and would still identify myself as a post structuralist (and incidently somewhat Marxist too), although I see post structuralism as a continuation of structuralism rather than an “anti-structuralism” unlike some. In the Anglosphere it’s often assumed a good theory must have practical applications while French theory was often never intended to do anything more than provide interesting speculative insights. But there is a problem when it’s assumed discourse exists by and of itself and is totally mutable regardless of origins, there are reasons we have one set of discourses and not another, that means we can’t just make up anything we like, there is sometimes an original source of reality even if we interpret it umpteen different ways and even if that source isn’t biological that doesn’t mean it can be changed.
But I’m not quite sure why you are mounting a long defence of post structuralism here, I wasn’t attacking it. Are you currently trying to write a dissertation or something?
You would be sort of correct, you haven’t quite got the right fields, but close. I’d say more psychoanalytic feminist critical literary and art theory, combined with Marxist social anthropology and archaeology.
I said no such thing, I simply said all men know they can overpower women, it’s a physical fact, I didn’t say they all want to. But there will always be some men who do for whatever reason (angry with their mothers, insecure sense of ego, or simply want to steal their handbag), and therefore women need their own spaces, they can’t tell which male strangers would want to do such a thing.
The whole gender confusion campaign is Agenda 21 – the aim to cull the global population by 90%.
It is genocide by stealth, sufficiently subtle not to be the sole attribution, but a core component of a multifaceted strategy including:
1. Wilful lying about climate to make the world totally unprepared for any global cooling, the climate state which kills far more terrifyingly than heat.
2. The intergenerational use of gravely harmful chemicals in the global food chain, aimed at weakening human beings and rendering ever greater numbers infertile.
3. The use of depleted uranium in indiscriminate bombing campaigns to promote teratogens and genetic damage across the globe.
4. The deliberate release of genetically modified disease vectors to create undefinable levels of chaos – from nothing to mass hysteria.
5. The promotion of intensive monocrop agriculture, rendering great swathes of the world liable to crop failure due to climate variability.
6. The use of weather warfare to introduce patterns of cold, heat, drought and excessive rainfall to decimate crop yields.
If you think the nazis were bad, they are amateurs compared to the current bunch. They were crude and only targeted 10 million dead.
This bunch are targeting 5 billion plus dead and they are truly a Whispering Death: seeking to achieve it over five generations, not five years.
“2. The intergenerational use of gravely harmful chemicals in the global food chain, aimed at weakening human beings and rendering ever greater numbers infertile.”
I am having encounters with many individuals whose health troubles can only be attributed to harmful substances in food and/or environment (radiation?). Self-help books point to chemicals in food. Doctors seem to be unhelpful, but one thing for sure, whatever they say, they are careful not to make people worry about food safety.
As a conspiracy theorist these controversies look like the kind of thing that would be cooked up to split and distract the left. In the words of Germaine Greer “a woman isn’t just a man without a dick.”
Given the complexity of female genitalia, how likely is it that surgery can reproduce them by rearranging male genitalia? Are people making a truly informed choice about surgery or are their decisions informed by deeply sexist attitudes of their own and of their surgeons?
What a weasel word “re-assignment” is in the term “re-assignment” surgery. We have to consider what is a male or female body and can surgery meet the specification?
It doesn’t need consideration we all know exactly what the difference between male & female is, its biological instinct we don’t need to teach it in schools.
Hint its not how you dress or look its how your body functions. And those functions should be kept in private spaces.
Reassignment Surgery is just a sticking plaster to help balance someones emotional state.
“Reassignment Surgery is just a sticking plaster to help balance someones emotional state.”
Why would the surgery balance someones emotional state?
It is how your body functions, how much can that be changed by surgery?
Are people making an informed choice?
Why ask me I haven’t had it done, don’t need it, don’t want it, can’t even handle a splinter being removed let alone having my cock being chopped off (it seems a majority of transgenders feel that way too) for no reason.
Never said it worked just offering the “rational” behind it.