Friday, May 20, 2016

The Transgender Delusion Pt 1. Women & Feminists

There has been as much talk in the bars - as one would expect - on the subject of 'Transgenderism'.  As I have mentioned before, we do occasionally get strange folk coming into the Tavern and I do not mind a bit as long as they behave. Living life itself shows us that not everyone is a mature adult man or woman, sane and sound in body and mind. We cope, as we have to. But as long as they do not make a mess on my carpets, or indeed, become so annoying to my customers (who are sometimes a rowdy lot) that they get thrown out, I do not call the Bouncer from his chair by the door.

But the talk on the subject can get lively, deep and broad. So I have to break some of it into 'parts' or we would be here all night and not get to the singing. They do a lot of singing in the Irish Room. So here we have part one of three on the subject. The other two will follow. 

My bar(wo)man in the Irish Bar put her view quite early on and so I will start with her. Lana, ( Svetlana Voreskova ) my Russsian lady barkeep, as you know, is a Professor of History who comes here to get a daily change of scene and escape from her students. I always know when she arrives as she steps her dainty frame from her more chunkily-framed bicycle and walks it through to its spot next to the bar she runs. 

She had been reading a brief report and chatting with Ron. The report was.....

Obama the Rainbow Warrior
"On May 17, Americans and people around the world mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia  [sic] by reaffirming the dignity and inherent worth of all people, regardless of who they love or their gender identity," Barack Obama proclaimed in a White House statement. There was not a companion statement from anywhere in the Muslim world.
"There is much work to be done to combat homophobia and transphobia," Obama said, and he's certainly waging that combat — mandating school bathroom polices, suing North Carolina, social engineering the military, lighting up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate same-sex marriage, etc.

In another recent example of Obama's agenda, he appointed a man who identifies as a woman to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. That man, former husband and father of three, now goes by the name Barbara Satin. Let's just say we find his surname particularly ... interesting in the context of a faith-based organization. "Given the current political climate," Satin said in a statement, "I believe it's important that a voice of faith representing the transgender and gender non-conforming community ... be present and heard in these vital conversations." 

This miniscule group suffering from gender disorientation pathology has a far outsized voice.
Often left not only unheard but shamed or silenced are the views of doctors like Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins, who says simply, "Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men." 

Such scientific truth is considered "transphobic" by this administration.
The mind boggles.  There is no noticeable 'atavistic fear' of transexuals or homosexuals, despite the misuse of the 'phobia' suffix. 

The President is as devious and divisive as the transgendered and homosexuals are deluded.  But what is this wholesale kow-towing to the 0.3 of one percent of the population who claim to be  'transexual' and the 3% who claim to be homosexual, gay, lesbian, whathaveyou going to mean for the 97% of normal people?  

Well, OK, 80%. I am not sure that the other 17% are quite right in the head, limb or member either.

So Lana spoke up with questions and answers. She focused upon the feminists who seem to have set the trend in motion, and their arch-rivals, the Men's Movement. What will it mean for and to them?
Transgender and the implications for feminists and MRAs.
Ron asked for people’s take on the transgender conversation. My response turned into a long screed which I separated into two parts and which most people probably won’t be interested in anyway.
Yes we are.  
I have to begin with a disclaimer: I am addressing only male to female transgenders here because all of the evidence I have seen tells me that they are the vast majority of transgenders. Unless of course you include feminists, most of whom I suppose could be described as female to male transgenders!
Trigger warning: I mention biology lots of times. 
Of course sometimes when things become trendy or politically correct issues, suddenly there are thousands of people who are “suffering” from this condition. Everybody knows a “trans-gender” person now! If you don’t have a friend who is “trans-gender” you’re just not cool.
Suddenly everyone with a cross-dressing fetish is discovering that they are “trans-gender.” But I suppose in a society where white can be black, a man can be a woman, and a forty year old man can be a six year old girl; and so many people nod along piously, ready to condemn anyone who questions this silliness as a blasphemer against the new orthodoxy; then we may as well just abolish reality completely.
I am a flying monkey. I demand that you respect my identity.
Higher level feminists are in a terrible bind over this and it is already causing schisms within mainstream feminism. 
In that respect at least it is to be welcomed. I suppose every cloud has a silver lining. 
Germaine Greer, one of the previously revered high-priestesses of the second wave has been “no-platformed” across universities in the UK because of her very unequivocal contention that a man could not be a woman. 
As far as she is concerned, there is no such thing as trans-gender. 
For the first time in her life, Greer is actually thinking logically, at least from a feminist perspective if that’s possible. 
She is protecting feminist theory. 
The foundation stone of all feminist theory is that gender is a social construct; that other than the obvious physical differences, all gender differences are imposed by society as a child grows up. 
Feminism has always claimed, that any behavioural characteristics which are uniquely male or female are taught at a young age in order to privilege males over females. 
Feminist theory depends on there being no default difference between a male and female brain. If male and female brains are inherently different, then all feminist theory falls apart like a house of cards. 
Germaine Greer understands this.
According to trans-gender theory, there are distinct differences between male and female brains and that in some cases therefore; a person can be born with a male body but a female brain. If there are no inherent differences between male and female brains; if gender really is a social construct, then there can be no such thing as trans-gender. 
So you can either believe in transgender or believe in feminism, but you cannot logically believe in both. 
Most grass-roots feminists have embraced the transgender cause. It is politically correct and at its core it is anti-male. 
Best of all, it is another step on their road to abolishing the genders altogether; that’s why they keep denying gender differences, while inventing new genders. Nobody has constructed more genders that the feminist / progressivist movement.
Via Tumblr and Facebook.  
But really this is all about watering down the genders, feminising men and masculinising women until there is no perceivable difference. 
The charge is being led by those men who are just not that good at being men, and women who likewise don’t like being women. From a feminist point of view, men have all the privilege: so women need to be more like men. 
By the Lord Harry, she has a way with words. You can just see the images they evoke. 
This confusion over the method in feminist madness has caused many a feminist / progressivist to get thrown under the feminist bus. 
Feminism has always been virulently anti marriage for example; so why do they strongly support gay marriage? Well because the best way to fight something is often to expand the definition of that thing until it becomes meaningless. Likewise gender; why do they continuously invent new genders when their core claim is that gender is a social construct? Because watering down any understanding of what gender actually is, will eventually render it meaningless. 
Why do feminists constantly celebrate the idea of “alternative families?” because feminism has always been stringently anti family? If you can broaden the definition of the concept of the family until it means anything at all, then it can be anything you want it to be. If it can be anything you want it to be, then it no longer exists. 
Feminists have always sought to abolish gender for another reason too. The separation of men and women has always been their goal. It doesn’t have to make sense as long as it’s good for feminism. When you homogenise the genders, then you make them less attractive to each-other. 
Leading feminists have usually been onboard with all of this until now. But the transgender issue is making them decidedly uncomfortable. 
How can they support a theory which if true, would immediately render all other feminist theory null and void? 
According to the entire bank of science available, and it is considerable, the trans-genders are right, but only up to a point. There are very many differences inherent in male and female brains and these differences manifest in the womb before a baby is even born. Looking good for the transgender argument so far: 
But here’s the problem: 
The chromosomal and hormonal differences that lead to the physical differences are the same ones which dictate brain development. In other words the body and brain develop at the same time in the womb and are physical, and the differences between male and female in both body and brain are decided by either the presence or the absence of a Y chromosome. 
So to put it simply according to all of the science so far; whether you have a male or a female brain, depends on whether you have a penis or a vagina. 
And we know that one in a billion sheep is born with two heads and one in a billion humans is born with both sets of genitals. Now that might be an example of real “transgenderism” but that is not what we are talking about here.
Your gender; in other words your identity, innate behavioural characteristics etc, are tied directly to your physical sex. 
There is no getting away from that. You can disguise it. A man can dress like a woman; he can have breast implants and he can train himself to affect female mannerisms. But he is not a woman. 
He is a man disguised as a woman. 
You can paint stripes on a donkey, but that doesn’t make it a zebra. It’s still a donkey. 
So what we are back to is aspiration, feeling, desire, delusion: Transgender has always been referred to as “gender identity disorder.” It has been treated (mostly successfully) as a psychological condition because that is what it is; an inability to accept reality. 
Identity disorders are not uncommon. At its most mild it is just an extreme form of fantasy; an inability to live in the real world and a retreat into your own mind. It is sometimes called “Walter Mitty Syndrome.” But in more extreme cases it is a complete denial of reality and a belief that your fantasy is actually reality. Some people think they are Batman. Some think they are cats or vampires or whatever. Should we insist that fresh blood be served in school cafeterias and that litter boxes be provided in restaurants for those who identify as cats? 
There is actually a whole community of cat-people in Scandinavia who walk around on all fours, purr and have all kinds of medical procedures to make them appear more cat-like. They are demanding that their identities be respected and rights to amend their birth-certs etc. The Swedish government is considering it because – well because it’s Sweden. 
Of course people with mental conditions deserve some sympathy in any civilised society, but pandering to their delusions can only damage them further and is doing so. Suicide rates jump by more than 50% amongst trans-genders who have made the full transition. They have burned their bridges now and are devastated to be finally confronted with the truth; that their fantasy can never become reality. 
But they are being betrayed by a medical profession in thrall to progressivist ideology, and probably fearing for their own positions as much as anybody else in this brave new world of feminist consensus. When a young man, or even a child, goes to seek therapy and advice, his delusions will be accommodated without question, and he will be guided down a path towards “transition” instead of being coaxed back to reality and probably rescued from a lifetime of misery and mental anguish ending in an early death. 
Operations are now being performed on kids as young as sixteen, and boys in British schools are being encouraged and applauded when they say they identify as girls. Boys as young as eight are now proudly proclaiming that they identify as girls. 
And there is a whole other can of worms to be opened here from an MRA perspective. Why do boys want to be girls but not so much the other way around? Is it anything to do with the fact that they are constantly shamed for being boys, their achievements diminished and always compared unfavourably with those of girls? A small boy who is being taught every day, not only by the material on his school curriculum and by his teachers, but also by his entire society, that he is inferior, might have good reason to believe that life might be better if he were a girl. 
There is another can of worms that feminism is not seeing, (with the exception of Germaine Greer I suspect). 
The transgender narrative includes the term – gender-fluid. This bizarre theory proposes that someone can fluctuate between male and female according to pretty much however they feel on a given day. 
Now feminism has spent decades building up a raft of gender specific advantages for women only, in pretty much every facet of life. 
If a man can suddenly decide that he is a woman, and if society demands that his claim must be believed, then he is entitled to be included for example, within gender quotas in any given field which are reserved for women. 
Gender neutral bathrooms are only the tip of the ice-berg. 
If gender neutral bathrooms are accepted both culturally and legally then we are looking at the setting of a precedent that will have wide-reaching consequences. 
For example: It is impossible under Irish law for a female to be guilty of rape. In Sweden there has already been one case where a man, who was caught in the act of attempted rape, used as his defence that he identified as a female and therefore could only be charged with a lesser offence. 
That is before we get into social welfare, housing, and education and custody battles. 
Who is the “primary aggressor” under the VAWA if the man claims to be a woman? 
How about conscription? How many men across Europe, where most countries have national service for men only, will suddenly decide they identify as women when their call-up papers arrive? They can always “transition” back later on.  
Welcome to the wonderful world of gender-fluidity. 
But while many of these areas may be a cause for optimism for MRAs, I would suggest caution. The transgender narrative is just another clumsy attempt by feminism to destroy the male gender altogether, and the female gender too. 
The transgender narrative is deeply grounded in the grass-roots feminist mind-set that proposes that any individual must be “respected” for being rather than doing anything. It ties in nicely with the beloved victim-narratives of feminism. They have just uncovered a whole new class of “oppressed” people they can feign empathy for and use as a weapon to attack sensible people of both genders. 
At this point Lana had to stop talking for a moment and focus on pulling pints. Yes, she is a woman and can multi-task (just as I do, in fact) but concentration is needed for some beers. So someone took the opportunity to jump in to ask what arguements are made by the tranients and the femitards. 

And the band struck up with a very unIrish tune. Back to the beginning.....
Fortunately it hurried her up a bit. One can take only so much and the customers prefer the 'Real Ale' that my Supplier sends.
I have been tut-tutted by the usual sanctimonious types who jump on any politically correct band-wagons over my take on transgender. I am a bigot yet again apparently. We must respect the identity of others you see. It is not their fault. They do not choose to be “transgender” whatever that is. 
This has feminism written all over it. It’s not about what is demonstrably factual. It’s all about feelings, and we will decide which feelings are valid and which ones are not. Transgender people are being oppressed just like women. 
We are not quite sure how they’re being oppressed, but we know they are. 
But the transgender arguments just in terms of bathrooms are extremely weak:
Bathrooms should not be segregated by gender:
Public toilets and changing rooms are not segregated by gender. They are segregated by sex. Sex is physical. It is not a choice we have to make. 
We should respect people’s chosen identities:
We have words to describe what things are, not what we would like them to be. A car has four wheels and seats and a steering wheel and an engine for propulsion. A bicycle has two wheels a saddle and handlebars and is propelled by means of pedalling. We can call a car a bicycle if we like, but that does not change what it is and it does not make it OK to drive it on a bicycle lane. 
You get to choose what you feel and how you manage those feelings. You do not get to choose what you physically are. What you are is not measured in any way by how you feel about it. 
This argument is basically calling for the abolition of meaningful language. 
Transgender rights are being denied by the religious right wing:
Ah: The old guilt by association fallacy. Hitler was a vegetarian so therefore if you don’t eat meat you must approve of Hitler. Don’t be nice to dogs either. Hitler was nice to dogs.
But transgender is “appropriating” feminist culture here.
Hahahaha. I love it. 
They talk about transgender rights, but fail to actually specify any rights that are denied to “transgender” people. I do not have any rights that “transgenders” do not also have. 
You have the right to dress up as a member of the opposite sex if you want. You do not have the right to force society to accept your fantasies. I have the right to pretend that I am a cat. I do not have the right to demand litter-trays in public buildings.
Gender is a cultural construct so:
It is not a cultural construct, but even if it was: So what? 
I have been told that gender is a social construct more times than I care to remember. Now people are saying that anything that is simply a cultural construct is bad and needs to be abolished. 
Now first of all it is quite demonstrable that gender is not a cultural construct and also that our instinct to separate ourselves from the opposite sex to take care of certain bodily functions has been universal to all cultures for thousands of years. How that could possibly be simply cultural is anybody’s guess. It just is …. apparently. 
But even if it were just a cultural construct; why does that necessarily mean that it is a bad thing? Some cultural constructs have been extremely beneficial for human societies. 
What separates us from the animals? Lots of things actually: But one of the most important is that we set boundaries on human behaviour, normally designed to stop society from descending into chaos. 
Transgender is not a mental condition:
Not even the “transgenders” themselves claim that it is physical. So what else does that leave?
When someone has convinced themselves that they are something they are quite demonstrably not; then that is known as self-delusion. And that is self-delusion on a grand scale. If that is not a mental condition then I don’t know what it is. 
I think in discussing how it is diagnosed we would be better off turning to the actual mental and psychological scholarship available, rather than leaving it to the subjective feelings of politically correct faddists simply using it as a vehicle to grandstand about how “progressive” and “enlightened” they are.
According to any of the science I have ever read, gender identity disorder is a mental condition which affects about one in thirty thousand men and a much smaller number of women. Self delusion comes in many other forms too, and it can be treated without surgery and with high rates of success. One in thirty thousand is not even close to being one percent and is therefore usually dismissed by statisticians as effectively zero percent; a rare anomaly.
It is also widely agreed amongst psychologists that pandering to people’s delusions does them far more harm than good.
Yep. I can attest to that. I have the Professional Quals. 
We have an expression where I come from. “It is better to be slapped by the truth than kissed by a lie". Sometimes what people need most of all is a reality check; before the final lie kisses them in the form of a doctors scalpel; an operation that the statistics show will open the door to a lifetime of enormously increased risk of suicide attempts, psychiatric inpatient care and generally increased morbidity in comparison with pre-operation “transsexuals.”
If they want to butcher themselves because of some temporary fad; on the advice of a doctor cowed by progressivist ideology; then that’s up to them: I believe the increasingly popular reversal procedure is much more difficult.

“Regressives” want to prevent bathrooms from becoming unisex:
Well that makes me a regressive then. You may not value your privacy but I do. I do not want the creeps and perverts of either sex to have access to the bathrooms and the changing facilities of the other, and we all know that these places will become a favourite hangout for them if it happens.
Of course that is all good as far as feminists are concerned. It will give them plenty of fresh fuel for their “rape culture” narrative. 
Apart from that, I understand that the social norms which we use to tame our biological drives are what distinguishes us from the animals; and frankly, I want no part of the animalistic “anything goes” culture of the so called “progressives.” They have done enough damage to society already. 
Do what you want in your own home by all means, and expect no judgement from me. But I expect a certain amount of decorum in a public place. I have a serious problem with the idea that all of societies’ norms of behaviour should be adjusted at the expense of the vast majority; their comforts and their privacy violated; and the safety of their kids compromised, to accommodate an almost non-existent minority, just to massage the egos of a bunch of ignorant, unthinking and totally ideologically driven “progressivists.”
None of this is about “trans-gender” people (whatever they are) It is about the competition for “progressivist” street-cred for the useful idiots of “social justice.”
Bodily functions are just natural. We need to get over our hang-ups:
Well first of all this is about much more than bodily hang-ups. It is about setting precedents in terms of how society measures reality itself.
But should we respect the rights of paedophiles too?; and the rights of those who want to defecate in the park? It’s only natural after all! Those picnickers gathering their children and moving away in disgust are just people who hate park-defecators. 
What awful bigots! 
Why can’t they just get over their hang-ups? I can’t wait to see what is going to be the next new frontier of progressivism for social justice warriors. They’ve already covered menstrual bleeding on the street as a form of “brave” expression, so they will have to think of something a bit more … you know … progressive.
They won’t be happy until we are all running around on all fours sniffing each other’s bums. It’s only natural after all. 
Other animals do not separate the sexes when performing bodily functions:
This is a very weak argument. Other animals do not share all the same habits as other (other) animals either. Some other primates also throw their faeces at each other. Many other animals also have sex in full view of the rest of the clan. Does it therefore follow that this perfectly natural behaviour should be emulated by humans? Is it OK to have sex in a restaurant and throw poo at others at the train station? 
Some breeds of hyena will fight and kill weaker rivals over scraps of meat. Does it follow that I would be justified in stabbing an old lady at the bank machine and taking her money? 
I am sitting in a chair. I don’t need one. I could sit on the floor. Other animals do. 
“Regressives” are claiming that men are inherently dangerous:
Some men can be dangerous. Some women are dangerous too. People can be dangerous: Especially those who are obviously mentally unstable. That is why we have certain protections in place and rules of behaviour. One of those rules includes keeping people out of the private spaces of the opposite sex where they are likely to be at their most vulnerable.
Many customs are in place for sound reasons; often to ensure people’s comfort. The fact that most people do not feel comfortable performing bodily functions next to people of the opposite sex is not something new. In fact most women I know will choose a more private single bathroom over even a communal, female only rest-room where that choice is available. 
I know I do. 
Should the comfort of the majority be compromised to accommodate political correctness? The fact that humans seem to be unique in requiring that kind of privacy, and it is based in a sense of comfort, reinforced by thousands of years of custom; does not make it a bad thing. 
You are a ten year old girl in a paper thin cubicle with your pants around your ankles. You are in a room with often only one other person in it. There are no cameras and the room itself is usually away from public areas where help would be available. The other person is a man who has the physical power to overwhelm you easily. 
He is a man who is mentally unstable. His imbalance is a sexual one. 
He is someone who either does not understand or does not accept societal norms. You have no way of knowing whether he is violent or not. You cannot read his intentions as you generally can with people who do appear to be constrained by societal norms. 
Your dad is waiting outside. You call out to him as loudly as you can. Smart girl: 
Cultural traditions are surmountable and need to be abandoned: 
I do not see custom as insurmountable. I simply ask why it is so important to surmount it. Why should the comfort of the majority be compromised to accommodate the delusions of a tiny minority? 
I am not sure why you think it is important for us to get over our bodily hang-ups. Bodily hang-ups serve useful functions. Again we come back to suggesting that if something is not directly harmful and damaging in some physical way, then it should be accepted by everybody. Again we are back to defecating in public, or exposing ourselves outside a primary school. Why is that wrong? It’s only natural isn’t it? It is not acceptable because it brings a sense of discomfort and danger and so it is proscribed by custom. 
The sexes are separated in certain areas to give them a sense of safety and comfort. That is biology reinforced by custom and there is nothing wrong with either. 
But I admit that visceral revulsion is also a factor. Visceral revulsion is also based in our biology. It prevents us for example from eating things that might poison us. It is why the sight of a dead animal crawling with maggots can make us turn away in disgust. We could write pages of well argued reasons as to why that should not be; but Mother Nature has her reasons and they usually overrule ours. 
I don’t care if a man wants to pretend he’s a woman. That’s none of my business. He can convince himself he’s Batman if he wants. 
But he should understand that people might be a little wary of him if he displays signs of madness. That too is only natural. 
His delusions must be tolerated in a civilised society. Hopefully he can get some help that doesn’t involve having himself mutilated and turned into some kind of Frankenstein creature; but he should not be allowed to dictate society’s customs.
If someone feels some kind of mismatch between his brain and his body: If he feels like a woman trapped inside a man’s body, then he obviously has some sense of self issues that he might need help with. However his sense of mismatch in no way makes him a woman. 
He can never be a woman no matter how much he would wish to be; and telling him that he can is not helping him. I would like to be six feet tall so that I can see over the head of that guy with the afro who always seems to sit in front of me at the cinema. I can pretend I am six feet tall if I want, but that’s not going to help me to see the screen. Better to accept physical limitations and move seats. 
Since when did the “progressivist” message of accepting who you are and learning to love yourself yada yada; change to become – don’t accept who you are. Pretend instead to be what you would prefer to be and furthermore demand that everyone else accommodate your pretence. 
How I wonder does transgender narrative fit in with the narrative of the “body positive” movement. That’s going to get interesting. 
Anyway if a physical male was really a woman inside; then why would he feel the need to wear a wig, put on makeup or wear “female” clothes? Why would he need to train himself to walk like a woman or talk like a woman etc. Surely there are no non-physical traits that are uniquely female? Gender is a social construct didn’t you know! Surely that means that transgenderism is also a social construct? 
Oh now I am beginning to feel dizzy!
You need a drink, m'dear. 
But what makes me most uncomfortable; is the fact that for the first time in my life, I agreed with something that Germaine Greer said. That was kind of surreal; but it was worth the bonus. Greer has been spewing utter nonsense all her life, and when she finally says something sensible; something she can actually back up; she gets “no-platformed” across the UK …. By feminists!
Now that was funny.
So now you know what Lana's view is. In fine detail. 

Her customers continued with her well into the night while I wandered back to the P&B. But you can see what else was said by going to....

Then you can go on to hear the next two parts in different bars. Soon.



  1. Yes, Germaine Greer: the woman who once suggested on television that some form of sexual activity between adults and children be legalized. And then one day I found myself agreeing with her about something. Yes, that was a very weird feeling.

    1. Even a feminist loonie can't be wrong all the time. It takes effort.

  2. "The fact that most people do not feel comfortable performing bodily functions next to people of the opposite sex is not something new."

    "The sexes are separated in certain areas to give them a sense of safety and comfort."

    I agree with both those statements. However, a man would not want a transgender person in the women's room with his daughter but yet a man might often take a young daughter into the men's room where there are often men using urinals. Can someone explain that?

    1. Often.? A man might...?I would imagine the scenario to be less often than often, and when in the rare event it might happen, the loo might be quite empty. And he would occupy a stall. Then of course, there is the matter of exceptions to all rules.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..