Category Archives: Transgender

An addendum to my previous post about the “transgender” movement

Candace Owens’ excellent interview with Walt Heyer, reminded me of a few points to add about the evil that is the modern “transgender” movement.

Yesterday I put up a post about the so-called transgender movement, which I consider one of the great evils being visited on America today. It’s long, but I think the points I make are worth contemplating. If you don’t like to read something that long, I’m putting together a two-part podcast about the post, which should go up later today or sometime tomorrow.

This afternoon, though, I finally caught up with Candace Owens’ superb interview with Walt Heyer, a man who had surgery and hormone treatment when he was 42 in order to make his body look more female, only to realize that he was the victim of a terrible ideology, at which point he made every effort to return to his male body. Since then, Heyer has been preaching the gospel that the whole so-called transgender movement is a con. You can learn more at his popular website about sex change regret.

I’ve embedded the interview at the bottom of this post, because it’s really worth listening to. You can also hear it on a podcast, as I did.

Listening to the interview reminded me of a few points I forgot to include in my own post. So, in no particular order….

1. In my post, I suggested, as I always do, my theory that the rise in sex based body dysmorphic disorder (“SBBDD”) may arise because so many women have taken the Pill at some time before they get pregnant. I suspect that, the closer that Pill use was to the pregnancy the more likely that it may affect the hormone wash the baby receives in utero. To the extent wash of female hormones feminizes a genetic boy’s fetal development, that hormonal imbalance should be something that in later life can be offset with male hormones, not exacerbated with female hormones.

Heyer, though, raised another point about the rise in SBBDD, which is that those people who come to him in desperation (always after the medical community has pushed them into mutilating surgery and dangerous drugs) have almost invariably suffered a distinct trauma that they can easily identify as the moment they began to try to disassociate from their body. Owens right said that this sounds as if the “transgender” movement is based upon PTSD. If that’s the case — and I’m sure it is — SBBDD is something ripe for psychiatric treatment, not mutilating surgery and dangerous medicines.

2. Heyer said that, when he first began to transition, his doctors put him on female hormones, which gave him a peaceful feeling, after all the mental anguish. That made his decision seem like smart one. After the surgery, though, the doctors backed off on those high doses of hormones, once again raising the anguish level that had driven him to seek help in the first place.

Heyer’s experience reminded me of something I learned about female hormones: they suppress strong emotions. This makes sense, because women who didn’t have some emotional suppression would be more likely to kill their children. After all, as every mom will tell you, you are never more tired then you are with babies in the house or more frazzled than when you’re dealing with toddlers or teens. Estrogen mutes those emotions. That’s why, when women start losing estrogen because of menopause, a lot of them start becoming very outspoken and colorful — their emotions are returning. Put another way, estrogen is a known tranquilizer.

3. Children at school aren’t just being told that they can be any gender they want. This, of course, is nonsensical, but it’s what America’s Leftist institutions of higher indoctrination, aka colleges and universities, have spread throughout the Western world.

Just as importantly, boys are being told that they’re toxic — they’re violent, they’re domineering, they’re abusive, they’re disruptive, and all the other poison that, from the time they’re little boys, is being dripped into their ears. Add to that some sort of trauma (sex abuse, the death of a parent) or some sort of mental disruption (depression, bipolar disorder, autism), and you’ve got boys desperate to disassociate themselves from their own biological sex.

4. Heyer and Owens both noted that the transgender movement severs families, which is something I pointed out in my post. Heyer asked “why” — as in “why does the movement want to do that?” In answer, I’ll point, as I often do, to my American Thinker article, Sex and State Power. It has aged well, I think, in the 9.5 years since I wrote it. Let me quote selectively:

Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body.

*snip*

What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery.

The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood.

Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)

The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal.

In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.

Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:

For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.

Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty).

*snip*

While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda.

Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.”

Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.

5. Owens noted that she’s never come under more vicious attack than when she’s challenged the transgender movement. I’m not surprised. As I’ve often said, to the extent the driving force in this movement is men who have been led to think that they are women, and have taken hormones to that end, the political activists among them have all the aggression of men and all the emotionalism of women. That’s a dangerous combination.

6. Heyer makes it very clear that people who believe they are trapped in the wrong body are deeply damaged, unhappy people. We should be giving them the love and treatment they deserve. Instead, as a society, we’re grossly abusing them, by feeding into their break with reality and mutilating their bodies. Having done that, we’re handing to these damaged people the steering wheel to our culture.

You cannot base a society upon denying reality, especially the reality closest to who and what we are. The SBBDD movement is the Marxist dream machine for breaking up Western culture.

The post An addendum to my previous post about the “transgender” movement appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Callum Mouncey, aka Hannah Mouncey, is not a woman, transgender or otherwise

An Australian man named Callum Mouncey, who insists he’s a woman named Hannah Mouncey, perfectly encapsulates why it is so wrong to buy into transgenderism.

I have been writing for many years now about the “transgender” farce that is taking over society. (You can see my posts here, here, here, and here.) Let me say loud and clear a few things that everyone who is neither in thrall to the left nor in fear of the left knows intuitively:

— Wishing you were the opposite sex, or even suffering from the delusion you are the opposite sex, does not make it so.

— Having surgery to cut off healthy breasts, penises, and testicles does not make you a member of the opposite sex.

— Taking hormones that cause your body to mimic some features of the opposite sex, but that also make you sterile and can give you diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, does not make you a member of the opposite sex.

— Unless you’re one of the vanishingly small number of people who are genetically intersex, if you think you’re a member of the opposite sex, you are suffering from a mental illness (or, possibly, if your mother took the Pill within a short time of getting pregnant, a wash of the wrong hormones which can be offset by taking hormones consistent with your biological sex).

— Alternatively, you’re a man who makes this claim, you may also be a pervert who wants to be in bathrooms and changing rooms with naked women or, as I think is the case with Callum Mouncey, aka Hannah Mouncey, you’re a loser who couldn’t make it as a male athlete, and are pathetic enough to think you can compensate by dominating in women’s sports.

Wait! What? You don’t know who Callum Mouncey (who calls himself Hannah Mouncey) is? He’s an Australian guy who was a marginal handball player but who proclaimed himself a woman. He then bullied leftists and/or weak-minded people in the Australian sports world into letting him compete as a woman in Australian rules women’s football:

Recent viral video of Hannah Mouncey, a biological man who has become a transwoman dominating the Australian women’s handball league, reveals an athlete that towers over and seriously outweighs opponents.

The astonishing video shows Mouncey, who stands six-foot-two and weighs 220 pounds, playing against natural-born women. Mouncey is seen domineering over every opponent.

Australian trans athlete, Hannah Mouncey, has been vocal about policies in sport she says discriminate against trans women. pic.twitter.com/Q4bjVi8hAz

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) November 23, 2019

Mouncey has been the object of fawning media coverage on TV and in print. The Associated Press recently claimed that the only reason anyone would oppose athletes such as Mouncey is because of “resentment” that transwomen could be successful at sports.

Until 2016, Mouncey played for Australia’s men’s handball league, but now, after transitioning to a woman, Mouncey joined the women’s league.

Mouncey was barred from entering the women’s league in 2017 because of higher testosterone levels and weight but was allowed to play for the 2018 season. During that time, Mouncey complained that weight was unfair criteria for transgendered women.

“My biggest concern is the fact that weight is being used as one of the key physical measures for possible exclusion. Forget the fact that in a game that has such an emphasis on endurance and speed, being heavy is not necessarily an advantage and think about the message it sends to women and girls about their bodies: if you’re too big, you can’t play. That is incredibly dangerous and backward,” Mouncey wrote in the Guardian.

The Western world has spiraled into deathly decadence if it lets this kind of lunacy continue. People make choices and they need to abide by the consequences of those choices.

One of the things I’ve always appreciated about America’s Orthodox Jews is that, while they live by very stringent religious dictates, they do not demand that the world conform to them. They’ve made their choices and, provided that America leaves them alone, they leave America alone. That’s why you don’t read stories about Orthodox Jews suing Abercrombie, a store that lives by selling sex and sleaze, demanding that Orthodox women be allowed to work there dressed in completely body-covering clothing and wigs. Muslims, however, sue to force private businesses to bend to their will. Take this, for example, and I don’t care that even Justice Scalia found it a no-brainer. It may be legally right, but it’s culturally wrong:

The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.

The company, he said, at least suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law.

The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

So, sure, it’s constitutional to force a business to cave to someone’s religious demands, but it’s also an act of bullying by a minority belief system. I feel the same way about these so-called transgender people. If they want to pretend to be the opposite sex, fine. I won’t stop them. But I strongly disagree with their insistence that the entire world allow itself to be shaped around their delusions.

Had Hannah Mouncey just wanted to wear a dress and be addressed as “Miss” at the grocery store, I would have shrugged in a libertarian way. However, the fact that Callum Mouncey wants to destroy women’s sports and ogle naked women in restrooms and changing areas is a very big “NOOOOOOOO” for me.

In honor of Mouncey’s attempt to foist his delusion on the world, I made up a little poster, playing on Magritte’s famous observation that a drawing of a pipe is, in fact, not a pipe. Mouncey, whether or not he still has his male piping, is not a woman:

The post Callum Mouncey, aka Hannah Mouncey, is not a woman, transgender or otherwise appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

A transnational elite racing its way to a revolution

In America and around the world, a transnational elite postures for itself and despises the people it rules. This is a recipe for a bloody revolution.

The other day, I was listening to Heather MacDonald speaking about homelessness during an appearance on City Journal’s Ten Blocks podcast. She was describing a visit to San Francisco, and it all sounded so familiar.

Before I get to Heather’s riff on the homeless, I want to do a little riff of my own about the homeless and others in America’s underclass. As long-time readers know, I actually have a conduit to the homeless and the underclass. A very dear childhood friend of mine has made life choices that see her living amongst them. When I visit her, I meet her friends, all of whom have, or have had, some extreme form of drug addiction. They also count among their number the homeless, although I haven’t met those guys personally; I’ve just heard about them.

When Obamacare was an issue back in 2009/2010, I learned something very interesting from my friend. Because she came from a middle class background, she was delighted to know that she could finally have subsidized middle class insurance. Her friends, however, were less delighted. Why? Because contrary to the assumptions in Washington, D.C., these people don’t have middle class values that include constant health maintenance and monitoring and they don’t care about having a personal relationship with a physician and a hospital.

What this meant in 2010 is that, without exception, this cohort of chronic drug users and homeless people were unimpressed by the opportunity to get fully insured for $50 or so per month — that is, to get the type of insurance middle class people were paying hundreds for monthly or that steered middle class people  to jobs with benefits and kept them at those jobs even if they were unhappy. To my friend’s friends, this would be $50 wasted every month. After all, why pay even that much when you can go to the emergency room for free?

This insight was yet another reminder that top-down policies do not reflect people’s needs. Moreover, the Left’s top-down policies exist only to serve a very narrow echelon of the Blue upper class. What the governing class is doing is virtue signaling. It makes assumptions about ordinary Americans (85% of whom liked their insurance before Obamacare destroyed everything), but doesn’t want to go near these same Americans to learn what they value.

Another one of those virtue signaling policies without regard for the concerns of most Americans can be seen in the Dem presidential candidates’ insistence that all Americans should be on the line for the student loans that kids take out to get useless degrees. And when I say “useless,” I’m not exaggerating. It’s not unheard of for people to amass hundreds of thousands in debt for a gender studies or fine arts major. There are no jobs out there in those fields that will provide enough funds for anyone to pay back one of those loans before death.

Ordinary people work hard and try to stay out of debt. When they incur a debt in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the bank usually gets a security interest to protect itself. But not student loans. They just hang out there with us, the taxpayers, on the line. We’re on the line because student debt is expensive for America as a whole (more debt, less wealth) and we’re on the line because Leftists keep threatening to make us pay for the kid who opted, not to go into dad’s plumbing business, but to learn advanced puppetry on our dimes.

Which gets me to Heather MacDonald and homelessness. Once again, our governing class makes assumptions. Sitting in ivory academic towers and political offices, our governing class assumes that people don’t want to be homeless. That’s certainly true for working and middle class people who are down on their luck, but these aren’t the people filling the streets in Blue cities, especially West Coast Blue cities with temperate climates.

What MacDonald pointed out in the podcast is that these people want one thing and one thing only: drugs. Blue city policies enable that. In the name of “humanity,” they give the homeless free food, they don’t arrest drug dealers, they do nothing to stop homeless drug use, and they no longer do even minimal policing against disturbing the peace, public nudity, or soiling city streets. All of this is ostensibly to decrease homelessness but the reality is that these policies make homelessness more appealing to those who want only food and drugs. In other words, these are virtue signaling policies.

These same policies are a disaster for the Normals living in the City: the people who go to work, buy homes, have children — and see their streets made filthy and dangerous by people high on every type of drug and, of course, now carrying medieval diseases on their person. And sure, there’s a mental illness component, but a lot of the mental illnesses involved are not the type that would ordinarily render people dysfunctional. There aren’t many schizophrenics out there. Instead, there are people who self-medicated ordinary depression or other dysfunctions and the medication got away from them.

The elite government policies aren’t for the homeless or for the taxpayers. They are financially beneficial for those in government (on the taxpayer dime) and those attached like parasites to government (sucking up the taxpayer dime). And as I said before, they’re emotionally beneficially for people who believe in virtue-signaling more than problem solving. The governing class, like warped fireflies, is sending out smug signals to others in the governing class: “We spent $12 million on the homeless and gave them free needles! We’re so very, very good.” And then they profess themselves bewildered as the homeless multiply on the streets like wire hangers in a closet.

The same disconnect between the governing class and our country’s needs shows itself with the military that Obama bequeathed to Trump. I covered most of that in this post: Under Obama, there came to be a cancer in the Pentagon. My point in that post is that Obama deliberately created an officer class more concerned with social justice and virtue signaling about things such as climate change than concerned with winning wars. It was this officer class (with some Clinton-era holdovers) that has professed itself shocked! Shocked that Trump would pull our troops out of theaters of war in which they shed their blood without benefit to America or that Trump would jettison social justice in favor of killing our enemies. (It’s a good post. If you haven’t read it, you might give it a look.)

During my podcast yesterday, I discussed that post — and I added a couple more points about the Obama military’s disconnect from ordinary Americans. Those points are relevant here, because they remind us that our governing class does not like us and does not share our goals or concerns. Even as Obama was firing officers who might well have been committed to more traditional military values, he was definitely encouraging officers to embrace his social justice, Leftist agenda.

That’s why, during the Obama years, this happened: In 2011, Obama did away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in favor of open gay service. Frankly, I have no idea how this has turned out for military readiness. I just know that, in 2018, a proud, official Navy press release and a laudatory article in the Navy Times introduced us to Yeoman 3rd class Joshua Kelley, aka Harpy Daniels, a drag queen performing on Navy ships. I don’t mean to harsh on Kelley. He sounds like a perfectly nice young man whose father was in the Navy, so Kelley thought of the Navy as a good option when he was having a hard time making a living as a professional drag queen.

The press release and article tout Kelley’s “knack for life as a sailor,” something that sounds good. Except when you read down in the articles about Kelley’s life as a sailor, it sounds as if he’s sailing on the USS Social Justice, rather than a war ship. Thus, we’re told that Kelley was voted to be the president of Strike Fighter Squadron 115′s Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions and that he became the public affairs officer for the carrier Reagan’s Gay, Lesbian and Supporting Sailors association. He even got a “blue jacket of the year” award, not for being the person who keeps Navy pilot’s planes safe or ships running well . . . but for his work on the Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions.

I don’t mean to slam Kelley. I’m just saying I find Kelley to be a surprising choice for the Navy to boast about. The Navy’s purpose, after all, the reason we taxpayers pay the big bucks for it, is to defend us in war against enemies, not to make drag queens feel good about themselves.

Obama also opened the military to transgender people (before Trump shut that down). Transgender people have a 40% or higher suicide rate, higher than any other population group. It’s trendy to point at discrimination as the culprit for these tragic numbers, but the fact is that other groups that have also been on receiving end of terrible discrimination (e.g., blacks) never had suicide rates anywhere comparable to that.

Moreover, transgender individuals, like other people in the cohort that Dave Chappell calls “alphabet people” have higher incidences of alcohol and drug dependency, risky sexual behaviors, suicide, depression, self-harm and spousal abuse. All of these are terrible things. I don’t wish them on anybody . . . but I also don’t wish them on our military!

Obama also opened combat to women., something that’s been a disaster in all standing militaries but for those, like the Kurds, that live on the front line. Even Israel, a front line country, backed away from women in combat when it was able to do so. Women’s presence was (a) dead weight because women are less physically able than men and (b) disastrous for unit moral, because of rivalries and the men’s inability to cope with the women being hurt or killed in battle.

And then there are those green, green climate change initiatives. In 2014, I had the tremendous pleasure of attending the commissioning ceremony for the USS America. It was a wonderful experience. But as I wrote at the time,

[S]ince this is a 21st century, here’s your assurance that the ship is as green as green can be. (I didn’t hear anyone assure me that a green ship is a safer ship or a better fighting ship, but I might have missed that part.)

USS America - Energy Warrior

I’m all for green ships if they save taxpayer money without impairing the military’s efficacy — or, even better, if they increase the military’s ability to fight wars. But that really wasn’t the issue there, was it?

Put simply, during his eight years in office, Obama revamped the American military so that it was dedicated to (a) social justice and (b) climate change. Interestingly, in 2017, not long after Obama left the White House – and before Trump could put his imprimatur on military — the Navy had a spate of terrible accidents:

A US Navy plane crashed into the ocean southeast of Okinawa on Wednesday afternoon, marking at least the sixth apparent accident involving a Navy asset in East Asian waters this year.

The C2-A Greyhound transport plane was carrying 11 crew and passengers to an aircraft carrier when it crashed into the Philippine Sea, the Navy said. As of Wednesday evening, eight people had been rescued, and three were missing.

Wednesday’s crash comes three weeks after a Navy and civilian panel recommended sweeping changes in a comprehensive review of the Japan-based US 7th Fleet, which covers East Asian waters.

The review found that two deadly accidents — the collisions of the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S. McCain with commercial ships in June and August, respectively — were avoidable.

The review’s recommendations include new processes for scheduling ships; “ready for sea” assessments for all Japan-based ships; disseminating lessons learned form “near misses”; and ensuring that ships routinely transmit on their automatic identification systems to prevent collisions.

Of the six incidents, Wednesday’s is the only one directly involving a Navy aircraft. The others are collisions involving US warships.”

Maybe just bad luck – or maybe the military had changed its mission under Obama. After all, the fish rots from the head.

If you’re wondering why all these disparate anecdotes belong in a single post, here’s my answer: They remind us that America’s ruling elite has no concern about ordinary Americans. Hillary was speaking for an entire governing class when she said people who won’t hope on the Leftist train are a “basket of deplorables. *** They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.”

We’re racist because we want to be color-blind, rather than engaging in endless victim wars and because we believe that a nation without borders is no nation at all. We’re sexist because we believe that women and men are different. We’re homophobic because we’re troubled by the pressure LGBTQ activists are placing on American institutions. We xenophobic because Hillary and her followers are proud of knowing a big word with Greek roots. We’re Islamophobic because we’ve noticed that 10% of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims actively want to kill or enslave us and are supported by a much larger number than 10% — including, perhaps, the House’s own Ilhan Omar.

The anecdotes I told are concrete manifestations of this hatred. While ordinary people look to the military to protect us from foreign enemies, our self-styled elite class, which controls most of the levers of power in America, sees traditional military readiness as a tattered, irrelevant doctrine. For them, the military is a giant social justice experiment that pays homage to all the other Leftist shibboleths: only engaging in wars that are not for America’s benefit (because America bad), fighting climate change, and making marginalized people feel good about themselves. Once upon a time, marginalized people (i.e., the poor and/or minorities) felt good about themselves because they became highly competent parts of something much greater than each individual, creating indissoluble bonds and a sense of pride. Now they get awarded “blue jacket” because they advance alphabet people causes.

Likewise, homelessness is a problem, not to be wiped out, but to be magnified so as to showcase the enormous financial and spiritual generosity the elite class doles out to the homeless: using our money and making our cities dangerous at so many levels.

After thinking about homeless projects that magnify homelessness; military initiatives for victim classes, rather than America’s defense; high tax demands that will destroy a thriving economy; the insistence that grown men have access to little girl’s bathrooms; the fight to open our borders so that poor and working class people can lose jobs and housing to illegal immigrants; and all the other initiatives coming from the Leftist leadership in politics, in education, in entertainment, and in the news media, I have to ask: Just who do these people represent?

They certainly don’t represent the interests of the average American or the majority of Americans. We’ve come to the point at which we no longer have “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Instead, we have a government class that despises the people.

Moreover, this is true all over the world, not just America. A friend sent me an email pointing out that there are revolutions in Chile, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Lebanon, England, Baghdad, France, Holland, and Iran. Some are bloody, or likely to be bloody, revolutions (Chile, Hong Kong, Iran); some are voter revolutions (the 2016 election here, Brexit in England); and some are tractor revolutions in Holland or yellow jacket revolutions in France.

In all cases, though, they represent the same thing: People fighting back against political and cultural leaders who have become an international class bound by ties, not to their own countries, but to other world leaders. The transnational elites posture for their fellow transnationals and enacts policies that enrich only themselves. The one thing they’re not doing is taking care of the people in their charge.

Back in 1992, when I was a Democrat, I remember that one of cheers that Bill Clinton liked to use at his rallies to get the audience revved up was, “It’s time for them to go” — with “them” referring to the Republicans who had held the White House for 16 years, to America’s tremendous social and economic benefit.

I don’t look back fondly on the Clinton years, and regret my votes at the time, but I like that theme. Across the world, as weary, beaten-down people look at a ruling class that sees them as despicable, dirty deplorables, these ordinary people, these normals, need to rise up and say, “It’s time for them to go.”

And here’s a word of warning to the ruling class: You managed to keep a lid on things for seven decades after WWII. The people’s discontent, though, is boiling. Bad things happen when the pressure from that boiling finally blows off that tightly pressed lid. I suggest that the Western world’s ruling class, as well as the ruling class in China and the Middle East, gracefully backs away from the levers of power before its members get their greedy, smug little hands blown off of those same levers.

Be assured that I’m not advocating a bullet-style revolution. I prefer my revolutions at the ballot box. But when a people become too discontent, the ballot box is suddenly no longer an option.

The post A transnational elite racing its way to a revolution appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 5/17/19 — the abortion madness illustrated edition

With Alabama’s abortion law now more in line with Europe’s laws than America’s, Americans Progressives are going crazy — plus other good political posters.






Abortion


























































The post Bookworm Beat 5/17/19 — the abortion madness illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Reclaiming our language from transgender activists

The speech demands that transgender activists and other Leftists make on us exceed the bounds of good manners and enter the realm of pure totalitarianism.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — United States Constitution, First Amendment (which, through the 14th Amendment, applies to all governments in America, not just Congress).

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.” — George Orwell, 1984.

“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” — Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770 (summarized in 1906 by S.G. Tallentyre as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”). [UPDATE: But see the Babylon Bee’s take on the modern version of Voltaire. It’s satire . . . or is it?]

At this blog, I have written at some length about the lack of science behind the whole transgender movement. My two main posts on the subject are here and here. You can find most of my other posts about the transgender movement here. My point, over and over, is that the claim that someone is “transgender” has no basis in science, but that we are nevertheless being forced to change our language and even our thinking to accommodate a minute percentage of Americans who have severe body dysmorphia.

Speaking in a PragerU video, Abigail Shrier spells out in clear terms the way in which Leftists, through transgender activism, are upending the First Amendment and trying to implement IngSoc in America (AmSoc?).

I would sum up the video by saying that, without losing compassion for transgender people, who I believe suffer either from mental illness or imbalanced hormones (which should by treated by balancing those hormones), we must resist this totalitarian movement. Sympathy should not equal surrender.

Even before I was aware of the video, I added my mite to the debate only this morning when I put up the following tweet (which still lives there because my following is too small for Twitter to care about my challenges to the Leftists’ AmSoc):

Transgender

It’s also worth pointing out that, until a few years ago, only Queen Victoria (the probably apocryphal “We are not amused”) and those whom people castigated as a-holes referred to themselves in the plural. Moreover, even Queen Victoria and the a-holes, while referring to themselves as “we,” did not insist that others refer to them as “they” or “them.”

In other words, that demand on us pluralizes the a-hole quality of those who insist on being referred to in the plural. The problem for them, of course, is that they can’t acknowledge that the English language has a very specific pronoun for a person or animal that is neither male nor female: “It.”

The post Reclaiming our language from transgender activists appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

A theory behind why government is sexualizing children

Governments are enthusiastically weaponizing the Leftist trend of sexualizing children, because doing so dramatically increases government power.

Yesterday I caught up with a month-old article from The Federalist, entitled The Pedophile Project: Your 7-Year-Old Is Next On The Sexual Revolution’s Hit Parade. The article details the myriad ways in which the Left is intent upon sexualizing children as fast as possible. A significant part of this sexualization has to do with the transgender movement, which was the train the Left hopped on the moment the Supreme Court found the previously invisible gay marriage clause in the Constitution.

If you have the stomach for it, you can watch this sickening Good Morning America video showing eleven-year old Desmond — a boy — dressed in full drag and writhing suggestively on the floor for a cheering audience. I’m still shocked that not one person in that theater stood up and said “This is wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.” But no one did. We have reached the point at which is it impossible to imagine someone saying, as Joseph Welch once did, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

What’s terrifying about the child transgender movement is that it’s moved beyond the moral degenerates of the entertainment and media worlds. We’ve now reached the point at which governments are rapidly internalizing it and using it to sever the parent-child bond. Last year in Ohio, parents actually lost custody for not being sufficiently supportive of their daughter’s claimed transgenderism. Currently, in Texas, a father is being told that, if he doesn’t get with his ex-wife’s program of insisting that their six-year-old son wants to be a girl, he will lose any access to his son.

Two years ago, Ontario, Canada, passed a law including gender identity in a panoply of protections the government extends to children. Ontario has been trying to assure parents who are not on board with giving their children hormones that cause cancer or sterility that the government really doesn’t intend to swoop in and take away their children. Instead, it will only take children away if that refusal to acknowledge the child’s new identity causes the child emotional distress — except we all know that the transgender shtick is that denying a child’s transgenderism is itself a form of emotional abuse. Can we say Orwellian language? Meanwhile, in the UK, parents are being told that if they do not let their autistic son have hormone treatments that could damage his body permanently, they will lose custody over him.

That there is no medical / scientific authority whatsoever for transgenderism, which seems to be a tragic mental illness akin to anorexia or other body dysmorphia problems, only this mental illness is one that the media, education establishment and entertainment world actively encourage. With that in mind, it’s terrifying to watch speed with which the government is weaponizing the transgender world view.

It’s also something I predicted almost nine years ago when I wrote Sex and State Power, which I reprint here in its entirety (with permission from American Thinker, where it originally appeared). Some of the links may be dead, and the push to sexualize children has gone far beyond what was happening a mere nine years ago, but I think the article holds up well and goes a long way towards explaining why governments in America, England, and Canada are so anxious to jump on board the transgender band wagon.

Sex and State Power — July 13, 2010

For many years, physicists have tried to find a unified theory of everything. They have faith that somewhere out there, there is a theory that will explain the physical properties of all things, without any exceptions. I’m not sure that dream will be realized in the scientific arena, but I think I might have stumbled across a unified theory that underlies statist philosophies, whether they are socialist or theocratic: sex.

Before you get too excited, this article isn’t going to be about voluptuous women in slinky, abbreviated clothes, or scantily clad men with rippling pecs and washboard abs. Sorry.

Instead, this article focuses on the sordid, depressing, government-controlled side of human sexuality. That is, it examines sex not from the viewpoint of any given individual’s particular desires, but from the viewpoint of a state intent upon gaining maximum control over that same individual.

Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body.

Statist regimes, of course, cannot tolerate self-ownership, which is the natural enemy of government control over the individual. The easiest example one can find of a statist regime using sexuality to deny individuality and dominate its citizens is, of course, Islam.

A wise friend of mine once opined that Islam’s entire quarrel with the West rests on its fear that Western values will undermine Islam’s control over its women and, with that, its control over the men who benefit from a system that subjugates one half of the population to the control of the other half. There’s a great deal of truth in that observation.

Unlike most other conflicts, Islam’s quarrel with the West does not revolve around borders, water supplies, or economic control over assets. Instead, it focuses on culture — and the heart of the Islamic cultural difference with the West, at least in the Muslim mind, is Islam’s statist determination to erase a woman’s individuality through control over her sexuality.

In the Muslim world, women are viewed as temptresses, and men as feeble creatures incapable of resisting feminine wiles. The only way to control the anarchy that this perceived sexual imbalance creates is for the State — and remember that Islam and the State are indistinguishable from each other — to exert total dominion over the women within its reach.

The best way to regulate women is to remove them entirely from view. Islam has traditionally relied upon harems to isolate women from view (and, not coincidentally, from the body politic). This practice is still used in Saudi Arabia, where women may not leave the home unless they are accompanied by a male family member.

Should the imprisonment option be unavailable, however, wrapping the women in completely obscuring, shapeless mountains of cloth is an adequate substitute. Women so enveloped, aside from losing any individuality, are relatively dysfunctional and, therefore, are entirely dependent on men.

Women who seek to express (or are suspected of or falsely accused of expressing) their sexuality free of statist constraints are subject to exceptional cruelty in the Muslim world. This cruelty often comes directly from the State. Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, an Iranian woman and mother of two, was due to be stoned to death for allegedly having an adulterous relationship. When an outcry arose, the Iranian government threw in a surprise murder conviction to justify making adultery a capital crime. Ashtiani is not alone: Twelve other women and three men await the same fate for having allegedly committed an act that, in Western culture, is not a crime against the State.

Islam also sanctions private actions to control women’s sexuality in the form of so-called “honor killings.” These “all in the family” murders are endemic wherever Muslims live, whether in the Middle East, Europe, England, or America.

The Islamic state manipulates men sexually, too. On the one hand, it theoretically offers men the benefit of an enslaved female population. On the other hand, though, the isolation it imposes on women means that vast numbers of Muslim men are deprived of any access, normal or otherwise, to women.

This deprivation enables Islamic leadership to use the mere promise of sex to entice men into committing suicide on behalf of the state. Islam assures men that, if they engage in suicidal attacks against nonbelievers in order to advance Islam, their reward in the afterlife will be unlimited sex with the famous seventy virgins (or, maybe, they’ll enjoy sexual congress with seventy raisins, a much less titillating inducement to suicide).

What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery.

The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:

Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)

The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.

Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:

For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.

Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.

While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda.

Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.”

Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.

Examples abound of supposedly anti-discriminatory programs that, instead of focusing on tolerance, work to direct a child’s sexual development away from the zone of privacy that is a hallmark of Western sexuality. Robin of Berkeley describes a group called “Gender Spectrum,” which has the ostensible goal of allowing “transgender, gender bending, [and] gender nonconforming” children and teens to hang with each other and share their experiences. She rightly sees this not as an effort to promote tolerance, but as a way to make it “cool to dabble in polyamory and gender nonconformism,” thereby “destroy[ing] the West by degrading traditional values.”

Only four years ago, California narrowly escaped a legislative effort to pass a bill that would have required all California textbooks, starting in first grade, to include materials focusing on famous homosexuals — with the focus not on the achievement that made them famous, but simply on the homosexuality itself. A parental outcry forced the legislature to retreat to something more in keeping with a free society, which is the requirement that children may not be exposed to material that is discriminatory to people based on their sexuality.

In Helena, Montana (Montana!), the school board is contemplating a K-12 sex ed program that repeatedly blurs the line between demanding tolerance, which should be an imperative in a free society, and advocating alternative sexuality, which is consistent with the Leftist agenda of separating sexuality from individuality. In Grade 2, children would be taught, appropriately, that “making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.” By Grade 3, however, the focus is on breaking down traditional familial norms, as children are taught that to “[u]nderstand media often presents an unrealistic image of what it means to be male or female, what it means to be in love & what parenthood & marriages are like.” And so it goes, with a proposed curriculum that veers wildly between respect and advocacy.

The relentless Leftist obsession with homosexuality and variations on traditional sexual gender roles is deeply embedded in the Obama administration. Last year, a vigilant blogger exposed the fact that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” as part of his leadership role in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), aggressively promoted child pornography in the classroom. GLSEN’s actions had nothing to do with creating a safe, non-discriminatory environment for young people with different sexual orientations and everything to do with using the government (i.e., public schools) to inculcate in children the notion that their bodies have no boundaries. A body with no boundaries, of course, is a body that can easily be decoupled from the individual’s control and then ceded to the state.

While the gay agenda, which is cloaked in civil rights language that makes it hard to challenge, is the leading edge of the state’s desire to control children’s sexuality, Leftists also use the schools to manipulate heterosexual behaviors so as to destroy a child’s physical boundaries. In England, parents were aghast to learn that a school was requiring its first-grade pupils to massage each other. In Iowa (Iowa!), one middle school has abandoned any pretense of traditional morality and, instead, is teaching its eighth-graders “how to perform female exams and to put a condom on a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ.” The body is a tool, and nothing more.

Freud was right when he speculated that sex, perhaps because it is the least easily satisfied human need, may also be the most powerful physical need driving human beings. Freud, however, viewed sexuality through the spectrum of a given individual’s desires. What the statists understand — and have always understood — is that our bodies are the first line in the battle between statism and individualism. If a person is allowed to develop a sense that his body is his own to control, he will never willingly yield to the demands of the state. Only by convincing its citizens that they have no personal autonomy, beginning with control over their own bodies, can a state completely subsume the individual to the bureaucracy.

So if you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulderblades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.

The post A theory behind why government is sexualizing children appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 3/4/2019 — another illustrated edition

Usually, I give these illustrated edition posts names that emphasize something; today, not so much. This is a delightful hodge-podge of idiocy and wisdom.






Illustrated Edition































The post Bookworm Beat 3/4/2019 — another illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.