Minority Rule & Late-Phase Culture
“Historically, the movement toward androgyny occurs in late phases of culture as a civilization is starting to unravel and you can find it again and again through history. [T]he people who live in such periods, late phase of culture, . . . feel that they’re very sophisticated . . . but from the perspective of historical distance you can see that it’s a culture that no longer believes in itself. . . . What you invariably get are people who are convinced of the power of heroic masculinity on the edges whether the Vandals and the Huns or whether they’re the barbarians of Isis, you see them you know starting to mass on the outsides of the culture. And that’s what we have right now, there is a tremendous and rather terrifying disconnect between the infatuation with the transgender movement in our own culture and what’s going on out there . . . I feel it’s ominous.” —Camille Paglia
Lastly, to round up this series, there is one more, equally pressing question I want to raise. It is this:
If, as a society, we find ourselves bending over backwards to over-represent a tiny minority, the result is to grant said minority disproportionate influence within society. This is inherently destabilizing for the society in question. Is this really the best way to ensure tolerance, compassion, and openness towards that minority—or is it more likely to lead to an opposite and equal reaction?
Minorities aren’t persecuted by communities because they are minorities, but when and as they are perceived as a threat to the stability of that community. This doesn’t mean they actually present a threat, but if the community is sufficiently unstable, and the minority sufficiently visible to serve as a scapegoat to bind the community together, the persecution will unfold just as if in reaction to a genuine threat. So how do you make something appear more threatening than it actually is? You first raise it up to a higher position.
If the gender-confused turn out to be victims of the very agendas that purport to rescue them, it wouldn’t be the first time a sociopolitical wolf dressed up in ideological sheep clothing. The strongest evidence for this, I think, is found by observing how the ideological drive to promote gender fluidity has such little regard for facts, figures, statistics, or even testimonies of gender fluid people that don’t conform to the dominant ideological drive. This latter proceeds just as you would expect a wolf to proceed: it huffs and puffs and it blows houses down. And it tears to shreds its opponents.
Recall how another fairy tale wolf ate Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother by pretending to be Red Riding Hood, then dressed up as her grandmother and ate Red Riding Hood? Trans-wolf—what big hands you have! It’s darkly ironic—and in the nature of this beast—that one of the primary rationales for this ideological drive takes the guise of compassion and tolerance, as a supposed preventative against prejudicial treatment, bullying, etc., of these misunderstood minorities. For example (from Wikipedia):
In the United States, the majority of respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey chose ‘A gender not listed here.’ The ‘Not Listed Here’ respondents were nine percentage-points (33 percent) more likely to report forgoing healthcare due to fear of discrimination than the general sample (36 percent compared to 27 percent). 90 percent reported experiencing anti-trans bias at work, and 43 percent reported having attempted suicide.
This sort of data is designed to act as a thought-stopper because it couches facts in a primeval context, that of predator and prey, in this case innocent victims of discrimination driven to suicide by heartless bigots. Once an emotional reaction is triggered, questioning or even examining the facts becomes much harder—it risks siding with the wolf, with heartlessness and bigotry. We tend to read the data as statistical fact, rather than as subjective testimony. We assume that, if 90% of the people interviewed experienced “anti-trans bias at work,” then anti-trans bias was at work. Questioning the alleged victims’ version of events becomes akin to adding insult to injury.
In fact, there’s no inherent reason to take such testimony as proven fact, just as there is no reason to believe any other subjective statement about people we don’t like. Being “Trans” doesn’t automatically make a person incapable of poor judgment or prejudice, or of bullying, egomania, or obnoxious behavior. The alleged victims are not babies. So how do they, much less we, know if they were being “discriminated” against for existing negative qualities, i.e., quite independently of their “Trans”-ness? The answer is that we don’t. But one thing we do know is that anyone who is given special societal status and privilege—amounting to a license to file a complaint whenever they don’t get what they want—is likely to abuse it.
Here are some more “stats,” these from The Guardian, 2018:
Of those trans people lucky enough to have a job, one in eight have been physically attacked by a colleague or customer within the past year. Drink after work? Maybe next time, eh. A third of trans people have been discriminated against when visiting a cafe, bar or restaurant. Quiet night in? A quarter of trans people in a relationship in the last year have experienced domestic abuse. These are just some of the findings published in new research by YouGov and LGBT charity Stonewall, revealing the profound discrimination trans people face in Britain. It’s shocking stuff, though not surprising, I suspect, to the majority of trans people who, like me, will have experienced some if not all of these kinds of bullying at some point.
And The Independent 2017:
Campaigners believe the statistics could be the “tip of the iceberg” with the majority of victims not feeling safe in reporting their experiences to the authorities. In Manchester, an initiative has been launched between the LGBT Foundation and Greater Manchester Police, where the charity would act as a third-party for reporting hate crime in a bid to encourage people to come forward. “Whether you are a victim or a witness, it is important to report every hate crime,” said James Huyton, community safety officer at LGBT Foundation.
The problem here is circular reasoning: because transgender is a natural and normal variation in human behavior, any resistance to it or intolerance of it is proof of ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry. This leaves out the possibility (explored in the previous seven parts of this series) that at least some gender dysphoria is neither natural nor normal (in the sense of healthy and desirable) but is rather symptomatic of intense psychological distress that’s sourced in early trauma and other adverse environmental factors.
By this same token, the assumption that the high suicide and suicide attempts rates among gender dysphoric people can be wholly (or even primarily) attributed to the adverse effects of social intolerance and bigotry is just that, an assumption. The possibility that already suicidally-inclined psychological types might also suffer from weak boundaries and a confused or poorly formed sense of identity, and therefore be drawn towards “gender identification” “solutions” is more or less ignored, if it isn’t being reviled as prejudice.
Inseparable from this is the possibility that transgender behaviors—being evidence of psychological instability and despair—might be genuinely threatening towards some members of a community, just as it was once quite normal, even sensible, to feel threatened by a man wearing a wig and a dress outside of the realm of performance, since a man in disguise indicates to our primordial brains that something isn’t right. (Cf. the “uncanny valley” hypothesis.) Of course, people can be educated and socially reconditioned out of this “prejudice,” but not without some unpredictable side effects or the likelihood of social, cultural backlash.
The ideological bias that supports anyone who self-identifies or is identified as a victim of “discrimination”—and condemns anyone who feels threatened by social aberrations or mutations—is apparent in the ways in which the discussion so often proceeds around this subject. Anyone who questions the prevailing doctrine about gender fluidity and dysphoria, or who presents factual data that contradicts it, is frequently accused of being a “transphobe,” a bigot, etc.
Technically, however, bigotry is defined as “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” In my experience, this more closely describes the people who violently defend the concepts of gender fluidity or sexual orientation from alleged “hate speech,” than it does those questioning these concepts, as I have done. This includes especially anyone who questions, as I have done, the assumption that gender fluidity has been scientifically proven as positive and life-enhancing, and that children should be “educated” to see it this way.
By today’s definition of “an anti-trans bias,” anyone who doesn’t support a gender fluid individual in their worldview 100% is acting prejudicially and is therefore a bigot, even if they don’t know it yet because they haven’t been educated properly.
Pillars of Salt (Problem-Reaction-Solution)
“Brighton Council is advocating that all adults in a child’s life work to set in stone for the child a sense of identity which is split off from the body, to condition the child into a mind-body disconnect which is an indicator for mental ill-health. Schools should be an environment where a child’s sense of self is given the space to develop, expand and change, and no school should be actively reinforcing hatred and rejection of the body as a foundation upon which to build a sense of self.” —Transgender Trend, 2016
I have spent so much time on the warp and woof of gender fluidity not because I consider these questions particularly meaningful—they seem to me like the secular equivalent of counting angels on the head of a surgical needle—but to illustrate just how fragmented, factitious, and self-devouring progressivist identity politics discourse has become—and how violent. What is of greatest significance, in my opinion, is the fact that children as young as two or three years old are being dragged into an ideological battleground around human sex and sexuality, and that parents have less and less of a grasp of the artillery being deployed.
Curiously, all of this debate centers around an ideological framework (gender fluidity) based on very flimsy evidence, beginning with the evidence for an identity-self that possesses gender and exists independent of biology. From here, it is argued by some that there is no such thing as biological sex, at all, because, like gender, it is a purely social construct. This notion has never been proven because, like 2 + 2 = 5, it is inherently unprovable and self-contradictory. Yet like Orwell’s proof of State-allegiance, it has been uncritically accepted by many people who blindly support the supposed needs of children to be encouraged to “transition,” and to be protected from any sort of questioning or criticism (even when intended to help them). The reasoning is that these children will be happier if they are allowed to reject the biology they were born with, and given total freedom to define their own reality, as well as the power to oblige everyone else to go along with their definitions.
How is it possible for so many people to believe so strongly in social policies, education reforms, and medical interventions involving the most invasive technologies imaginable as a means to address something they have not even begun to understand? Perhaps the answer is found in the question: that as long as science appears to offer the solution, it follows that it must have fully understood the problem. This is probably the primary pitfall of a technologically driven society in which all the solutions address problems externally, and hence are increasingly founded on ignoring all internal causes.
Clearly, we have managed to convince ourselves—or let ourselves be convinced—that we understand the problem of transgender and gender fluidity. Now all that’s required is to educate others to understand it too. How did this happen? Besides the section on mass media presentation, I have shied away from looking at the deeper social engineering programs behind the gender fluidity movement—programs which began at least as far back as Havelock Ellis, at the start of the 20th century, and that continue to this day in (mostly open but very little known) deep state sociopolitical agendas. The reason I have avoided going into this material (which would require perhaps an equally long exploration) is that I don’t want to alienate the average reader with too much unfamiliar and potentially threatening information, especially when it is the kind of information which uninformed and credulous readers tend to dismiss as “conspiracy theory.”
Fortunately, there’s a much simpler and shorter answer to the question of how a belief devoid of understanding became so widespread and so passionate so quickly. It is that most people in 2018 are almost completely ignorant of psychology. And because the psyche abhors a vacuum, when people are deprived of even the most rudimentary knowledge of the psychological principles of their existence (which prior to Freud were generally provided by the arts), they become vulnerable to possession by a counterfeit set of beliefs. This counterfeit belief-set is in a self-determining, self-inventing, and self-orienting identity that exists, like a reverse circle, with a circumference (outer shell) that is everywhere, and a center that is nowhere found.
In a recent celebrated case, Australia changed its laws so adolescents can now freely choose to change their sex without court approval. The first beneficiary of the new law was 14-year-old Isabelle Langley (trans-girl), who was quoted as saying: “By [the court’s] logic it was as though trans kids aren’t mature enough to decide how they want to manage their own puberty. . . . I want to have control over my body and what goes into my body. . . . I know what I need. . .”
Dr. Michelle Telfer, the head of the gender service at the Royal Children’s Hospital treating Langley, added this:
And what I will say about many of the youth who want puberty blockers is: I have never met such an altruistic group of kids around adoption! Never! “I will adopt because there are so many children who need good homes.” And I think that’s both heartfelt but also they’re trying to tell us the most important thing to me right now is being able to have every opportunity to have my gender affirmation be as complete as possible. Anything else is secondary.
It is apparently a given in today’s progressive circles that children are mature enough to “manage their own puberty.” But I wonder how many of these people, the adults I mean, would claim they managed their own puberty wisely? Did anyone? Isn’t it literally an oxymoron to say that an adolescent is mature enough to manage his or her own sexual development, especially when most forty-year-olds haven’t yet got the hang of it? Most adults are still figuring out when to have sex and with who, how to sensibly navigate alcohol and drug use, and how to maintain a healthy diet. Suddenly children have the means, motive, and opportunity to engineer their own sexual development and reconstruct their bodies—including permanent sterilization—and this is seen as a benign development free from risks?
To cap off her testimonial, Dr. Telfer added proudly: “These young people are healthy with a strong sense of justice, they are absolute pillars of society.” I’d say that gives a pretty clear indication of what to expect.
Children are being taught that there are not two but many genders, and that, like the mythical creatures of fairy tales, mysterious entities called “gender identities” can morph and change according to whim, while being entirely invisible except for their effects. Like myth, these state-backed children’s stories eschew scientific or medical evidence, in favor of a theoretical mish-mash of ideological imaginings with subjective testimonies from (generally distressed) children and adolescents. Life’s a fairy tale in which you can be whatever you want to be and no one can tell you otherwise? No wonder they want to target children, because who else would believe this?
The promise that corporate raiders from the Serpent on up have perfected is this: If you eat our fruit, ye shall be as gods. There is an identity for everyone, for every occasion. You can get to be whichever “you” you want, whenever, wherever, and for however long you want. But who is the “I” that gets to decide what “it” gets to be?
The invalidation of biology as the primary determinant of identity has, at the same time and most bizarrely, made body modification central to identity-recreation. How is this circle squared? Only by leaving a vacuum where the psyche used to be, a vacuum that has been hollowed out by corporations mining for natural human resources.
The soggy SOGI merchants of self-reinvention-via-self-absorption want to appeal to the lowest part of us by promising to raise it up to the highest plateau. They are selling a cure for a soul that migrated to the wrong body without acknowledging that, if psyches are no longer finding their somas, if more and more people are not at home in their bodies, something has gone terribly wrong on Terra Firma.
This problem isn’t acknowledged as a problem because the proffered “solution” is being sold as so wonderful that it promises to transform the situation into sheer opportunity. Certainly, it is some sort of opportunity, but whose? In this brave new land, all opportunities and all solutions come from the Scientistic State, and all problems are sourced in the body, in Nature, and in God. Surely the inversion of this must be obvious? If there are those who don’t see it, it can only be because they have replaced their eyes with a set of Google glasses.
They are now seeing with the eyes of the State.
 The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts an entity appearing almost human risks eliciting cold, eerie feelings in viewers, see “The Uncanny Valley: Implications for Facial Plastic Surgery” by Joshua Choo, MD Gerald O’Daniel, MD: “According to the cognitive psychology literature, objects such as faces are evaluated by a complex process of contextual integration—often referred to as category processing or membership. These evaluations assimilate cues inherent to the object and to the larger environment that form a rich contextual basis for categorization. Objects that are congruent with their contextual setting “make sense” and are therefore perceived to be more beautiful.” Also: “Japanese roboticist Dr Masahiro Mori postulated that the more closely a robot approximated human features, the more endearing it became until a point was reached when the subtle imperfections of appearance or behavior created an opposite effect—that of eeriness and revulsion. Several theories exist to explain why this response occurs and what elicits it, but it is this concept of category congruence that the authors believe to have the most explanatory power when applied to plastic surgery. [T]he uncanny valley is encountered when cosmetic procedures create category uncertainty.” (Ref.) “But what we’re finding today is that it’s not robots we have to worry about; the uncanny valley is all around you. Just consider. . . The Booming “Realistic” Sex Doll Industry. People Who Want to Be Anime Characters—Animegao Kigurumi – btw, most costumes out there are female. Most players are male. People Who Want to be Anime Characters (Part 2) — Ulzzang. Photoshop is Filling Magazines With Dead-Eyed Humanoids. CGI Humans Are More Terrifying Than Ever.”
 From the website 4thWaveNow: “During the closing panel discussion, Ehrensaft and Baum devote several minutes to the topic of sterilizing trans kids—but explain it away with a twofer: By equating it to treatments for children with life-threatening cancers, and by stating that parents reluctant to sterilize their 11-year-olds are only concerned because they selfishly want grandchildren. . . . Ehrensaft: ‘There’s a lot of parents who have dreams of becoming grandparents. It’s very hard for them not to imagine those genetically related grandchildren. So we have to work with parents around, these aren’t your dreams. [laughs]. You have to focus on your child’s dreams. What they want.’ Ehrensaft laughingly implies that parents concerned about their child’s human right to choose or not to choose to reproduce . . . are really only concerned about future grandchildren, not the bodily integrity or cognitive wherewithal of their prepubescent child. These egocentric parents are denying their children “their dreams.” These thoughtless parents need to be “worked with” by gender specialists. Here comes the punchline—the ultimate “leverage point”: You can either have grandchildren or not have a kid anymore because they’ve ended the relationship with you or in some cases because they’ve chosen a more dangerous path for themselves.”