Sunday, April 10, 2016

Next stage transgenderism

Liberalism would have us believe that what matters is a freedom to self-define who we are. So it's no surprise that the transsexual movement is doing so well at the moment. Choosing to define your own sex is taking liberalism to the max.

Nor is it a surprise that the Australian Human Rights Commission is proposing changes to the law on transsexualism. At the moment, Australians have to get a certificate from a medial practitioner stating that they have undergone some kind of clinical treatment to transition from one sex to the other in order to officially change their sex. The Commission now wants to drop this requirement so that an individual can simply determine for themselves which sex they are.

That fits even better with the logic of liberalism, as it increases the extent to which the individual gets to define for themselves who they are. But at the same time it opens up a can of worms. Why couldn't someone who is biologically male declare themselves to be female and take advantage of their status? For instance, by competing as a woman in a women's sporting team? Or by claiming a job subject to a quota? Or by moving into a woman's college on campus?

While we're on the topic of future trends in transsexualism, I was interested to see a tweet at Australian feminist Clementine Ford's twitter feed. It was a complaint that a dating website has an option that allows people to opt out of being contacted by transsexuals. In other words, if you are a man seeking a woman, you can choose not to be contacted by a biological male identifying as a woman.

Some of Clementine's readers thought the opt out option to be morally wrong. One wrote: "wouldn't it be easier to have a button that says, "I'm a cis hetero bigot seeking same"??" Another lamented: "It's the 21st Century but society is changing sooo painfully slowly :-(".

I don't know if liberalism will follow its inner logic to the point of considering it discriminatory to prefer biologically female women over men identifying as women. It might possibly do so, as liberalism frowns on people who limit the "right" of others to self-define as they will. It might though pragmatically be a step too far even for a liberal culture. We'll see.


  1. Transgenderism then means there can be no laws for sex discrimination or gender policy.

    For there are no genders. Ultimately.

  2. Any sexual preference is acceptable, unless it's normal, in which case it's bigoted. Got it.

  3. There are no steps too far for liberalism. They will not stop, but hopefully there will come a time when either the rest of long-suffering humanity will refuse to take any more or else natural processes will set in to obstruct the madness. If not, we may pray for Divine Intervention.

    Will it be possible for a biological male, identifying as a "woman", to enter a women's toilet and upon arrival to re-identify as a man? There will be interesting results. I may have to temporarily self-identify as a woman in order to escort my wife to public toilets for her own security.

  4. The first two sentences of the linked AHRC proposal (I could not read further) clearly evidence the growing mass psychosis and civilizational dysfunction. Governments, populations, academia, Western culture...every important institution in Western civilization is unabashedly submitting to the power of modern liberalism.
    People can't "decide" their "gender" identity, because people don't have a "gender identity". Only words are identified by gender. Nouns and pronouns are masculine, feminine or neuter. People are male or female. The pronouns "he" and "she" and "it" correlate, respectively, to the masculine, feminine and inanimate qualities and characteristics of men, women and things. Men and women display the masculine or feminine characteristics that properly align with their sex. Some don't. Among them are the many who claim that special rights and protections should adhere to them as a birth right. Many, if not most or all them, also claim that they are "naturally born" with same-sex sexual desire. They argue for and demand that the rest of the world accept, approve of and legally accommodate the "natural" dichotomy between their "true nature" and the mistake of their biological sex. They are demanding that the world ignore their gonads and genitals and that everyone, under threat of force (penalty of law), enable, embrace and even celebrate their psycho-sexual dysfunction.
    What does the Australian Human Rights Commission assert in the very first sentence? "Individuals should be handed the power to decide their gender identity for themselves,..."
    Who is more dysfunctional, them or us for allowing this?
    How can the "individuals" who have always claimed, and who have persuaded us to codify into law - as the critical and essential legal basis for their entitlement to these long sought and demanded special rights and legal protections - that they are "born this way", that they have NO CHOICE in the matter, that they do not have free will to "decide for themselves" their sexual nature, their sexual desires or what level of masculine or feminine is in the psychological or physical makeup that they are born with?
    How can they be "handed the power to decide their own gender identity", when they themselves demand that we accept that they are powerless to change it?
    I repeat: Homosexualists have long, demanded and successfully argued with society and the state, that they are naturally born with same-sex desires and with a natural lack or over-abundance of masculine or feminine traits which they should proudly never have to inhibit. Being "born this way" is the critical, necessary basis for all of their arguments and claims to special rights and protections. Their civil rights status, as a minority class under duress, is formally sanctioned by our judicial, medical, psychiatric, academic and social, etc., institutions because of the even more important fundamental dynamic, that which underlies all of this; their lack of consent to conception.

  5. cont'd
    Homosexuals didn't consent to being "born this way". They have successfully made the legal case that they have no "power to decide". The modern Western world has conceded that their inability to give consent to each of the particulars of their birth, is an almost unspoken moral justification for all of the ongoing public policy bent on legally eliminating sexual dysfunctions, leaving only the defect-free, perfected modern liberal.
    Perversely, the accepted justifications for the laws - being "born this way", with without legal consent - that punish men and women (not simply male and female) who resist or defy gaydom's rule of law, (even though they too were born their way) will, if we maintain this course, lead to reductions and or the elimination of legal barriers to, what many in gaydom have long argued, is the archaic, unnecessary traditional age of consent.
    Consent is the 800lb gorilla in the room. It is the greater mass around which everything orbits.
    Someone might argue that I'm all wet, that consensual "choice" unquestionably takes legal precedence over some unconsented-to "birth right" claim; that healthy, normal, sexually functional people must be allowed to choose and change as they will, "without prior approval from doctors and psychologists", as the Australian Human Rights Commission says. All people should be free to decide.
    Crazy is as crazy does.

    1. I agree. With these people anything goes. This isn't necessarily the case with the useful idiots who facilitate them, but when one is of a "progressive" frame of mind one can never be satisfied with one's destination and must always push on to the next frontier. When conservatives are cast into outer darkness for the wicked deprivation and oppression of the sexual rights of infants, where then will they decide to go?

  6. This same day, a friend sent me a text: "turn on 60 minutes". I saw the text too late to tune in to that story, and ended up watching another; a story about a young high school girl "transitioning" to pretending to be male.
    Skylar was a tomboy. She was a competitive swimmer who was used to winning against girls. She wore her hair short and was often mistaken for a boy. She thought that she was supposed to be a boy. She came out as a Lesbian in high school. She was accepted to Harvard and was to swim on the female team, when she made her decision to switch teams. She had her breast removed and joined the male swim team, over no objections, it was said. She is taking testosterone to build up her physique and to add facial hair.
    She is shown walking hand in hand with a female. It is said that she was a lesbian; but that now she is straight, since she is still attracted to females, but is now pretending to be a male.
    She explains in the interview that the most asked question is: "do you still have a vagina?"
    She says that's OK, that she gets why they ask, that she would too.
    Skylar is also asked if she will have surgery, to remove her female parts. I'm paraphrasing here: "Will you retain the ability to give birth", she is asked. She says "yes" and laughs as if she knows exactly what that means in this context.
    All of this is conducted with a straight face, as if we are all being especially privilaged to be a part of this modern natural wonder.
    Crazy is as crazy does.

    1. It's that thing where liberals no longer have a sense of what is ordered - it becomes all about the "freedom" to express your own individual will, and the more that this expression of will conflicts with traditional standards the more cutting edge a freedom it is considered to be - and so Skylar becomes the poster girl for liberal freedom, even though, as you point out in your comment, it is an extraordinarily messy situation you would not wish upon your children or friends.

  7. The latest autonomy battleground in America is using whichever restroom/bathroom matches the "gender that you feel you are" (presumably that feeling could change from day to day).

    Video of indoctrinated American college students struggling to answer whether there are any limits to self-defined identity:

    1. That's a very useful video, thanks for sending the link.