When 2 groups have spring from the same ideology ("maximal sexual autonomy") and share tactical continuity, drawing distinctions between them is splitting hairs.
Andrew Sullivan and Bari Weiss and many others seem to think they can just go back to a nice, sane, mid-2000's, gay friendly liberalism. It can't happen. Liberalism has been a liberationist ideology since the Enlightenment. The basic premise is that all unchosen constraints are illegitimate, and biology is a largest unchosen constraint. In hindsight, the Enlightenment appears to have been seeded trans-sexualism and eventually trans-humanism from the beginning.
Logically the "T" is antithetical to the "L", and the "G" If gender is fluid and basically meaningless then what meaning can "I like guys" or "I like girls" have? I've known enough ordinary (=not-politically fanatic) gay guys to observe that the trans stuff is intensely disliked among most of them.
Why don't you just look around for the answer before you challenge someone else. But for the record, google "Craig Rodwell" and "heterosexism." I'm not going to supply links for you, look them up yourself. Once you destroy the idea that the male/female bond is the source from which all else flows, anything can happen, and did.
and once you make moronic statements like "...the male/female bond is the source from which all else flows" then what? so,off with their heads, all those dykes and fags? confine them to their own special gulag? how about rape as a cure for lesbianism as has been suggested by some males - how about you bond with those males, chica and keep them off the streets and away from women who have no interest in dick
Eugine's right. Both ideologies are children of the 60's sexual revolution, which was itself a child of Mill's Harm Principle. The most succinct summary of Mill is "maximal individual autonomy", which I altered in this case to "maximal sexual autonomy" since that was our subject matter.
I'm not saying that one led to the other, but that both were inevitable once we surrendered the duty to put regulations around sexual behavior, a duty which essentially every previous human society has viewed as crucial.
I'm of the mind that the crucial distinction in this situation is the one between minors and adults. In my observation, adults have had the option to undergo hormone treatments and cosmetic surgery procedures for decades.
The issue only began assuming a political dimension when the assertion was put forth as professional medical conclusion that those procedures are vital to the mental health of someone, thereby qualifying the drugs and procedures to be covered by health insurance (both private and public)- and also extended toward minor adolescents along with individuals in the adults population. And, from there, to a transvaluation of values in public education courses on sexuality, which have somehow been incorporated as a necessity for pre-pubescent children beginning in the elementary grades.
The crucial thing is that minor children are not in a position to make those decisions. And the notion that our already underperforming public elementary schools- which often fail at supplying the basics- should be asserting a party line on sexual identity to prepubescent kids is bizarre. And not at all liberal, or libertarian.
I also think that clear thinking on these matters requires some recognition of what constitutes Hard Data as a Scientific Finding. Because without drawing some distinctions, confusion is already rampant, and will only continue to mount. Chemistry is not Biology; Biology is not Medicine; Medicine is not Psychiatry. The conclusions of research studies lose more replicability and reliability with each shift in the topic of study. I'm not saying that all the research becomes worthless, but the farther a research finding on a subject strays from, say, quantitative analysis in metallurgy, the less it qualifies as definitively conclusive. And the less it can be considered undiluted "experimental science"; the ability to do fruitful assessments is increasingly empirical, and even empirical findings tend to get awfully wobbly by the time they're based primarily on handful of data point correlations and/or studies based on "self-report", which is increasingly the primary evidential support for developing conclusions in psychiatry and social psychology.
I agree that pushing kids into this stuff is beyond appalling.
However, if "maximal adult autonomy" is your highest guiding principle, you will be unable to limit adult behavior in any way. In other words, any policy which defends "the common good" on the basis that some things are simply antithetical to a functioning society will have to fall to your sword of "maximal adult autonomy".
This is why I no longer support Locke's value-neutral state. It ends in disaster.
One is about letting people live their lives as they please - naturally. One is about a group claiming that in order to "live their lives" they require a massive degree of pharmaceutical and surgical intervention.
You're plainly wrong. Get your head out of your ass.
Ken, the distinction you want to draw doesn't exist. It seems to, but it's an illusion.
John Stuart Mill is the original articulator of the position you've stated. He used the "harm principle" -- does this action harm anyone else? By that standard, 2 men getting married harms no one else, and a 15 year old girl slicing off her breasts harms no one else. And Mill did not distinguish between legal, social, and financial constraints -- all constraints that infringed on maximal individual autonomy were illegitimate.
This assumption (maximal individual autonomy at all costs) is the basis for liberalism's (in the Enlightenment sense, not the modern political one) desire to remove all unchosen constraints. And the ultimate unchosen constraint is biology itself.
For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% about commercial surrogacy, but I get there from Burke not Mill, and it's a little hard to square your aversion to surrogacy with your defense of people "living their lives as they please". Don't surrogates deserve to live their lives, and earn money, as they please?
A surgeon is harming the 15-year-old girl for his or her own profit. Two men going overboard with, shall we say, "butt-related fun" harm each other, but that is not in my view a reasonable or practical province for law. Two men cohabiting, however, is not harmful to anyone in and of itself.
You misapprehend, I think, the root issue with "trans"ism -- it is not that people are harming themselves, it is that this harm is being prescribed & provided to them as a benefit under color of medicine by people we have accorded responsible authority in our society. The issue is the departure by those people from the conditions under which that responsible authority was provided to them.
The roots of this root - if you will - are the infiltration of scientific medicine by the cosmetic on the one hand, and the "psychological" on the other. "Cosmetic medicine" is a fundamentally wrongheaded concept: no one bearing the title doctor should be performing operations on healthy people for solely cosmetic reasons. "Psychology" asserts a fundamentally self-contradictory notion of scientific authority over the ineffable psyche.
Put these two together, and you get the fundamental logic of "trans" - that is, "looking a certain way will make me feel happier, according to "experts" and/or myself, and therefore cosmetic alteration is my medical need, and must be provided to me at public expense." This will not be limited to "trans" - it is already the general policy in Brazil.
It is very, very important to recognize where the wrong really lies. Otherwise - defeating "trans" doesn't matter. The very same people will back to drugging and slicing people and their kids on the state payroll before too long for some "completely different" reason.
I very much expect to have to fight this fight alone. There are paltry few politicians on either side who don't take pills or butcher themselves for vanity. How anyone thinks such people are remotely stable or trustworthy, I can't begin to guess. It's plain and open derangement.
As you hinted, "trans" it's much more than slicing off private parts -- it's the general premise that medical technology should be used to customize the human body to our own preferences, literally remaking ourselves in our own image.
I don't think we can undo that and assert some kind of regulation over the rights of people to use whatever technology they want to modify their bodies as they choose without running up against Mill's maximal individual autonomy paradigm. However, I would love to be wrong in this case.
It was the noble & ancient way to marry properly, whatever one's preferences. There is, moreover, no shortage of women who prefer a man with impeccable taste to one who is merely "straight" - especially with the way "straight" men are today...folks these days are a little too honest, I think.
Surrogacy is a form of chattel slavery, and should be outlawed.
I do not agree the LGB is parent to the T. It is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches, including progressive Christianity, Marxism, postmodernism, media, civil rights orgs, AIDS charities, intersex charities, etc etc. Men were attempting gruesome vivisectional experiments on themselves first, came up with the metaphysics later, got funded at a very particular and important moment after Obergefell, and took over the world of liberal politics.
"t is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches, including progressive Christianity, Marxism, postmodernism, media, civil rights orgs, AIDS charities, intersex charities, etc etc"
Why didn't they absorb basic common sense ideas about biology and family formation then?
Because those ideas are inconvenient to the belief. Notice how the wokes sort of assumed that the Muslims were down for the progress flags and Pride parades, too?
But there are Muslims who are down for progress pride flags and pride parades. You even have Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib who are Muslim and woke as fcuk.
Yes, the Blob has indeed consumed some Muslims. but not all, because Muslims are not all one community. See also the example of Iran, where gay men can escape hanging through sex change. Even an Ayatollah can fall prey to gnostic woo. However, just the other night there was not one church in Alberta who would host James Lindsey. He spoke at a Muslim event center instead. The error comes from thinking of Islam as a monolith.
Sure not all Muslims but vocal, loud and insistent minorities can initiate sweeping change. Look at Protestant churches. Come June, every single Protestant church in my area has a progress pride flag (same for Reform synagogues). Earlier this year, Islamic leaders issued a statement defending the Islamic stance on homosexuality and transgenderism. The rainbow mafia is coming for them too. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Iran is doing the same exact thing as the US, but for different reasons. They castrate and remove the penises of gay men to "make them straight", not because they believe in gender woo, and here we do it to "liberate" trans persons and allow them to be their authentic selves.
Muslims aren't a monolith but Islamic doctrine and the Koran are clear about homosexuality. Muslims believe the Koran is literally the word of God so getting around the words in the text will be quite a feat.
Being a modern gnostic belief system, "trans" is parasitic. All parasites discard or ignore the unwanted parts of their hosts. It is like the Blob in that the victims are absorbed.
If I take the above argument and apply it rationally, I can just as easily blame people with DSDs for "trans." It must be their fault, since all their charities and orgs have been absorbed into the Blob. There too, many individuals born with DSDs object: "This is not us! They do not represent us!" True, and yet there they are, in the ever-lengthening acronym. Must be their fault, according to a meme I just made.
As suggested by the author, but not stated quite this way, gay rights and in particular same-sex marriage triumphed by promoting the notion that there is no substantial difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships and sexuality. (Nor for that matter between gays and lesbians.) This is patent nonsense, and can only make logical sense if we accept that there aren't substantial differences between males and females in their sexuality and their social relationships. As the author notes, an older generation of gay-rights advocates admitted and indeed embraced the different natures of heterosexual and homosexual relations. Downplaying or altogether denying the differences made strategic sense in fighting against discrimination and for marriage rights. But it has had a chilling effect on honest communication about sex and sexuality.
Transgenderism has built upon this embourgeoisement of sexual minorities. At the same time, it obviously has a very confused and contradictory relationship to the question of differences between the sexes, insisting that they are both nothing and everything.
Separate but equal was completely discredited after Brown v. Board of Education. Now it's political kryptonite to argue this concept, even though I agree with your belief that men and women are different and therefore so are same sex and opposite sex relationships.
A good piece, but what's missing from discussion -- the influence of the astounding inflows of money to HRC, ACLU, etc from trans billionaires like Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker (cousin of Illinois gov., obscenely wealthy and politically connected). A coterie of wealthy AGPs (and gay men, it must be said) have filled the coffers of HRC, GLAAD, and the ACLU. See Jennifer Bilek.
An excellent piece with more than echoes in history. When polio was eradicated, the March of Dimes had to decide whether to close up shop or keep going by focusing on other childhood ailments. They chose to stay together - keeping the societal purchase and their own livelihoods secure - rather than declare victory and close up shop. True, March of Dimes is a very good group that does good work, but the near-inevitability of this kind of shift is quite common in the caring industry - I go a little bit more into it this piece - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-safety
Great piece, and your graphic doesn’t do the trajectory justice. Already, we have polyamorists and polyandrists at work to future “broaden” (dumb down) the definition of “marriage.” It’s only a matter of time when well have to apologize to fundamentalist mormons, and NAMBLA is resurrected as legitimate (wait, we’re already there) and people wonder why they can’t marry their dogs, cats, cars, and motorcycles. Don’t scoff. We are truly living in a narcissistic world.
I agree with the way you have identified the tactics of the transgender movement as common to the previous LGB campaigns. However tactics are not enough to explain the rise of transgenderism.
Same sex marriage normalised transgender ideology by delinking marriage and family from biology. Marriage forms the archetype for sexual role and function. First the female becomes Wife and the Male becomes Husband. Then the Female reaches full expression as Mother. Male reaches full expression as Father. They have their children, the children have a Mother and a Father. This was the norm for the entirety of human Civilization until the last few decades - despite the progressive media’s lame attempts at pretending otherwise.
By degendering marriage progressives have degendered sexual roles. They have destroyed the archetypes of male and female which were already threatened by LGB activism but still reached full expression in marriage. Now there is nothing left. Being male or female is nothing more than a feeling. It is in this society meaningless as an archetype or a function or role.
In this way transgenderism is female liberation/feminism at full expression. “You can be anything you want to be” irrespective of biology. “Woman can do anything men can do”. Feminism created the distinction between biology as sex and social role as gender and made it its mission - having created a division which previously did not exist - to smash any causative link between the two.
Although curiously never have grown women been portrayed as so pathetic and lacking in agency as they are now. Woman are encouraged to think their life failures are inevitably the result of some consensual interaction they had decades prior which they now regret and hence was never consensual.
Western Civilisation is built fundamentally on the Family. That conceptual family has now all but been destroyed. Western Civilization will collapse unless by some miracle that previous order can be restored. No amount of wealth, or resources or military power will save Western Civilization if it cannot save the family.
Yes, totally agree. Although not just Western society, all societies. The family is fundamental, for very obvious reasons ie generational stability, reproduction, learned cultural and moral values and providing a support system. Which feeds into creating a healthy society.
Unfortunately, in Western society the family has been under very serious attack for decades but is at crisis point in a way never imagined 15 years ago.
"Same sex marriage normalised transgender ideology by delinking marriage and family from biology. "
No...the delinking occurs with the acceptance of birth control as morally permissible. As in Anglican Church c. 1918.
BTW, the reason gay rights was so successful is because heterosexuals wanted to live homosexually, especially and above all, the normalization of serial monogamy and childlessness.
Birth control made feminism possible. It did not delink biology from family as only women can give birth and women still needed a male to become pregnant.
IVF and assisted reproduction on the other hand made other forms of “family” possible by the State through its medical services usurping nature’s fundamental requirement for reproduction - the union of male and female.
In the same way the welfare state has usurped the role of breadwinner & insulated people from the consequences of breaking social norms.
I have met more than a few gay individuals from the “we are just like everyone else except for our sexuality and just want to just be left alone” time almost unable to comprehend the modern LGBT+(insert alphabet here) movement.
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
Thank you, Bev Jo! Thanl you for your comments. In this thread as in society the only people who listen to or believe lesbians are lesbians. The irony is that lesbians and 'rad' feminists were warning that "TRA's are MRA's" in the 90's, and now the 'blame' for gender ideology is being placed on feminism and the LGB's. Ridiculous!
If you are a Male saying you are Female you can now get away with 'Transracialism' of a sort Rachel D could only dream of.
Conflating porn-fueled autogynephiles with Trans people is the main problem in all of these discussions, because the entitled Het dudes in dresses are a larger and louder demographic than Trans people who just want to have a normal life with no need to force anyone to state their pronouns or mislead children and teens into permanent adolescence.
Thank you so much. I agree, except not about the "Trans people who just want to have a normal life" any more than I do a Rachel Dolezal who just wants to have a normal "Black" life -- Because that is not what they want or are doing. I haven't seen it in all these years because female identity is not something males can just have, and women who want to be male are betraying females. None of it is okay, or real. It's all pretend at our expense. By its nature they are connected with the others, and the one who is still stalking me makes a point of just seeming so reasonable and even feminist, and the again shows what an enemy he is.
The term natural is being used equivocally here. Sure homosexuality is natural in the sense that it can be observed in nature. It is not natural in the sense that, for a species that reproduces sexually, the natural i.e. proper or teleological orientation of sex is purely heterosexual. Anything else is an error, even if that error is 10% of the population it is still unnatural in that sense. Obviously doesn't mean people should be oppressed or hated or harmed. But it is what it is. Truth is paramount.
From the strict, narrow perspective of sex for the purpose of reproduction and continuance of the human species, a gay man is an "error". But just as much of an error is:
a) a priest or monk who takes a vow of celibacy
b) a rock star who fucks copious groupies at every stop on the tour, but is scrupulous about wearing condoms
c) as above, but he decides to get a vasectomy
d) a heterosexual man who is uninterested in vaginal sex and exclusively has anal sex with his sexual partner(s)
e) an incel with whom no woman would ever have consensual sex, but who abstains from rape
If a violent rapist is more in keeping with the telos of evolution and propagation of the human species than a civilised gay man or a Catholic priest, I'm a bit sceptical that discussions of the telos of evolution are really relevant to this debate at all.
"compassion and cooperation are at the core of the cosmos"
That sound you hear is every evolutionary biologist in the world laughing hysterically.
The only reason you're alive to type this comment is because your male ancestors murdered their sexual rivals, violently raped your female ancestors and/or had multiple concurrent or consecutive female partners. Go back far enough and we're all children of rape or promiscuity. Evolution doesn't care about morality, it is monomaniacally fixated on entities passing on their genes to the next generation and doesn't care what tools or strategies they use to accomplish that end. From evolution's perspective, selfishness, violence and rape are features, not bugs.
You are apparently unaware of recent developments in evolutionary biology. I recommend Barbara McClintock, Simon Conway Morris, and Denis Noble. Dance to the tune of life and the music of life are a good entrance to this.
Not really much of a contribution to the debate. You're just asserting that two books contradict the points I made, without offering any explanation of which points they contradict, or how.
That's because it would take at least an entire book and probably more to cause the type of paradigm shift in thinking you'd need from the exact opposite view of reality you have. I don't pretend to be able to do that in a comment section, but instead refer you to the experts.
>Anything else is an error, even if that error is 10% of the population
You just said that 10% of the population can be "errors". The population is made up of people. Ergo, if 10% of the population are errors, then 10% of people in the world are errors.
If you meant to say "these errors may AFFECT 10% of the population, but they're still errors", fair enough, but don't blame me for you expressing yourself imprecisely.
Your reading comprehension is suffering. The object of my statement was not people but their sexuality. Of course it's typical for people with your ideas to define people by their sexuality alone. I think we are much greater than that. So around 10% of the sexualities going around are errors.
Not if the reproduction is happening on a genetic or memetic level rather than an individual level. A celibate philosopher monk who helps his community survive and prosper is successfully reproducing, even on a Darwinian level.
By definition, genetic reproduction can only happen on an individual level. If you don't pass on your genes to the next generation, your genes die with you.
Individual at the gene level is not the same as individual at the human level. There is 'the same genes" but not "individual genes". A celibate/sterile man who helps his kinsfolk to survive and reproduce themselves is not helping himself to reproduce as an individual human but is helping the same genes to survive and prosper and so can be reproductively fit in a Darwinian sense. This is how we solved the problem of altruism, and explains a lot about eusocial insects like bees ants and termites, they are all some version of clone sisters.
By definition they're not "the same genes". The only person who has the same genes as me would be my hypothetical identical twin (I don't have an identical twin). If you don't have an identical twin, your genes are unique to you. If you don't pass on your genes to the next generation, that unique combination of genes dies with you. If I help my family members to survive and prosper, I'm helping to ensure the continued survival of genes closely related to mine, but unless I actually pass on my own genes to the next generation, the unique combination of genes dies with me.
Nope it's the same gene(s). Did you notice that you shifted from "if you don't pass your genes on to the next generation" to "that unique combination of genes"? If reproduction means duplicating your own unique combination of genes, then no human or other sexually reproducing life has ever reproduced because they can't effectively clone themselves into the next generation.
The gene (like the theoretical perfect meme) is a replicator that exists over time, sometimes vast lengths of time. If you have an identical twin, you have the closest affinity to them and can be expected to spend the greatest amount of resources helping them. of the current generation the closest to you are siblings and half-siblings, then cousins. Of the next generation the closest to you would be your children, then nephews and nieces. Of the past generation it's your parents and then uncles and aunts.
This works psychologically too, taken as a whole we are more likely to side with our children in a fight between them and our nieces/nephews, or with our cousins than with any stranger, that is Darwinian fitness.
On a personal note, I had a childless uncle who passed away recently, in his will he left all his assets to be divided equally among his nephews and nieces. A nice guy, as a dedicated Christian, he would have not called that Darwinian fitness, he would have said something like "the will of God".
When you see modern evolutionary biology and ancient religious practices running down exactly the same tracks to the same destination, you know you're on to something. The neo-reactionaries would call this, "The will of Gnon".
You really should check out the neo-reactionaries (Nrx) and "Gnon", sure it's a rabbit hole but it's potent stuff and a hell of a trip.
Or one could think of humans as a species in which by nature some 90 percent of the population reproduce through heterosexual sex and 10 percent of the population do not, but that would deprive moralist scolds of the joy of calling gay people and gay sex unnatural.
It's like if I said it's not natural for humans to have 3 arms. Of course that would be false in the sense that it has happened in nature before, but not natural in the other sense as in that's not what humans typically have and are supposed to have.
The human species is supposed to have heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The proof is that same-sex attracted people have been part of humankind at least since they were condemned in the Old Testament. It's typical of humanity to have homos in the community.
Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be. Rape has been around a long time too. Please note I'm not insinuating anything nefarious about homosexuality with this comment. Merely giving an example which proves that something can exist which the majority of people would say it would be better if it did not exist.
Now you will have to tell me what a "supposed to" is without the naturalistic fallacy of, it exists therefore it's good. I've heard more than a few people including medical types saying that humans are "supposed to" be dead by forty five and not without evidence either.
Most animals who reproduce heterosexually do not live in relationships with their het "partners" and much of it is rape, from mammals to spiders. Birds seem to be the most coupled, but not all, and in mammal communities, like wolves, there is usually only one pair in the pack who reproduces.
Hets just can't get over or even want to learn that they are not the norm. And now human overpopulation is destroying the earth. Just stop it.
But humans are animals, and even in human cultures heterosexual couples or heterosexuality has not been the norm. Otherwise, the men in power would not try so hard to enforce it. For women that is, and to keep women either bonded to them by law or in groups as slaves. It's only been for a brief amount of time in patriarchy that women have had anything beginning to be equal rights. And then it's not equal, with men in power, then het marriage is prettied-up legal prostitution.
>even in human cultures heterosexual couples or heterosexuality has not been the norm
What? I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that anyone human culture in which heterosexuality was not the norm would be driven to extinction in a generation or two.
Do I have to keep explaining what is obvious, in detail? In many patriarchal cultures, males owned the females and had multiple "wives" to reproduce with, but you would call that "heterosexual couples"? So much is and has been rape, but do claim it if you want.
I would call that "nonconsensual heterosexual intercourse". I don't believe that the men in question disliked having sex with the women, but made themselves go through with it in order to further the propagation of the species - I believe that the men raped the women because they enjoyed it, because they're heterosexual.
I'm just baffled as to your claim that heterosexuality isn't the norm. You think most people in human history were gay or lesbians, but the overwhelming majority of them have been brainwashed into believing that they're actually straight? What a bizarre idea.
"Gender affirming care" is the gay conversion therapy from hell. It's astounding the number of affluent gays who are totally oblivious to what is happening around them. They repeat every trans/journalistic cliche....about all the medical association and about suicide rates, etc. And become belligerent if contradicted.
Understand that many of these people are big $$$ donors to the big organization. But supporting them is coded blue, and taking issue with their agendas coded red.
The goal of the gay rights movement, from the start, was to destroy "heterosexism," the older word for heteronormativity. That has consequences. Just saying.
(If you don't believe me google the name "Craig Rodwell".)
LBGTQ.... has been around forever. Why suddenly has it become so important. They are a very small minority in the population.
In my opinion, this is a top down movement and not grass roots. Big money is behind this and it's being forced down our throats. You'd better believe big money is investing heavily in "gender affirming care" related equities. Same goes for "climate change".
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
1) What societies are you referring to? Afghanistan for example? Yes, I am fairly sure divorce is rare there as is any semblance of equality between the sexes 2) the fact that some societies have a cultural prohibition against divorce simply means the form of the contract is preserved, it says nothing about the culture’s ‘morality’ or the quality of the marriage 3) what is moral about a woman who is forced by custom or fear to stay in a marriage where she is beaten, where her children are beaten, where her husband cheats on her, where she has no life of her own, where she is threatened with death if she tries to leave? According to the UN 87,000 women are murdered each year by male domestic partners.
There are power differences between men and women, physical, social and, in some societies, legal,
and very definitely in terms of a sense of entitlement. It is unbelievably naive to think those differences don’t play out, sometimes in extreme ways, in the nature/quality of heterosexual relationships, whether those are intimate relationships such as marriage or relationships like members of sports teams. That is precisely what we are seeing in this trans lunacy. The stupefying arrogance of a gaggle of men in skirts telling women who and what and how we should be and their entitled demanding that everyone just do as they say. WTF!!
There are reason why heterosexual marriages fail at an alarming rate. No, it is not necessarily or only because they are heterosexual. But if you refuse to look at the social, cultural and economic dynamics of heterosexuality and how those impact marriage, then divorce rates will simply continue their ever skyward climb.
Lastly, cui bono? Who benefits from all this social destruction and divisiveness? That is where the action and anger is properly directed rather than toward one another.
When 2 groups have spring from the same ideology ("maximal sexual autonomy") and share tactical continuity, drawing distinctions between them is splitting hairs.
Andrew Sullivan and Bari Weiss and many others seem to think they can just go back to a nice, sane, mid-2000's, gay friendly liberalism. It can't happen. Liberalism has been a liberationist ideology since the Enlightenment. The basic premise is that all unchosen constraints are illegitimate, and biology is a largest unchosen constraint. In hindsight, the Enlightenment appears to have been seeded trans-sexualism and eventually trans-humanism from the beginning.
Logically the "T" is antithetical to the "L", and the "G" If gender is fluid and basically meaningless then what meaning can "I like guys" or "I like girls" have? I've known enough ordinary (=not-politically fanatic) gay guys to observe that the trans stuff is intensely disliked among most of them.
"When 2 groups have spring from the same ideology ("maximal sexual autonomy") . . ."
Please cite your authorities for this assertion.
Oh yes, nothing is true unless an "expert" has published a journal article on it.
Observation and basic common sense.
Why don't you just look around for the answer before you challenge someone else. But for the record, google "Craig Rodwell" and "heterosexism." I'm not going to supply links for you, look them up yourself. Once you destroy the idea that the male/female bond is the source from which all else flows, anything can happen, and did.
and once you make moronic statements like "...the male/female bond is the source from which all else flows" then what? so,off with their heads, all those dykes and fags? confine them to their own special gulag? how about rape as a cure for lesbianism as has been suggested by some males - how about you bond with those males, chica and keep them off the streets and away from women who have no interest in dick
and once you make moronic statements like "...the male/female bond is the source from which all else flows"
I don't think it's moronic.
then what? so,off with their heads, all those dykes and fags?
No.
confine them to their own special gulag?
Live & let live.
how about rape as a cure for lesbianism
Bad idea.
I wasn't asking you.
Eugine's right. Both ideologies are children of the 60's sexual revolution, which was itself a child of Mill's Harm Principle. The most succinct summary of Mill is "maximal individual autonomy", which I altered in this case to "maximal sexual autonomy" since that was our subject matter.
I'm not saying that one led to the other, but that both were inevitable once we surrendered the duty to put regulations around sexual behavior, a duty which essentially every previous human society has viewed as crucial.
I'm of the mind that the crucial distinction in this situation is the one between minors and adults. In my observation, adults have had the option to undergo hormone treatments and cosmetic surgery procedures for decades.
The issue only began assuming a political dimension when the assertion was put forth as professional medical conclusion that those procedures are vital to the mental health of someone, thereby qualifying the drugs and procedures to be covered by health insurance (both private and public)- and also extended toward minor adolescents along with individuals in the adults population. And, from there, to a transvaluation of values in public education courses on sexuality, which have somehow been incorporated as a necessity for pre-pubescent children beginning in the elementary grades.
Adult individual autonomy is one thing. I wouldn't know how to stop another adult from pursuing their wildest personal fantasies in that regard: https://www.realitytitbit.com/tlc/my-strange-addictions-foxy-wont-stop-until-jessica-rabbit-dream-comes-true The subject of that story can't even listen to the advice of the cosmetic surgeons trying to dissuade her from following her bliss there, you know?
The crucial thing is that minor children are not in a position to make those decisions. And the notion that our already underperforming public elementary schools- which often fail at supplying the basics- should be asserting a party line on sexual identity to prepubescent kids is bizarre. And not at all liberal, or libertarian.
I also think that clear thinking on these matters requires some recognition of what constitutes Hard Data as a Scientific Finding. Because without drawing some distinctions, confusion is already rampant, and will only continue to mount. Chemistry is not Biology; Biology is not Medicine; Medicine is not Psychiatry. The conclusions of research studies lose more replicability and reliability with each shift in the topic of study. I'm not saying that all the research becomes worthless, but the farther a research finding on a subject strays from, say, quantitative analysis in metallurgy, the less it qualifies as definitively conclusive. And the less it can be considered undiluted "experimental science"; the ability to do fruitful assessments is increasingly empirical, and even empirical findings tend to get awfully wobbly by the time they're based primarily on handful of data point correlations and/or studies based on "self-report", which is increasingly the primary evidential support for developing conclusions in psychiatry and social psychology.
I agree that pushing kids into this stuff is beyond appalling.
However, if "maximal adult autonomy" is your highest guiding principle, you will be unable to limit adult behavior in any way. In other words, any policy which defends "the common good" on the basis that some things are simply antithetical to a functioning society will have to fall to your sword of "maximal adult autonomy".
This is why I no longer support Locke's value-neutral state. It ends in disaster.
thanks so much for a reasoned response
Whatever.
Oh, did I interrupt your gaslighting attempt?
Just how much time do you spent posting?
Asks the person replying to a nearly year old comment.
I'll admit to reading to excess.
One is about letting people live their lives as they please - naturally. One is about a group claiming that in order to "live their lives" they require a massive degree of pharmaceutical and surgical intervention.
You're plainly wrong. Get your head out of your ass.
Ken, the distinction you want to draw doesn't exist. It seems to, but it's an illusion.
John Stuart Mill is the original articulator of the position you've stated. He used the "harm principle" -- does this action harm anyone else? By that standard, 2 men getting married harms no one else, and a 15 year old girl slicing off her breasts harms no one else. And Mill did not distinguish between legal, social, and financial constraints -- all constraints that infringed on maximal individual autonomy were illegitimate.
This assumption (maximal individual autonomy at all costs) is the basis for liberalism's (in the Enlightenment sense, not the modern political one) desire to remove all unchosen constraints. And the ultimate unchosen constraint is biology itself.
For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% about commercial surrogacy, but I get there from Burke not Mill, and it's a little hard to square your aversion to surrogacy with your defense of people "living their lives as they please". Don't surrogates deserve to live their lives, and earn money, as they please?
A surgeon is harming the 15-year-old girl for his or her own profit. Two men going overboard with, shall we say, "butt-related fun" harm each other, but that is not in my view a reasonable or practical province for law. Two men cohabiting, however, is not harmful to anyone in and of itself.
You misapprehend, I think, the root issue with "trans"ism -- it is not that people are harming themselves, it is that this harm is being prescribed & provided to them as a benefit under color of medicine by people we have accorded responsible authority in our society. The issue is the departure by those people from the conditions under which that responsible authority was provided to them.
The roots of this root - if you will - are the infiltration of scientific medicine by the cosmetic on the one hand, and the "psychological" on the other. "Cosmetic medicine" is a fundamentally wrongheaded concept: no one bearing the title doctor should be performing operations on healthy people for solely cosmetic reasons. "Psychology" asserts a fundamentally self-contradictory notion of scientific authority over the ineffable psyche.
Put these two together, and you get the fundamental logic of "trans" - that is, "looking a certain way will make me feel happier, according to "experts" and/or myself, and therefore cosmetic alteration is my medical need, and must be provided to me at public expense." This will not be limited to "trans" - it is already the general policy in Brazil.
It is very, very important to recognize where the wrong really lies. Otherwise - defeating "trans" doesn't matter. The very same people will back to drugging and slicing people and their kids on the state payroll before too long for some "completely different" reason.
I very much expect to have to fight this fight alone. There are paltry few politicians on either side who don't take pills or butcher themselves for vanity. How anyone thinks such people are remotely stable or trustworthy, I can't begin to guess. It's plain and open derangement.
As you hinted, "trans" it's much more than slicing off private parts -- it's the general premise that medical technology should be used to customize the human body to our own preferences, literally remaking ourselves in our own image.
I don't think we can undo that and assert some kind of regulation over the rights of people to use whatever technology they want to modify their bodies as they choose without running up against Mill's maximal individual autonomy paradigm. However, I would love to be wrong in this case.
Good conversation, even on an old thread.
> One is about letting people live their lives as they please - naturally.
Then why do you require that everyone else be forced to play along with your charade that your "marriage" is the equivalent of a real marriage?
Do I? "When you assume..."
It was the noble & ancient way to marry properly, whatever one's preferences. There is, moreover, no shortage of women who prefer a man with impeccable taste to one who is merely "straight" - especially with the way "straight" men are today...folks these days are a little too honest, I think.
Surrogacy is a form of chattel slavery, and should be outlawed.
As you can read in the "Denton's report," the whole idea was that glomming T onto LGB would allow the complete appropriation of their tropes, themes, and issues to the use of "trans." https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/
I do not agree the LGB is parent to the T. It is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches, including progressive Christianity, Marxism, postmodernism, media, civil rights orgs, AIDS charities, intersex charities, etc etc. Men were attempting gruesome vivisectional experiments on themselves first, came up with the metaphysics later, got funded at a very particular and important moment after Obergefell, and took over the world of liberal politics.
Money changes everything.
"t is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches, including progressive Christianity, Marxism, postmodernism, media, civil rights orgs, AIDS charities, intersex charities, etc etc"
Why didn't they absorb basic common sense ideas about biology and family formation then?
Because those ideas are inconvenient to the belief. Notice how the wokes sort of assumed that the Muslims were down for the progress flags and Pride parades, too?
But there are Muslims who are down for progress pride flags and pride parades. You even have Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib who are Muslim and woke as fcuk.
Yes, the Blob has indeed consumed some Muslims. but not all, because Muslims are not all one community. See also the example of Iran, where gay men can escape hanging through sex change. Even an Ayatollah can fall prey to gnostic woo. However, just the other night there was not one church in Alberta who would host James Lindsey. He spoke at a Muslim event center instead. The error comes from thinking of Islam as a monolith.
Sure not all Muslims but vocal, loud and insistent minorities can initiate sweeping change. Look at Protestant churches. Come June, every single Protestant church in my area has a progress pride flag (same for Reform synagogues). Earlier this year, Islamic leaders issued a statement defending the Islamic stance on homosexuality and transgenderism. The rainbow mafia is coming for them too. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Iran is doing the same exact thing as the US, but for different reasons. They castrate and remove the penises of gay men to "make them straight", not because they believe in gender woo, and here we do it to "liberate" trans persons and allow them to be their authentic selves.
Muslims aren't a monolith but Islamic doctrine and the Koran are clear about homosexuality. Muslims believe the Koran is literally the word of God so getting around the words in the text will be quite a feat.
> The rainbow mafia is coming for them too. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Well, Muslims are willing to use violence to fight for their religion.
"t is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches,"
Actually no, and you say so: "Because those ideas are inconvenient to the belief. "
OK, then it doesn't absorb everything that it touches.
Being a modern gnostic belief system, "trans" is parasitic. All parasites discard or ignore the unwanted parts of their hosts. It is like the Blob in that the victims are absorbed.
If I take the above argument and apply it rationally, I can just as easily blame people with DSDs for "trans." It must be their fault, since all their charities and orgs have been absorbed into the Blob. There too, many individuals born with DSDs object: "This is not us! They do not represent us!" True, and yet there they are, in the ever-lengthening acronym. Must be their fault, according to a meme I just made.
As suggested by the author, but not stated quite this way, gay rights and in particular same-sex marriage triumphed by promoting the notion that there is no substantial difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships and sexuality. (Nor for that matter between gays and lesbians.) This is patent nonsense, and can only make logical sense if we accept that there aren't substantial differences between males and females in their sexuality and their social relationships. As the author notes, an older generation of gay-rights advocates admitted and indeed embraced the different natures of heterosexual and homosexual relations. Downplaying or altogether denying the differences made strategic sense in fighting against discrimination and for marriage rights. But it has had a chilling effect on honest communication about sex and sexuality.
Transgenderism has built upon this embourgeoisement of sexual minorities. At the same time, it obviously has a very confused and contradictory relationship to the question of differences between the sexes, insisting that they are both nothing and everything.
Separate but equal was completely discredited after Brown v. Board of Education. Now it's political kryptonite to argue this concept, even though I agree with your belief that men and women are different and therefore so are same sex and opposite sex relationships.
Very good comment
A good piece, but what's missing from discussion -- the influence of the astounding inflows of money to HRC, ACLU, etc from trans billionaires like Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker (cousin of Illinois gov., obscenely wealthy and politically connected). A coterie of wealthy AGPs (and gay men, it must be said) have filled the coffers of HRC, GLAAD, and the ACLU. See Jennifer Bilek.
An excellent piece with more than echoes in history. When polio was eradicated, the March of Dimes had to decide whether to close up shop or keep going by focusing on other childhood ailments. They chose to stay together - keeping the societal purchase and their own livelihoods secure - rather than declare victory and close up shop. True, March of Dimes is a very good group that does good work, but the near-inevitability of this kind of shift is quite common in the caring industry - I go a little bit more into it this piece - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-safety
Great piece, and your graphic doesn’t do the trajectory justice. Already, we have polyamorists and polyandrists at work to future “broaden” (dumb down) the definition of “marriage.” It’s only a matter of time when well have to apologize to fundamentalist mormons, and NAMBLA is resurrected as legitimate (wait, we’re already there) and people wonder why they can’t marry their dogs, cats, cars, and motorcycles. Don’t scoff. We are truly living in a narcissistic world.
I agree with the way you have identified the tactics of the transgender movement as common to the previous LGB campaigns. However tactics are not enough to explain the rise of transgenderism.
Same sex marriage normalised transgender ideology by delinking marriage and family from biology. Marriage forms the archetype for sexual role and function. First the female becomes Wife and the Male becomes Husband. Then the Female reaches full expression as Mother. Male reaches full expression as Father. They have their children, the children have a Mother and a Father. This was the norm for the entirety of human Civilization until the last few decades - despite the progressive media’s lame attempts at pretending otherwise.
By degendering marriage progressives have degendered sexual roles. They have destroyed the archetypes of male and female which were already threatened by LGB activism but still reached full expression in marriage. Now there is nothing left. Being male or female is nothing more than a feeling. It is in this society meaningless as an archetype or a function or role.
In this way transgenderism is female liberation/feminism at full expression. “You can be anything you want to be” irrespective of biology. “Woman can do anything men can do”. Feminism created the distinction between biology as sex and social role as gender and made it its mission - having created a division which previously did not exist - to smash any causative link between the two.
Although curiously never have grown women been portrayed as so pathetic and lacking in agency as they are now. Woman are encouraged to think their life failures are inevitably the result of some consensual interaction they had decades prior which they now regret and hence was never consensual.
Western Civilisation is built fundamentally on the Family. That conceptual family has now all but been destroyed. Western Civilization will collapse unless by some miracle that previous order can be restored. No amount of wealth, or resources or military power will save Western Civilization if it cannot save the family.
Yes, totally agree. Although not just Western society, all societies. The family is fundamental, for very obvious reasons ie generational stability, reproduction, learned cultural and moral values and providing a support system. Which feeds into creating a healthy society.
Unfortunately, in Western society the family has been under very serious attack for decades but is at crisis point in a way never imagined 15 years ago.
Homophobic nonsense on stilts.
That’s all you have, slurs. That’s all you ever had.
You are obviously unfamiliar with my oeuvre. Now excuse me, I have to get back to Undermining Order and Destroying Western Civilization.
You will not like the results of your project. Order and Western civilization is the only reason anyone tolerates your nonsense.
Is that a threat?
Consider it a warning.
I remember thinking this sort of comment was funny about 15 years ago.
Then it turned out the people making them were being serious.
"Same sex marriage normalised transgender ideology by delinking marriage and family from biology. "
No...the delinking occurs with the acceptance of birth control as morally permissible. As in Anglican Church c. 1918.
BTW, the reason gay rights was so successful is because heterosexuals wanted to live homosexually, especially and above all, the normalization of serial monogamy and childlessness.
Birth control made feminism possible. It did not delink biology from family as only women can give birth and women still needed a male to become pregnant.
IVF and assisted reproduction on the other hand made other forms of “family” possible by the State through its medical services usurping nature’s fundamental requirement for reproduction - the union of male and female.
In the same way the welfare state has usurped the role of breadwinner & insulated people from the consequences of breaking social norms.
That was the initial impetus, gay "marriage" was a step along the way.
I have met more than a few gay individuals from the “we are just like everyone else except for our sexuality and just want to just be left alone” time almost unable to comprehend the modern LGBT+(insert alphabet here) movement.
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
Put the blame where it belongs....
Thank you, Bev Jo! Thanl you for your comments. In this thread as in society the only people who listen to or believe lesbians are lesbians. The irony is that lesbians and 'rad' feminists were warning that "TRA's are MRA's" in the 90's, and now the 'blame' for gender ideology is being placed on feminism and the LGB's. Ridiculous!
If you are a Male saying you are Female you can now get away with 'Transracialism' of a sort Rachel D could only dream of.
Conflating porn-fueled autogynephiles with Trans people is the main problem in all of these discussions, because the entitled Het dudes in dresses are a larger and louder demographic than Trans people who just want to have a normal life with no need to force anyone to state their pronouns or mislead children and teens into permanent adolescence.
Thank you so much. I agree, except not about the "Trans people who just want to have a normal life" any more than I do a Rachel Dolezal who just wants to have a normal "Black" life -- Because that is not what they want or are doing. I haven't seen it in all these years because female identity is not something males can just have, and women who want to be male are betraying females. None of it is okay, or real. It's all pretend at our expense. By its nature they are connected with the others, and the one who is still stalking me makes a point of just seeming so reasonable and even feminist, and the again shows what an enemy he is.
It is truly horrific how you have been terrorized by an entitled twat!
>In this thread as in society the only people who listen to or believe lesbians are lesbians.
Lol how passive-aggressive can you get
The term natural is being used equivocally here. Sure homosexuality is natural in the sense that it can be observed in nature. It is not natural in the sense that, for a species that reproduces sexually, the natural i.e. proper or teleological orientation of sex is purely heterosexual. Anything else is an error, even if that error is 10% of the population it is still unnatural in that sense. Obviously doesn't mean people should be oppressed or hated or harmed. But it is what it is. Truth is paramount.
From the strict, narrow perspective of sex for the purpose of reproduction and continuance of the human species, a gay man is an "error". But just as much of an error is:
a) a priest or monk who takes a vow of celibacy
b) a rock star who fucks copious groupies at every stop on the tour, but is scrupulous about wearing condoms
c) as above, but he decides to get a vasectomy
d) a heterosexual man who is uninterested in vaginal sex and exclusively has anal sex with his sexual partner(s)
e) an incel with whom no woman would ever have consensual sex, but who abstains from rape
If a violent rapist is more in keeping with the telos of evolution and propagation of the human species than a civilised gay man or a Catholic priest, I'm a bit sceptical that discussions of the telos of evolution are really relevant to this debate at all.
Also, people who are asexual or infertile.
I also think compassion and cooperation are at the core of the cosmos and so violence and promiscuity that promotes selfishness are indeed errors.
"compassion and cooperation are at the core of the cosmos"
That sound you hear is every evolutionary biologist in the world laughing hysterically.
The only reason you're alive to type this comment is because your male ancestors murdered their sexual rivals, violently raped your female ancestors and/or had multiple concurrent or consecutive female partners. Go back far enough and we're all children of rape or promiscuity. Evolution doesn't care about morality, it is monomaniacally fixated on entities passing on their genes to the next generation and doesn't care what tools or strategies they use to accomplish that end. From evolution's perspective, selfishness, violence and rape are features, not bugs.
You are apparently unaware of recent developments in evolutionary biology. I recommend Barbara McClintock, Simon Conway Morris, and Denis Noble. Dance to the tune of life and the music of life are a good entrance to this.
Not really much of a contribution to the debate. You're just asserting that two books contradict the points I made, without offering any explanation of which points they contradict, or how.
That's because it would take at least an entire book and probably more to cause the type of paradigm shift in thinking you'd need from the exact opposite view of reality you have. I don't pretend to be able to do that in a comment section, but instead refer you to the experts.
People are never errors. You seem to be willfully misunderstanding what I'm getting at.
>Anything else is an error, even if that error is 10% of the population
You just said that 10% of the population can be "errors". The population is made up of people. Ergo, if 10% of the population are errors, then 10% of people in the world are errors.
If you meant to say "these errors may AFFECT 10% of the population, but they're still errors", fair enough, but don't blame me for you expressing yourself imprecisely.
Your reading comprehension is suffering. The object of my statement was not people but their sexuality. Of course it's typical for people with your ideas to define people by their sexuality alone. I think we are much greater than that. So around 10% of the sexualities going around are errors.
No. You said "even if that error is 10% of the population".
If I assert "10% of the population are criminals", that means "10% of people who make up the population are criminals".
It's fine to admit that you expressed yourself imprecisely in a manner prone to misinterpretation, we've all done it and there's no shame in it.
>people with your ideas
What ideas do you think I have that lead me to define people by their sexuality alone? If anything I'd say the opposite is true.
Not if the reproduction is happening on a genetic or memetic level rather than an individual level. A celibate philosopher monk who helps his community survive and prosper is successfully reproducing, even on a Darwinian level.
By definition, genetic reproduction can only happen on an individual level. If you don't pass on your genes to the next generation, your genes die with you.
Individual at the gene level is not the same as individual at the human level. There is 'the same genes" but not "individual genes". A celibate/sterile man who helps his kinsfolk to survive and reproduce themselves is not helping himself to reproduce as an individual human but is helping the same genes to survive and prosper and so can be reproductively fit in a Darwinian sense. This is how we solved the problem of altruism, and explains a lot about eusocial insects like bees ants and termites, they are all some version of clone sisters.
By definition they're not "the same genes". The only person who has the same genes as me would be my hypothetical identical twin (I don't have an identical twin). If you don't have an identical twin, your genes are unique to you. If you don't pass on your genes to the next generation, that unique combination of genes dies with you. If I help my family members to survive and prosper, I'm helping to ensure the continued survival of genes closely related to mine, but unless I actually pass on my own genes to the next generation, the unique combination of genes dies with me.
Nope it's the same gene(s). Did you notice that you shifted from "if you don't pass your genes on to the next generation" to "that unique combination of genes"? If reproduction means duplicating your own unique combination of genes, then no human or other sexually reproducing life has ever reproduced because they can't effectively clone themselves into the next generation.
The gene (like the theoretical perfect meme) is a replicator that exists over time, sometimes vast lengths of time. If you have an identical twin, you have the closest affinity to them and can be expected to spend the greatest amount of resources helping them. of the current generation the closest to you are siblings and half-siblings, then cousins. Of the next generation the closest to you would be your children, then nephews and nieces. Of the past generation it's your parents and then uncles and aunts.
This works psychologically too, taken as a whole we are more likely to side with our children in a fight between them and our nieces/nephews, or with our cousins than with any stranger, that is Darwinian fitness.
On a personal note, I had a childless uncle who passed away recently, in his will he left all his assets to be divided equally among his nephews and nieces. A nice guy, as a dedicated Christian, he would have not called that Darwinian fitness, he would have said something like "the will of God".
When you see modern evolutionary biology and ancient religious practices running down exactly the same tracks to the same destination, you know you're on to something. The neo-reactionaries would call this, "The will of Gnon".
You really should check out the neo-reactionaries (Nrx) and "Gnon", sure it's a rabbit hole but it's potent stuff and a hell of a trip.
These are false equivalents. The creation, purpose & workings of human biology v individual personal choices of how one lives one's life
No idea what you're trying to say, sorry.
Or one could think of humans as a species in which by nature some 90 percent of the population reproduce through heterosexual sex and 10 percent of the population do not, but that would deprive moralist scolds of the joy of calling gay people and gay sex unnatural.
Again that's an equivocal use of the word nature. Two different meanings, same word.
It's like if I said it's not natural for humans to have 3 arms. Of course that would be false in the sense that it has happened in nature before, but not natural in the other sense as in that's not what humans typically have and are supposed to have.
The human species is supposed to have heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The proof is that same-sex attracted people have been part of humankind at least since they were condemned in the Old Testament. It's typical of humanity to have homos in the community.
Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be. Rape has been around a long time too. Please note I'm not insinuating anything nefarious about homosexuality with this comment. Merely giving an example which proves that something can exist which the majority of people would say it would be better if it did not exist.
Sorry, I'm too old for bull sessions in the common room.
Now you will have to tell me what a "supposed to" is without the naturalistic fallacy of, it exists therefore it's good. I've heard more than a few people including medical types saying that humans are "supposed to" be dead by forty five and not without evidence either.
Not following you down that philosophical rabbit hole.
Intersex is a good example.
Most animals who reproduce heterosexually do not live in relationships with their het "partners" and much of it is rape, from mammals to spiders. Birds seem to be the most coupled, but not all, and in mammal communities, like wolves, there is usually only one pair in the pack who reproduces.
Hets just can't get over or even want to learn that they are not the norm. And now human overpopulation is destroying the earth. Just stop it.
Humans are not wolves nor birds.
But humans are animals, and even in human cultures heterosexual couples or heterosexuality has not been the norm. Otherwise, the men in power would not try so hard to enforce it. For women that is, and to keep women either bonded to them by law or in groups as slaves. It's only been for a brief amount of time in patriarchy that women have had anything beginning to be equal rights. And then it's not equal, with men in power, then het marriage is prettied-up legal prostitution.
>even in human cultures heterosexual couples or heterosexuality has not been the norm
What? I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that anyone human culture in which heterosexuality was not the norm would be driven to extinction in a generation or two.
Do I have to keep explaining what is obvious, in detail? In many patriarchal cultures, males owned the females and had multiple "wives" to reproduce with, but you would call that "heterosexual couples"? So much is and has been rape, but do claim it if you want.
I would call that "nonconsensual heterosexual intercourse". I don't believe that the men in question disliked having sex with the women, but made themselves go through with it in order to further the propagation of the species - I believe that the men raped the women because they enjoyed it, because they're heterosexual.
I'm just baffled as to your claim that heterosexuality isn't the norm. You think most people in human history were gay or lesbians, but the overwhelming majority of them have been brainwashed into believing that they're actually straight? What a bizarre idea.
Heterosexuality is not the norm? Ok
Only where it is endlessly propagandized and awarded, with severe punishment for not obeying. Otherwise, why the fuss?
So the fact we're a sexually dimorphic species who reproduces only via heterosexual sexual activity has no bearing on this?
Human overpopulation is not destroying the earth.
"Gender affirming care" is the gay conversion therapy from hell. It's astounding the number of affluent gays who are totally oblivious to what is happening around them. They repeat every trans/journalistic cliche....about all the medical association and about suicide rates, etc. And become belligerent if contradicted.
Understand that many of these people are big $$$ donors to the big organization. But supporting them is coded blue, and taking issue with their agendas coded red.
That meta-analysis you link to, examining the effects of increased sex education, is a perfect example of how ideology gets laundered into Science™️.
The goal of the gay rights movement, from the start, was to destroy "heterosexism," the older word for heteronormativity. That has consequences. Just saying.
(If you don't believe me google the name "Craig Rodwell".)
LBGTQ.... has been around forever. Why suddenly has it become so important. They are a very small minority in the population.
In my opinion, this is a top down movement and not grass roots. Big money is behind this and it's being forced down our throats. You'd better believe big money is investing heavily in "gender affirming care" related equities. Same goes for "climate change".
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
Put the blame where it belongs....
Thank you for your comments.
1) What societies are you referring to? Afghanistan for example? Yes, I am fairly sure divorce is rare there as is any semblance of equality between the sexes 2) the fact that some societies have a cultural prohibition against divorce simply means the form of the contract is preserved, it says nothing about the culture’s ‘morality’ or the quality of the marriage 3) what is moral about a woman who is forced by custom or fear to stay in a marriage where she is beaten, where her children are beaten, where her husband cheats on her, where she has no life of her own, where she is threatened with death if she tries to leave? According to the UN 87,000 women are murdered each year by male domestic partners.
There are power differences between men and women, physical, social and, in some societies, legal,
and very definitely in terms of a sense of entitlement. It is unbelievably naive to think those differences don’t play out, sometimes in extreme ways, in the nature/quality of heterosexual relationships, whether those are intimate relationships such as marriage or relationships like members of sports teams. That is precisely what we are seeing in this trans lunacy. The stupefying arrogance of a gaggle of men in skirts telling women who and what and how we should be and their entitled demanding that everyone just do as they say. WTF!!
There are reason why heterosexual marriages fail at an alarming rate. No, it is not necessarily or only because they are heterosexual. But if you refuse to look at the social, cultural and economic dynamics of heterosexuality and how those impact marriage, then divorce rates will simply continue their ever skyward climb.
Lastly, cui bono? Who benefits from all this social destruction and divisiveness? That is where the action and anger is properly directed rather than toward one another.