Your Transgender Reality

The good professor of yesterday's conversations had little to say about Transgendered people. Their reality could well do with some scientific examination and perhaps a mathematical model or two.  Fortunately we had another Prof in today with a less 'superimposed' view which will without doubt see him pilloried as if he were a space scientist / satellite driver who dared to wear a shirt with naked ladies on't.

My Bouncer was obliged to chide a chap who tried to go into the Ladies, Damsels and Wenches toilet today, instead of the Kings, Knights, Gentlemen, Squires, Yoemen, Farmers and Farmboy's one. (We have a seperate one for Monks.) We are rather intolerant of that in the Tavern. The squawking drew some chuckles, although I did offer some kind words to the poor soul who was deluded enough to think I would submit to his lunacy. They were wasted of course. Another customer had something to say about that too, but we shall come to him later.  I took the carefully mis-dressed chap to a small room where he could sit in peace and not disturb other customers and sat him down with a dainty tankard of Ale for his ailments.

Smoking prohibited but going into the Ladies loo is OK !!??

The conversation about the incident flowed in the US Room. First the Prof. A medical Prof indeed. Dr McHugh. 

Michael Chapman brought him in and ordered a pint of the best each.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: 

Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder; 

' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’

(CNSNews.com) --  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual re-assignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

 “This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – 

even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

Still a Woman for all that 

“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. 

Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Frankly it is high time the medical establishment weeded its garden. Dr McHugh could make a fine gardener.

But, all that he said, being said, how does the ordinary man and woman in the street deal with the tiny perverse minority that likes to wear the opposite sex's clothes?  Well, first they have to put aside yesterday's Professotr of Non-Reality's views and face the onslaught. Then they have to get some perspective.

How a chap or chapess dresses is one of those odd issues that fashion takes the reins. There have been eras when chaps were rather dandilike, with lace trim, satins and velvets.  Almost ladylike! They had long hair that todays scruffy pop singers and hippies would balk at and even wore long wigs that would gain more votes than Donald Trump's meagre toupee. Not every era was modeled on Prussia! 

In many parts of the world, notably the middle east, it is common for men to wear dresses. Scots wear kilts and the Greek  soldier's 'best' uniform is a sight to behold.

So, if a chap comes into the Tavern wearing a skirt and blouse, and the skirt covers his knees and the blouse is not see-through or showing his lacy, underwired bra, he will get served. His underpants can be by Janet Reager and he can wear a dainty petticoat, I really do not care, so long as he keeps them modestly out of sight.

But should he seek compliments I will give him exactly the measure of some chap strutting his best suit. That is, not even a mention other than, "going to a 'do' later?".  Ladies are treated differently. False ladies are not. Immodest ladies get to chat with the Bouncer too.

And there are female to male transgenders too. Sometimes that is overlooked. There are far more women walking around dressed like men than men dressed like women. Does anyone have conniptions? All of the recent arguement and angst has been about perverts in the ladies rooms, but what about the laddies'? A perverted man is unwelcome in the toilets and changing rooms with someone's wife or daughter, but it is ok, it seems if he is in the Gents' with your son or brother. Hmmmm. There is more than meets the eye and not a small amount of misandry at work.

She becomes he but it does not become her

Hence, perspective, and compassion where it is due; a heavy hand where it is due too.

Having put that, let us see what others have to say. Mr Wright, for instance. He had a mate along with him too; not that they were in total agreement..

Demanding Discourtesy in Courtesy’s Name

Ecreegan [the mate] holds forth an opinion on the courtesy owed to transvestites, transgendered, and transrationals.

Sometimes there’s no polite option. Tell me, what pronoun do I use for a pre-operative male-to-female transexual? “She” is a lie. “He” is considered highly offensive, and “it” is considered beyond the pale. (I try to use names. The new name is not a lie, even if it doesn’t make any sense.)

I very strongly disagree, so much so that I cannot tell if you are making a joke.

When you say the words “considered highly offensive” I cannot imagine anyone having any right to be offended at such a thing, nor any honest man taking such offense seriously.

Highly? Really?

 http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/04/demanding-discourtesy-in-courtesys-name/

To the contrary, it is highly offensive even to assert that an honest man should lie like a dog, a lie no one believes and no one can believe, merely to please the arbitrary whims of some petty tyrant trying to demean your soul and rob you of dignity.

The rule in English is that males and male objects are “he”, and persons whose sex is unknown or undetermined is also “he.” One says “he or she” only in a legal document where that degree of precision overwhelms the need for good grammar. Otherwise is it an error. “They” used in a singular merits horsehwipping.

A man who cuts off his penis and has false breasts implanted is not changing his sex, that is, his biological reality, but is attempting to change his social role: he is a man who wants to be treated with the honors [sic] and titles of a wife and mother. 

He also suffers from profound mental illness, so much so that he cuts off parts of his body.

But since the pronoun deals with the sex and not with social roles, he has no right to be offended if he is a “he”.

Saying a he is a “he” is not what offends.

The political correction officer is playing a social dominance game with you.

He is making himself to be offended with you so that you will obey him.

He uses your desire to avoid offending him as a tool to establish social roles. You are supposed to assume the role as the inferior, the lower order, the ignorant, the follower, the benighted. He assumes the role as the superior, the higher order, the wiseman, the leader, the enlightened.

Of course he is offended and most deeply so!

He is offended at your insubordination. 

You are an uppity niggra. If the lower orders shoot off their mouths and starting thinking for themselves, why, there will be rebellion among the proles and slaves. So shut up.

He is not offended at your lack of courtesy. 

That is risible.

No politically correct person has ever displayed the courtesy of a swine since the beginning of the world: they neither doff their caps to ladies, nor ask if you need any comfort, nor listen to your point of view, nor salute you will courteous greetings, nor say “sir” and “ma’am” and “miss” and “missus” like anyone not raised in a barn would do.

Indeed, they go out of their way to cheat these forms of address, and will call God by the pronoun “She” and call the year “CE” just to see how often they can offend and insult Christians without being slapped in the mouth.

I have never known one not to use four letter crudities or to encouraging others to do so. Even their most grave politicians in public swear in a fashion former generations, who had a right view of the dignity of man, would never have had allowed.

No doubt the politically correct lunatics you’ve met really act vexed and hostile if you call Bruce Jenner “he” as logic, love of truth, common sense, common decency and good grammar demand, but you are utterly insane if you consider their insanity to be legitimate.

If I have a bit of paper I claim is the title deed to the Moon and I say by right you owe me money for getting light from my moon without paying me, my title deed has no legal force or effect, because, despite my claim, I have no legal right to moonlight. In reality, by international treaty, no man owns the moon and, by logic, no one can own the moonlight, since it is a free good.

Likewise here: if a man grows vexed and irate, and wets his pants and shrieks like a loon and rolls on the ground in a pool of his own spleenish vomit because you will not call a crazy person who cuts off his dick and dresses in girly clothing a “she”, his vexation is a sign of his witlessness, not a sign of his due righteous indignation. It is as phony as the alleged title deed to the moon. Even if I believe I own the moon with my whole heart, as strong as I can make myself believe what I want to believe, I am outside my rights, and my claim on you for money is invalid.

So here. A man has no right to demand you pretend him a woman, no matter how badly he wants it.

He has no right to be vexed if you do not give what he has no right to ask.

A man can act offended at anything he wishes, but if he has no right to be offended, the act is just an act. 

He should be chided, silenced, and, if he will not conform to the demands of polite society, be removed from it. If he grows violent, he should be confined, or killed. That is what you owe him.

He is the one being very offensive, not you.

Hmmmm. I draw the line before 'killed' but undestand all of the points. I prefer compassion where it is due and a civilised response where that is due too. Hence my sitting the chap in his attire in a small room away from harm, with a pint of Grace that may well relieve his ailment. 

Remember, the first Fundemental question: "What ails thee?"

Pain can discombobulate people. Someone afflicted with a 'transgender' feeling needs sympathy right up to the point they become demanding and oppressive.


As for those who would deceive children, infect them with nonsense, pervert them in schools, well, those people should be removed to a jail cell. 

Or get to know a Millstone necklace.

The older 'children' have been thoroughly perverted such that they refuse to acknowledge reality. Not 'can't' but flat refuse. They are so conformist to the perversions they have been taught.

Don't believe me? See here.....

There are Professors of Cant as well as Kant.

Pax.