If for any reason you cannot find the paperback version of Playing the Indian Card at your favourite bookstore or online retailer, please ask them to carry it. Protest and picket the store entrance if necessary.
In the wake of the Nashville shootings, I think there is an awakening, at least on the right, to the idea that “transgender” people are potentially violent.
It stands to reason. Transgenderism is narcissism. It is, firstly, a demand for attention; this is why they must act out so flamboyantly, why they need to preen, to promenade, to twerk in front of children. This will never be satiated; it will escalate until stopped. Transgenderism is, secondly, an attempt to impose the will on physical reality itself.
Such narcissism, if frustrated, will not stop short of violence; why would it, if reality itself is no barrier to the will? They will feel they have the inherent right to use violence. Violence, moreover, gets attention; violence exhibits their dominance. And we can guarantee that they will feel frustrated, as reality and the rest of the world do not bend readily enough to their wishes.
Given a rising tide of people identifying as “transgender,” things look likely to get more violent. On the other hand, when it comes to blows, it is hard to imagine the impetuous and undisciplined “transgenders” winning. Like spoiled children, their urges are ultimately self-destructive.
“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”
King James has the colourful “not one jot nor tittle.”
This is because the Law is the Logos, Christ himself, the order on which the cosmos is formed. Pseudo-Chrysostom comments:
“…since all things which should befall from the very beginning of the world to the end of it, were in type and figure foreshown in the Law, …, He therefore here declares, that heaven and earth should not pass till all things thus foreshown in the Law should have their actual accomplishment.”
There is a Law, a Logos, to the universe.
I have not been inclined to comment on the whole gender thing, because there is little to say, and saying it gets you in trouble.
But here goes:
Gender is a grammatical concept. People do not have gender. Nouns do. People have sex.
There are only two sexes. This is a binary system.
If you are male, every cell is identifiably male. If you are female, every cell is identifiably female. But for the rare anomaly of an XXY in the 23rd chromosome pair, there is no ambiguity.
Women and men differ in many more ways that the visible shape of their sex organs. Women’s bodies are different from men’s in many appealing details. Their brains are also different.
It is a denial of reality for a man to declare himself a woman, or a woman to declare herself a man.
Denial of reality is delusional by definition. It is insanity.
It is not helpful to anyone to encourage a delusion. This is like encouraging an alcoholic to stay drunk. It is usually a way for people to avoid their problems.
Why do people want to deny the two genders? Because they want to deny binary systems as such. All binary systems are limiting to the human will. Each is a line you cannot cross. Gravity is annoying. Not being able to stay 18 forever is annoying. Not being able to eat some given apple is annoying. As a graffito seen during the Paris uprising of 1968 had it, “Be careful: even the ears have walls!” The border between life and death, human and non-human, self and other, is annoying. It prohibits abortion. Not to mention offing your inconvenient grandparents or Republican neighbour.
But the ultimate binaries are true and false, yes and no, Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction; and good and evil. These are the enemies that the non-binary really want to destroy.
No surprise that Biden’s transgender appointee as undersecretary of state for whatever turns out to steal other people’s luggage; or that transgender swimmer Lia Thomas worships Satan. Or that more men in prisons declare themselves transgender women than in the general population.
They are awfully vague in their charges for most of the piece. You know someone is up to no good when they hide behind uncommunicative terms like “gender-affirming surgery” and “inclusive sex education.” You know they are hiding something.
What “protections” do transgender students need? That is, over and above the protections extended to all of us against bullying, intimidation, violence? Without being given specifics, this smells instead like special privileges. As the aristocracy, no doubt, needs protections against the mob.
What constitutes anti-gay rhetoric? Without being given specifics, this smells instead like an attack on free speech and open debate.
As a rhetorical trick, this is often called “poisoning the well.” The reader is mostly being asked to trust the judgement of the author. Just understand that the other side in this controversy is evil, without specifics.
Here’s what ought to be taught in schools: how to spot and argue against such rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies.
The example they finally give is “to deny the existence of trans and non-binary genders.” Interesting; the contrary position would literally have been considered insane up to a half dozen or so years ago. I believe ‘gender dysphoria” is still listed in the DSM as a mental illness. More broadly, to deny physical reality is definitive of severe mental illness.
I believe we have fallen down a rabbit hole here because we have falsely created a distinction between sex and gender. Take out the concept of “gender” as something apart from sex, and the matter becomes clear. Sex is a binary system. There are and can be only two sexes, down to the level of egg and sperm.
“Gender” was originally a grammatical concept—this is why we have a separate term. In French, for example, all nouns are either masculine or feminine. It was also then sometimes rather casually used as a synonym for sex; literally, it just means “type.”
Still no particular confusion here. If gender = sex, there are still only two genders. Or, more accurately, three: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
Then, as of 1945 and postwar years, feminists started using “gender” to refer to the social role of women, as opposed to their sex. And from this, all the present confusion has emerged. In doing this, feminists intended to reject the feminine gender, the social role of women, and insist that it was all down to body parts and sex. There was no difference to the minds of males and females. “Gender” was a social construct.
But this attempt to separate sex from gender has led to our present confusion. Now, some people are imagining that they have a male sex and a female gender, and vice versa.
Fine. But following the logic of the original feminist concept as of the postwar years, so what? So act however you like. If you want to go out to work, that does not make you a man. If you want to stay home and bake, that does not make you a woman. If gender really is a thing independent of sex, why then is there any need or call for “gender-affirming surgery”?
My wife is from the Philippines. There, transvestitism is socially acceptable, and always has been. My sister-in-law dresses as a man. No problem. But anyone there would laugh at the notion that she now actually IS a man. She is a “tomboy,” and a male-to-female transvestite is a “ladyboy.”
Action4Canada, the CBC piece goes on to warn us, “describes gender-affirming surgery as ‘child abuse.’" This “gender-affirming surgery” is a lot more radical than female genital mutilation. Which so many of us fought so hard to end only a few years ago. It is, properly speaking, sex-denying surgery.
You may say that the distinction is that female genital mutilation is involuntary, while transsexual genital mutilation is consensual. Fine, if you are speaking of adults. Insane, yes; sinful, yes. But the individual’s own business. But an essential principle of law is that a child cannot give consent. Sex with a child is automatically abuse; it does not matter that the child “consents.” Therefore, genital mutilation of a child is automatically abuse. As is giving a child hormones which might interfere with their later ability to reproduce, without some pressing medical reason.
Posts
