It’s reassuring to see some logical governments such as the US and the recent judgement in England that women are biologically female. I hold out hope for Canada.
When the history books are written, though, they'll include a sociological reality few today are ready to consider: radical feminism, not deviant patriarchy, gave us transgenderism.
> “TERF” being a Genderwang term of abuse directed at women who assert the biological reality of sex)...
Transfem TRAs added their venomous autogynephilic misogyny, of course, but didn’t invent what is now both a slur AND its reclamation. Nor is TERF what early gender-critical feminists had asked to be called. They hadn't been united under any banner until named and shamed by the Mean Girls of academic feminism (recently rebranded as Gender Studies per the rejection of “woman” as a bioessentialist patriarchal construct).
I recall jokes in university about men claiming to be lesbians trapped in man's body in the1980s. Who could have believed that in the 2020s some people would take the notion seriously.
#terfisaslur Since we can't actually change our sex or gender, this is mental illness, not "identity". And since transgender doesn't exist, neither can "transphobia". 🌈UDHR embrace who you are & as Rowling tweeted years ago, safely live your best life.
Hmmm…. So how exactly is it Ok to draw a parallel between transubstantiation and transgenderism. As a Catholic parent of a son sucked into the gender cult, you cannot imagine how offensive that is. Mr. Kay, I am quite disappointed in you.
Surely you know that the whole Christian world split apart, initially on the matter of indulgences but it evolved into transsubstantiation as THE burning issue. The non-Catholic world views it as fantastical. It’s not that far a stretch to believe a man can become a woman as a wafer can become real flesh and blood. I’m not rude, it’s a pretty darn good analogy though.
Please don’t use the name of a feminine hygiene product (douche bag) as a term of abuse for men you want to insult. There is nothing repulsive in a woman using a douche bag to rinse her vagina after sex or at the end of her period, except in the mind of men who find women’s genitals and female bodily functions repulsive.
"Rather, they’re coming from feminists and LGB activists who are tired of seeing their movements get hijacked by male narcissists demanding sexual access to lesbians, ghoulish clinicians eager to convince gay autistic girls that they’re actually 'straight' trans boys, and cynical progressives who dumped their feminist convictions in favour of what is effectively a men’s rights movement in 'intersectional' fishnet cosplay."
As a gay man in my late 60s who was a sissy boy in the late 50s and early 60s, I fear that many of today's sissies will not be permitted to develop normally into gay men if they happen to be born into a family of trans "allies" in a progressive state where public and private institutions promote gender identity ideology.
Gender fluidity may be admired in queer circles, but in many parts of the trans world traditional sexual stereotypes (in trans speak, gender stereotypes) serve as makers of a child's sex or, in the trans lexicon, gender. From an early age I was clearly gender nonconfoming. No snips and snails and puppy dogs' tails for me. I was sugar and spice and everything nice. I detested horseplay and had no interest in chasing balls around like a frenzied pup. Thought I never thought of myself as anything other than a boy, I threw away my cap guns and loved playing with my Barbie doll.
Today that would be enough to get an unfortunate proto-gay sissy classified as a girl, put into a dress and set on the path to social transition. In blue states most public schools make a conspicuous show of their support for "LGBT" kids, but I fear that schools and other "affirming" institutions have been so thoroughly captured by gender identity ideology that they haven't developed separate policies, procedures and materials specifically for same-sex attracted youth.
Yes, very well put. The sanctimonious progressive douchebags are with us. I want to say "again", because I suspect they are somewhat like the 17-year cicadas, emerging when conditions are just right. This year we have Brood Beardsplainer. Before that there was....Brood Metrosexual? Brood Hipster? Sons of Brood LoveGuru and Brood BeatPoet?
"Genderwang channels the magical thinking of Christian transubstantiation"
Another example of Ray's Law of the Conservation of Irrationality. See, we used to think that all the magic and silliness attached to religion was a bug. NO! It is a feature. Monkeys simply must believe something silly, somehow their rationality requires this counterpoint. Sorta the same way that very well behaved Britons feel the need to become animals when soccer games happen -- they need the outlet and the better behaved they are most of the time, the worse behaved they'll be at the stadium.
So, religion used to give the monkeys a 'safe space' for their irrationality. They could believe that Jesus walked on water, for example, and be perfectly rational otherwise. Many exemplary scientists have been and are Catholic. But the 'rationalists' have killed Christianity, and the result is not a more rational world, but rather conserved irrationality has bubbled up in a much more dangerous way -- genderwang and wokeness in general. SO much better when we knew men couldn't get pregnant even if Jesus was born of a virgin, eh? Now it's the converse and ... well, here we are.
Some comments here, unlike the article itself, show that the barrier is flimsy and weak between opposition to the "Genderwang" cult (which is sanity and which I fully share) and an outgushing of pent-up homophobia and transphobia. As Genderwankers are capitalizing on the "last shall be first" predispositions of progressives, homophobes and transphobes are capitalizing on the backlash as an opening to, e.g., roll back gay marriage, that most sane and normalizing of new tolerances. Thus do extremes benefit only each other, and not the rest of us.
You are correct. Several gender-critical Substacks I will not name are plagued by homophobes of diverse stripes. There's a self-described ultra-Orthodox Jew who unabashedly refers to gay people as perverts. Some Christians are still litigating same-sex marriage. Perhaps the worst are the philosophy bros who have an axe to grind against classical liberalism, John Stewart Mills and his intellectual heirs. They blame him for what they denounce as an anything-goes, me-centric ethos that is responsible for the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, gay rights and probably no-fault divorce to boot. We're even blamed for the impending downfall of Western Civilization!
I've seen far more homophobia from trans rights activists than from anyone else in the last few years. Sometimes it's explicit hatred, like banning lesbians from pride or attacking them for their dating preferences; sometimes it's "merely" that they think anyone who isn't stereotypically straight needs experimental surgery. Let's roll it all back first, and then we can worry about what counts as *-phobia.
"roll back gay marriage, that most sane and normalizing of new tolerances."
Or not. Gay marriage is not the catastrophe that subsequent wokeness has been but I submit that it was/is one of the first steps in the destruction of language and the overturning of reality. A small step, but it cracked open the door. IMHO 'marriage' should have continued to mean what it has always meant in every age, in every culture -- the forming of that social bond which is the foundation of the natural family. Yes gays can love each other and they should indeed have Civil Union ... but it isn't a marriage. 'Gay marriage' is the the mother of 'transwoman' -- nonsense.
Interesting response, with the exception of they repeated reference to non-existent mental disorders. There are no such 'phobias' - a diagnosable and treatable forms of an extreme anxiety disorder - relating to homosexuality or gender dysphoria; https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm
A phobic would not engage in such activity and would, in fact, avoid their triggers.
They are fake words coined by fascists and used by cowards in a vain attempt to manipulate morons.
As you clearly don't have the intellectual capacity or critical thinking skills to have coined them, which of the latter two are you - if not both?
You write: "No system of beliefs built on this kind of tortured thinking and wilful rejection of reality can survive." I disagree.
Over the last several decades, male homosexual advocates have successfully conflated civil rights will biological fantasies.
No sane and civil person would now challenge the proposition that homosexual men and women should be fully protected by the laws of the land. However, along with this political revolution, homosexual men have successfully enforced two absurd myths: 1) the rectum is a sex organ; 2) persistent homosexuality is common in many other animal species.
I believe that these truly deranged claims have laid the groundwork for today's Genderwang madness.
Until homosexuality is recognized as a kind of birth defect - a misalignment of sexual anatomy and reproductive targeting behaviors - the engine of myth-making will power on at full throttle.
Biologist here. Do you know how evolution works? Homosexuality is a thing because on the balance (key phrase), for our ancestors, homosexual relationships very slightly increased chances of survival to reproduction. Not necessarily the individual, but the individual's genetic group (family).
It doesn't matter whether the rectum is a sex organ. In fact I would believe you if you said the evidence shows that anal sex by itself is not adaptive, does not increase chances of survival. What matters a bit more is the impact of the homosexual bond on the chances of survival of the genetic group.
There is zero evidence that homosexual men contribute to family survival in the present day. Aunts and grandmothers do far more to protect children than a homosexual brother or uncle. In my experience, homosexual men and women don't give a hoot in hell about anyone else's children. Projecting this fantasy into the past is so dumb it's not even wrong.
It’s reassuring to see some logical governments such as the US and the recent judgement in England that women are biologically female. I hold out hope for Canada.
Amazing work! 👏🏻 💯🤯
When the history books are written, though, they'll include a sociological reality few today are ready to consider: radical feminism, not deviant patriarchy, gave us transgenderism.
> “TERF” being a Genderwang term of abuse directed at women who assert the biological reality of sex)...
“...came about simply to save typing a longer phrase out over and over again - a shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognise trans women as sisters, unlike those of us who do.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-happened
Transfem TRAs added their venomous autogynephilic misogyny, of course, but didn’t invent what is now both a slur AND its reclamation. Nor is TERF what early gender-critical feminists had asked to be called. They hadn't been united under any banner until named and shamed by the Mean Girls of academic feminism (recently rebranded as Gender Studies per the rejection of “woman” as a bioessentialist patriarchal construct).
I recall jokes in university about men claiming to be lesbians trapped in man's body in the1980s. Who could have believed that in the 2020s some people would take the notion seriously.
God, is Sara Savoia still out there causing trouble? Is she still part of the OCDSB?
#terfisaslur Since we can't actually change our sex or gender, this is mental illness, not "identity". And since transgender doesn't exist, neither can "transphobia". 🌈UDHR embrace who you are & as Rowling tweeted years ago, safely live your best life.
Men are not women
It’s an infestation of church ladies.
We live in a world where some interpret two women in a Cafe staring at a wall as violence, and are legitimised.
Hmmm…. So how exactly is it Ok to draw a parallel between transubstantiation and transgenderism. As a Catholic parent of a son sucked into the gender cult, you cannot imagine how offensive that is. Mr. Kay, I am quite disappointed in you.
Surely you know that the whole Christian world split apart, initially on the matter of indulgences but it evolved into transsubstantiation as THE burning issue. The non-Catholic world views it as fantastical. It’s not that far a stretch to believe a man can become a woman as a wafer can become real flesh and blood. I’m not rude, it’s a pretty darn good analogy though.
Please don’t use the name of a feminine hygiene product (douche bag) as a term of abuse for men you want to insult. There is nothing repulsive in a woman using a douche bag to rinse her vagina after sex or at the end of her period, except in the mind of men who find women’s genitals and female bodily functions repulsive.
"Rather, they’re coming from feminists and LGB activists who are tired of seeing their movements get hijacked by male narcissists demanding sexual access to lesbians, ghoulish clinicians eager to convince gay autistic girls that they’re actually 'straight' trans boys, and cynical progressives who dumped their feminist convictions in favour of what is effectively a men’s rights movement in 'intersectional' fishnet cosplay."
As a gay man in my late 60s who was a sissy boy in the late 50s and early 60s, I fear that many of today's sissies will not be permitted to develop normally into gay men if they happen to be born into a family of trans "allies" in a progressive state where public and private institutions promote gender identity ideology.
Gender fluidity may be admired in queer circles, but in many parts of the trans world traditional sexual stereotypes (in trans speak, gender stereotypes) serve as makers of a child's sex or, in the trans lexicon, gender. From an early age I was clearly gender nonconfoming. No snips and snails and puppy dogs' tails for me. I was sugar and spice and everything nice. I detested horseplay and had no interest in chasing balls around like a frenzied pup. Thought I never thought of myself as anything other than a boy, I threw away my cap guns and loved playing with my Barbie doll.
Today that would be enough to get an unfortunate proto-gay sissy classified as a girl, put into a dress and set on the path to social transition. In blue states most public schools make a conspicuous show of their support for "LGBT" kids, but I fear that schools and other "affirming" institutions have been so thoroughly captured by gender identity ideology that they haven't developed separate policies, procedures and materials specifically for same-sex attracted youth.
Yes, very well put. The sanctimonious progressive douchebags are with us. I want to say "again", because I suspect they are somewhat like the 17-year cicadas, emerging when conditions are just right. This year we have Brood Beardsplainer. Before that there was....Brood Metrosexual? Brood Hipster? Sons of Brood LoveGuru and Brood BeatPoet?
Pardon! 😂
"Genderwang channels the magical thinking of Christian transubstantiation"
Another example of Ray's Law of the Conservation of Irrationality. See, we used to think that all the magic and silliness attached to religion was a bug. NO! It is a feature. Monkeys simply must believe something silly, somehow their rationality requires this counterpoint. Sorta the same way that very well behaved Britons feel the need to become animals when soccer games happen -- they need the outlet and the better behaved they are most of the time, the worse behaved they'll be at the stadium.
So, religion used to give the monkeys a 'safe space' for their irrationality. They could believe that Jesus walked on water, for example, and be perfectly rational otherwise. Many exemplary scientists have been and are Catholic. But the 'rationalists' have killed Christianity, and the result is not a more rational world, but rather conserved irrationality has bubbled up in a much more dangerous way -- genderwang and wokeness in general. SO much better when we knew men couldn't get pregnant even if Jesus was born of a virgin, eh? Now it's the converse and ... well, here we are.
Some comments here, unlike the article itself, show that the barrier is flimsy and weak between opposition to the "Genderwang" cult (which is sanity and which I fully share) and an outgushing of pent-up homophobia and transphobia. As Genderwankers are capitalizing on the "last shall be first" predispositions of progressives, homophobes and transphobes are capitalizing on the backlash as an opening to, e.g., roll back gay marriage, that most sane and normalizing of new tolerances. Thus do extremes benefit only each other, and not the rest of us.
You are correct. Several gender-critical Substacks I will not name are plagued by homophobes of diverse stripes. There's a self-described ultra-Orthodox Jew who unabashedly refers to gay people as perverts. Some Christians are still litigating same-sex marriage. Perhaps the worst are the philosophy bros who have an axe to grind against classical liberalism, John Stewart Mills and his intellectual heirs. They blame him for what they denounce as an anything-goes, me-centric ethos that is responsible for the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, gay rights and probably no-fault divorce to boot. We're even blamed for the impending downfall of Western Civilization!
I've seen far more homophobia from trans rights activists than from anyone else in the last few years. Sometimes it's explicit hatred, like banning lesbians from pride or attacking them for their dating preferences; sometimes it's "merely" that they think anyone who isn't stereotypically straight needs experimental surgery. Let's roll it all back first, and then we can worry about what counts as *-phobia.
"roll back gay marriage, that most sane and normalizing of new tolerances."
Or not. Gay marriage is not the catastrophe that subsequent wokeness has been but I submit that it was/is one of the first steps in the destruction of language and the overturning of reality. A small step, but it cracked open the door. IMHO 'marriage' should have continued to mean what it has always meant in every age, in every culture -- the forming of that social bond which is the foundation of the natural family. Yes gays can love each other and they should indeed have Civil Union ... but it isn't a marriage. 'Gay marriage' is the the mother of 'transwoman' -- nonsense.
Interesting response, with the exception of they repeated reference to non-existent mental disorders. There are no such 'phobias' - a diagnosable and treatable forms of an extreme anxiety disorder - relating to homosexuality or gender dysphoria; https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm
A phobic would not engage in such activity and would, in fact, avoid their triggers.
They are fake words coined by fascists and used by cowards in a vain attempt to manipulate morons.
As you clearly don't have the intellectual capacity or critical thinking skills to have coined them, which of the latter two are you - if not both?
Gee, and I thought Substack comment threads were the last refuge of sanity in a mad world. Guess not.
You write: "No system of beliefs built on this kind of tortured thinking and wilful rejection of reality can survive." I disagree.
Over the last several decades, male homosexual advocates have successfully conflated civil rights will biological fantasies.
No sane and civil person would now challenge the proposition that homosexual men and women should be fully protected by the laws of the land. However, along with this political revolution, homosexual men have successfully enforced two absurd myths: 1) the rectum is a sex organ; 2) persistent homosexuality is common in many other animal species.
I believe that these truly deranged claims have laid the groundwork for today's Genderwang madness.
Until homosexuality is recognized as a kind of birth defect - a misalignment of sexual anatomy and reproductive targeting behaviors - the engine of myth-making will power on at full throttle.
You are obviously a stranger to the erotic potential of your butt. Poor you.
Biologist here. Do you know how evolution works? Homosexuality is a thing because on the balance (key phrase), for our ancestors, homosexual relationships very slightly increased chances of survival to reproduction. Not necessarily the individual, but the individual's genetic group (family).
It doesn't matter whether the rectum is a sex organ. In fact I would believe you if you said the evidence shows that anal sex by itself is not adaptive, does not increase chances of survival. What matters a bit more is the impact of the homosexual bond on the chances of survival of the genetic group.
That's why being LGB is actually partly genetic.
There is zero evidence that homosexual men contribute to family survival in the present day. Aunts and grandmothers do far more to protect children than a homosexual brother or uncle. In my experience, homosexual men and women don't give a hoot in hell about anyone else's children. Projecting this fantasy into the past is so dumb it's not even wrong.
Evolution never lies, bud. Trying to project morality onto it is dumb. DNA is extremely selfish, it doesn't care what's right, only what works.
Stick to your arguments about modern-day morality and leave biology out of it.