We are supposed to believe that someone who is biologically male can have periods. Bria, it must be said, is smart enough to attempt to philosophically justify all this. It makes for interesting reading:
The argument is that there are no essential differences between men and women; that the human body is "plastic" and therefore able to be deliberately manipulated into something else; and that given the lack of essential differences, we are fundamentally the same and therefore there can be no "other".
Bria adds some further detail to the argument:
According to Bria we are nothing more than "chemical powered meat robots". The effort to find a secure basis for human dignity within liberal modernity flounders here. It would seem difficult, too, to find within a nature in which all creatures are chemically powered meat robots, anything resembling "natural law" or any principles of ordering oneself or society that would bring a definite telos (purposes or ends) to human life.
If the human body really is so plastic, and we really are as men and women easily interchangeable, so that there is no "other" sex, then it is difficult to take seriously Bria's own new identity as a woman. Bria's chemical robot settings have been changed a bit, that's all. The identity of "woman" would no longer mean very much, or have much wider significance. It would not connect identity to anything deeper than a mere chemical substance. It would not connect identity fundamentally to our core self, nor the self to a definite physical embodiment, nor the self to a discernible essence (the masculine, the feminine) with its own characteristic and meaningful qualities.
If you think of our sex as part of the essence of who we are, and as embedded within our DNA, then our best option is to order ourselves toward it, particularly toward what is best within it. Bria's counterclaim that we are meat robots, plastic and interchangeable, disconnects our sex from whatever stable aspects of the self remain. In this sense, it is self-defeating.
A note to Melbourne readers. If you are sympathetic to the ideas of this website, please visit the site of the Melbourne Traditionalists. It's important that traditionalists don't remain isolated from each other; our group provides a great opportunity for traditionalists to meet up and connect. Details at the website.
If we really are so “plastic” and there is little essential difference between man and woman, then there really would be no need for surgery and HRT. The fact surgery and HRT , and whatever, is required to transition between the sexes, tells us that the notion of plasticity is merely an idea that doesn’t transcribe so well as a meaningful truth.
ReplyDeleteThere was once a time when Bria's published statements would be sufficient cause for a judge to appoint a guardian, or issue an order committing him to treatment of some sort.
ReplyDeleteYou really have to wonder if, deep down inside, such people believe the nonsense they spout. They seem to get so angry about these things that you have to suspect that they have some serious doubts.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fundamentally about something very different.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about the power to impose any belief and reality on others and force them to bow to your will.
The rest is details.
Now what would really be a "divide by zero" would be a "trans-ageism". I mentally feel like I am 65, so I am now retired and claiming a pension.
ReplyDeleteBria is an irrational and illogical man with evident profound psychological problems. The evident contradiction in his thought is his belief that "humans are meat robots and follow the same rules as every other biological and chemical entity". The latter part of the statement about humans following the rules of biology and chemistry make his transition to the female sex a biological and chemical impossibility due to the impossibility of removing or deactivating the Y Chromosome. So long as he has a Y chromosome in every cell, he is a male, like every other creature in the animal world which possesses a Y chromosome and no amount of attempts to surgically mutilate himself or chemically castrate himself will ever change that. In his failure to understand that the Y chromosome is an insurmountable object to his delusional beliefs of femininity, his attempts to overcome it are futile and likely to lead to his premature death.
ReplyDeleteThis type of behaviour is geared to influence the scientifically illiterate and induct the mass of the population into the acceptance of irrationality and delusional belief states, a form of collective insanity.
I think it is fundamentally about something very different.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about the power to impose any belief and reality on others and force them to bow to your will.
You're almost certainly correct. The key is that the belief that is imposed should be clearly absurd. That maximises the humiliation and demoralisation of the person forced to believe.
I've had several leftists say that they were indifferent to immigration until they realized that it made conservatives uncomfortable. A UK Labour politician called it "rubbing their nose in diversity".
DeleteBria (if that is his legal name) was born male, will die a male, and obviously will never be a man and can never be a female or a woman. Is any of that still open to question?
ReplyDeleteWhat, I ask again and again, is the point of elevating the inanities of a mentally disordered, psycho-sexual, male homosexual exhibitionist, who craves the attention, to this level of serious scrutiny?
He claims to have monthly periods and he claims that people are made of interchangeable plastic parts? He doesn't claim to have the female parts necessary for menstruation, but claims to menstruate.
If he claimed to be a four hundred pound lineman in the NFL, and was allowed to play in a game, that would be self-defeating.
If a mentally disordered male announces that he is a menstruating plastic female in a world in which even OZ trads continue to openly question and discusses his views, because he makes interesting attempts at justifying them, then he isn't self-defeated, we are.
Buck, like it or not Bria shares a basic world view with the people who are currently still shaping the societies we live in, which is why Bria is coming to your child's school real soon. We can't ignore this stuff.
DeleteSecond, I've spent the past week meeting up and organising with other young trad men here in Melbourne. A serious attempt to understand, combined with a serious attempt to organise and present an alternative - the two go together.
Hi Mark,
DeleteI apologize issuing this out of place comment on this particular thread where, under normal circumstances, it would be rude.
Unfortunately, I cannot find any writings of yours on the topic of interracial marriage as it fits into the outline of your many points for a traditional understanding of the human person and society. If you have some posts, could you link them? And if you haven't wrote on that topic, I was wondering if you might in the future. I would be interested.Thanks
"Buck, like it or not Bria shares a basic world view with the people who are currently still shaping the societies we live in, which is why Bria is coming to your child's school real soon."
DeleteIt is important to understand that the elites do not believe in transgenderism. The surgeon who castrates a man fully understands that he is not creating a woman but treating a psychologically disturbed man. The physician who prescribes hormones knows likewise.
The elites understand reality but their use of transgenderism is a weapon against the masses to oppress them and induct them into a false reality and fantasy world. The educationalists in the schools who facilitate this and perpahs believe it are merely useful idiots.
It is important to know this because the elites are not simple misguided people who follow false ideologies but a sinister people who are hostile to their own people. It is therefore imperative that the masses resist.
I hate that I have to feel like I'm barging in here like the angry man.
DeleteI said nothing about ignoring this stuff. I have said repeatedly that we should attack it at every turn, beginning with how we talk about it. This is what sets my hair on fire, the way we continue to soft pedal this. It's coddling. This has been nuanced to death.
Bria isn't some extraordinary philosophically enlightened "trans girl" to be heralded. He's a mentally disordered male homosexual who has been elevated to a level of discussion at OZ Conservative. That disturbs me. Sorry.
First thing I'd say if Bria, the person, had to be discussed; He is a mentally disturbed sexually disordered male homosexual who needs serious psychiatric help.
Beyond that, he's being entertained. Why?
Subtle comments such as: "If we really are...", "There was once a time when...", "You really have to wonder if,...", and "Bria is an irrational and illogical man...", as if (depending I guess, on what your definition of "if" is), even here, of all places, "man" has lost its meaning, and Bria is simply irrational and illogical? It reveals, not just here, an undeniable measure of acceptence and deference that is growing broader in a slow crawl from apparant exhausted confusion. Referring to Bria as a "man" throws the whole discussion into the crapper.
I guess that's what you mean by a serious attempt to understand. I have to wonder when and if enough about this will be ever be "understood".
I have no idea what the mystery is.
Quick story. I have a good friend who is dating an over educated social worker. She has a masters and a PhD. She's a case handler for the Maryland court system. She's pure thoughtless emotion and a creature of her profession. It's a cult. She regularly celebrates everything same-sex just to get under my skin. "They are suffering. Why are you so mean?" She baits me then can't defend herself beyond a personal attack. A few days ago she claimed justification for something she said because it's listed as so in the DSM5. I replied that the DSM is a political document. (I can demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt. It is notoriously so.) The fifth iteration of the DSM (2014?), which had always listed and discussed only disorders (it is a manual of DISORDERS), now list a dysphoria and a dysfunction where the sexual disorders were found. There are no sexual disorders anymore(other than ED and the such). It is official. This is the American Psycho Association. They are a collection of liars.
DeleteThey go through a torturous justification for why they substitute the language of "gender" in place of "sex".
I always told my young carpenters that there are usually two ways to accomplish most tasks; the smart way and the dumb way. Without going into it here, I show that the smart way (for one instance: calculating roof rafter slope and length bird's mouth) has ample opportunities for error, whereas the dumb way is infallible and easily learned.
Sometimes, with some things, we can be too smart, so "smart" that we out smart ourselves.
Buck, you seem to be worried that by discussing the philosophy behind transsexualism that it will somehow be normalised or accepted. To me it's more important to understand the connection between the larger modernist project and the acceptance of transsexualism within liberal society.
DeleteOne of the interesting aspects of all this is that Bria on the one hand wants to take a very deterministic view (that we are meat robots powered by chemicals), presumably because this is then the mechanism by which human nature/human being can be deliberately manipulated, alongside a strong focus on human will - we are plastic and interchangeable so can become what we will ourselves to become. The world view requires both an extreme determinism as well as a radical focus on the human will.
Anonymous, if the elites are truly sinister and hostile to "their own people", and the masses must resist, but are not, because they don't seem to yet know how important it is; where does that leave this philosophical discussion?
DeleteWho exactly are these oppressed, fantasy world masses and what form must their resistance take? Who needs to do what to who, to say what to who, to get them act on the imperative that they clearly don't yet get?
Some recent writing on connections between transhumanisn and transgenderism:
ReplyDeletehttps://quillette.com/2018/07/11/the-transhumanism-revolution-oppression-disguised-as-liberation/
Leadpb, I found Libby Emmons critique of transhumanism, though sometimes contradictory and without a clear sense of what she means, to come to a reasonably sensible conclusion. It easy to understand why so many commenters seem to completely misconstrue her point. She writes from a purely secular perspective, so transcendence is a huge gap in her knowledge.
DeleteShe does seem to understand that mind-body dualism requires that a non-material force from a mind transmit non-material commands to cause a material human brain to affect itself and its body with no external or internal stimuli. This is exactly what we are being asked to accept as the truth of so-called "transgenderism".
What did Einstein's theory say about Newton's? You simply can't get there from here.
It is also no different than transubstantiation. We must believe in the accidents of appearances and accept the truth of the mysteries as a matter of faith.
In both cases, but one is clearly increasing its adherents.
"you seem to be worried that by discussing the philosophy behind transsexualism that it will somehow be normalised or accepted."
ReplyDeleteI'm not worried about what's done. It is already normalized and accepted. Where is it not? It's in the book. It's codified into law. It's everywhere and inescapable. Or, have I been asleep for several hundred years and missed the complete upheaval and reversal of modern liberalism?
Everyday there is something: https://variety.com/2018/film/news/scarlett-johansson-exit-rub-and-tug-trans-backlash-1202872981/
I'm steeped in the philosophy behind transsexualism. I know the history and heroes as well as anyone does.
Once more. You explain that Bria thinks that we are supposed to believe that someone who is biologically male can have periods. Then you shared his philosophical justification because you find it interesting. OK. Later you say gently that "it is difficult to take seriously Bria's own new identity as a woman." Not absurd, bizarre, crazy, insane or sick or mentally disordered, but philosophically interesting and "difficult",not absurd, to take seriously.
You say "If you think of our sex as part of the essence of who we are, and as embedded within our DNA,..." If? Who if? Bria? Or us readers?
You admit: "To me it's more important to understand the connection between the larger modernist project and the acceptance of transsexualism within liberal society."
I had a good friend (who died recently) who enjoyed telling us about his favorite phrase and its effectiveness. He divorced and was dating a steady stream of women. When they complained or expressed disappointment, as he put it, or they argued or were annoyed with him, he would simply say "I understand". He proud to boast of how well it immediately diffused most situations. It left them temporarily stumped and speechless. It never actually lasted, but that wasn't the point.