Readers of this blog will be aware of my rather dim view of certain social movements which claim to be liberal and progressive, but are the opposite of what they claim. On a previous blog, I wrote more than a few posts about how SJW-ism and the many causes promoted by it are actually quite regressive and driven by an incessant need for constant external validation. I have also been a strong supporter of unpopular causes, such as freedom of speech, which is currently unpopular because people such as Alex Jones have invoked it to defend their behavior. Furthermore, unlike many self-anointed progressives, it is my opinion that giving more consent or power to governments and corporations is a really bad idea. My beliefs therefore don't fit within the intellectually dishonest 'left-right' classification which dominates the worldview of dumb incestuous circle-jerkers aka "famous credentialed public intellectuals".
Some of you might be aware that I have written a previous post on this blog describing how contemporary elite support for transgender rights is linked to neoliberalism. In it, I covered issues such as the connection of this ideology with neoliberalism and late-capitalism and how the institutional support for this ideology is eerily reminiscent of past support for other bad ideas such as eugenics and residential schools for natives. To put it another way, I am not a big fan of that ideology- especially the way in which its proponents are trying to force their worldviews on other people. Some might ask.. "how is that different from struggle for gay and lesbian rights"? Well.. I am glad you asked, because there is a big difference between them and transgenderism.
But before we go there, let us be clear about something- I have always believed that no person or institution has any right to tell or enforce how another person should live their life or who they should have sex with- as long as it does not involve animals or children. In other words, society should not discriminate between people irrespective of their sexual preferences and lifestyle. But isn't this belief at odds with my thoughts about the ideology of transgenderism? Well.. no, because gay and lesbian rights are not even remotely in the same category as transgenderism. Confused? Well.. here is the long-form explanation which starts by looking at how the modern gay and lesbian rights movement came into being and succeeded.
The modern movement for gay and lesbian rights in West started during 1960s. While there are many reasons why it started at that time- it is best understood as being an extension of the sexual revolution and various civil rights movements. It then grew as a movement for equal legal rights and legal protection from discrimination. And there is a very good reason why I am emphasizing the part about legal equality. Over the next few decades, this movement was primarily and heavily focused on achieving legal equality rather than social acceptance. But why? Why focus on the legal part and not the social part. The simple answer to that question is that legal equality is readily attainable while social acceptance cannot be forced.
A more detailed answer requires us to understand its philosophical underpinnings. The gay and lesbian rights movement was, and is still, largely based in progressive principles. But isn't the movement of transgender ideology also based in progressive principles? Well no, it is not and the way I described it provides a partial clue. See, the gay and lesbian rights movements were not independent and free-standing ideologies. Instead they are part of progressive humanism, which is why they were successful and have become so uncontroversial today. They demanded equal legal rights because they were also human, rather than special or different. Nor did they try, at least then, to impose their belief system on others or make constant demands that others recognize and celebrate their "specialness". They just wanted to treated like everyone else.
Now compare this to the ideology of contemporary transgenderism, or more precisely how it works in real life. For starters, everyone else is supposed to just shut up and accept any new brain-fart emanating from the vocal and self-anointed leaders of that movement. Anybody who does not do so immediately is labelled as a fascist, denier or heretic. And don't forget that they want to be seen as "extra-special" people with a special and unique connection to something nobody else can understand. Accepting this ideology by self-mutilation of genitals and secondary sexual characteristics is supposed to somehow provide you with a magic cure for all your mental issues and help you get into the inner circle. Now is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the reactionary bullshit usually seen in religions and cults?
But it gets worse. Have you noticed that all those who change their gender (especially from male to female) go for a hyper-feminine look, dress and behavior? But why? Why do these “brave” and “independent” people crave exaggerated feminine or masculine looks, dress and mannerisms? Let me contrast that with gay men and lesbian women. Have you noticed that both come in a wide range of looks, dress and mannerisms? While the media, sadly, often still often all portrays gay men as effeminate queens, most people who have interacted with them in real life know that they cover the full range of masculinity. In other words, most gay guys are a lot like straight guys. The same is true for lesbian women. Most of them are not the ultra-masculine "dykes" usually portrayed in media. Many are very similar to straight women and it is often even harder to tell them apart than gay and straight men.
And this brings us to why I said that the ideology of transgenderism is based in a regressive form of Conservatism. One major difference between Conservatism and progressive humanism is that the former requires people to conform and fit into narrow definitions of what they are "meant" to be. This is why conservatives were historically against women wearing pants or dressing in other "unapproved" ways. This is, also, why women who appear on conservative news outlets dress often style themselves in a hyper-feminine manner. To make a long story short, any ideology which directly or indirectly pushes its followers to conform to narrow "traditional" choices in style, dress and behavior is by definition conservative. Now combine this with the previously mentioned bit about its highly cultish nature and you will why this ideology is fundamentally different from the movement for gay and lesbian rights.
What do you think? Comments?
Realistically this has always been an issue with the trans movement. It is paradoxically a rejection and negation of everything the proggy Left had said previously. A woman was previously able to play with trucks and car toys, or be a firefighter. Now these things indicate that really they are a boy and must be subject to medical surgery to match what they are meant to be.
It is strange that many of the voices who once were defenders of the womanhood of tomboys now see no issue with arguing that if a girl picks up a baseball, she has to have her body mutilated and adopt a whole new name, as sports ball is the domain of men and men exclusively, and holding a barbie doll is a domain exclusively for girls.
This might also be why the public is confused as its such a jarring about face; the message switched and inverted so quickly that many people are unable to cope with how disjointed it is.
The real Red 💊 is Lady Boys. AD, if you have never tasted this fine delicacy, you are missing out. More feminine than “real” woman and great in the sack.