Feminism, Gayism and Transism
Three heads of the same Hydra, each more toxic than the last
Today we in the West are confronted by a hostile, dystopian reality. At every turn the standards of decent society are under attack and always, always by those who dress themselves up in the mantle of victimhood.
Now it is certainly true that the Hydra was hatched from the festering cyst of the United States' failure – comprehensive failure – to address the issues that should have been settled by the War of 1860, the American Civil War, so-called. The discrimination against and persecution of blacks in that country boiled over in the 1960s, ninety-five years after the surrender of the South. In that moment the Civil Rights movement was born.
There can be no doubting the validity of the blacks' case, then. There is no question that they were indeed oppressed because of the colour of their skin. That was why their movement was so successful. Fundamentally decent people realised that an injustice was being done, in their name and they sought to put an end to it. And they did, just as they had in 1860.
The trouble with campaigning movements is that they gather momentum. There was always a part of the Civil Rights movement that did not only seek equality or the end to discrimination. That part sought supremacy and the end of what it saw as the oppressor, white people.
It is a curious fact that as the greater battles are won, so the lesser ones become more vicious, as US soldiers found in their advance towards Japan in 1945. In the same way, as the obvious injustices were dealt with, the remaining issues gathered potency. This led to frustration and as a result the great wounds that slavery had caused were not healed and likely, now, never will be.
But that is not the issue today. The major race battles have all been won, leaving activists to focus on 'micro-aggressions' – in other words, trivial, insignificant ones. Yet the hostility has found new ways to vent itself, and unlikely ones at that. 'You can't challenge me, I'm black! You have to agree to all of my demands or you're a nasty bigoted racist!'
'Second Wave Feminism' appeared at the same time as the Civil Rights movement. But the captains of this assault were never obliged to drink from different water fountains nor sit at the back of the bus. They were themselves privileged: middle-class white women. It is a simple fact that almost all of the 'big names' of feminism were educated, wealthy and white – people who would not know oppression if it hit them in the face. And yet, for this movement too, the battles were quickly won. Suffrage had long since been resolved and soon 'affirmative action' – otherwise known as anti-male discrimination – began filling corporations, colleges and universities with women who, far from being grateful for this largesse, were ever more spiteful and vindictive. The more power they grabbed, the more they wanted.
This is ongoing; the major battles that feminism was set up to fight were won by it, forty years ago. Yet it still exists, poisoning young women's minds and turning them into man-haters, Today, they complain that there are no 'good men' left, but what man with half a brain gets into bed with a rattlesnake – especially one that has every legal die weighted in its favour? Men do well to avoid the bite of the Hydra.
Feminists played one card better than any other and they still do: female privilege. Men are taught to respect women and to defer to them. This makes it hard for them to directly challenge a woman, even when she is blatantly lying. 'Sexist', that man will be called and women will unite to punish him. No criticism is allowed, for after all, words are weapons that cause real harm and it doesn't matter whether those words are a simple insult in the street or a cohesive, thoughtful argument. Women must never be contradicted, because they are women. 'You can't challenge me, I'm a woman! You have to agree to all of my demands or you're a nasty bigoted misogynist! '
Following on the heels of 'Second Wave Feminism' came the the 'Gay Rights' movement. In fact there was crossover because many of the feminist 'thinkers' – actually they just regurgitated Marx with almost no thought – were themselves lesbians. But the focus was on homosexual males, who could also claim to have been 'oppressed'; and here enters the utterly loathsome Michel Foucault, the master of equivocation and downright falsehood, whose work formed the basis of 'Queer Theory'.
But here's a thing. Prior to the 1960s, homosexual males had been, largely, working class and of low education. The men who availed themselves of their services, on the other hand, were mainly middle-class, educated men, often academics, like Foucault himself, who hid their femininity. Would anyone be surprised to find out that it was this group which took control of the nascent 'Gay Rights' movement? No more of that girly nonsense so beloved of the traditional homosexuals. No more dressing up as a girl on a Friday night and cruising the bars and backstreets looking for some rough trade to do the honours. Straight men, always the delight of the homosexual male, were off-limits and from now on the girly-boys had to pretend to be men.
Amazingly enough, this worked. The 'gay' movement, now fronted up by middle-class men in dubious suits, claimed oppression and rioted in the streets. Well, Stonewall wasn't much of a riot, but you catch my drift. First they demanded recognition, which they got; then they demanded 'same sex marriage' and for ordinary bakers to be criminalised for not making them a sweet little wedding cake because they were Christians – so much for their right to freedom of belief.
In the world of this New Gay Man, politics was everything. Just as the Civil Rights and Women's movements had their extremist side, so did the gays. In fact, one didn't even have to be homosexual to be included. One just had to follow the lifestyle. Thus was born the 'lifestyle gay', the individual who liked the fashion, the colour and most of all the radical politics, but not the business of sitting on the Organ. Even Freud noted that many males who identified as homosexual didn't actually have sex with each other.
The lifestyle gays were more politically aware than the old-style homosexuals – who could never think any further ahead than the next penis, as that grand old dame Quentin Crisp explained. This gave rise to 'Gayism', a political movement that existed around homosexual males and used them as a shield. Even a huge, hulking, beer-swigging pederast will quickly grab the oppression security blanket – 'You can't challenge me, I'm gay! You have to agree to all of my demands or you're a nasty bigoted homophobe! '
If the steam has come out of Gayism, it is only partly because it was so successful. In fact, it morphed. When it began to look as if being gay was just a little too mainstream, another fashion had to be found to carry the torch of radicalism – and the ghost of Marx and Engels, not to mention those of the two hundred million or so lives their whack-job ideas ended.
As ever, this new movement was fundamentally middle-class and centred on the colleges and universities.
In the United States in particular, transsexualism was medicalised. Anything that could potentially make money for doctors and surgeons was always an interesting avenue in this most avaricious of cultures. It had been recognised since the turn of the nneteenth century that there appeared to be two different pathways towards males wishing to appear to be feminine, indeed, women. One of these was of course, the traditional homosexual male, who was as girly as he could get away with. At the extreme end of this scale were the transsexuals. But there was another type. These men were not at all feminine, were usually married and always remained attracted to women. They were not homosexual.
Early therapy for transsexualism did not recognise the members of this group as suitable candidates for medical and surgical intervention. However, that meant that many potentially lucrative patients were being overlooked. Something had to be done and in 1974 a Dr Norman M Fisk did it.
In a classical sense the male transsexual was a person who demonstrated lifelong behaviour that was effeminate or imitative of the opposite sex (and) had a deep and abiding conviction that he was indeed a member of the (feminine) gender,
However, there was another type, described by Fisk like this
an apparently normal, well-adapted male who in all facets of his behaviour, including his choice of sexual object, is overtly masculine. However, he chooses to participate for one to two weeks a year in his civic club's annual skit. His choice of participation is to cross-dress as a can-can girl or a member a chorus line attired in female garb, and perform a dance routine.1
Fisk believed that these were variants of the same condition and it was not until Dr Ray Blanchard, nearly twenty years later, published, that it became clear that they were not; by which time the horse had well and truly fled the stable.
Unfortunately, by that time the feminine girly-boys had been so suppressed by the New Gay Man culture that they had as good as vanished. Most of them completed as women and then melted into society to live their lives as women. They were not a good cohort on which to build a political movement, since the very last thing they would do was get up on a podium and out themselves. However, the second type certainly were. They were much more visible.
This is how the peculiar transformation of the transsexual occurred. The actual transsexuals were all hiding as well as they could and that left the door open for this other group, whom we might call pseudo-transsexuals, to claim the public stage – indeed, to claim to be transsexual, which they are not. They are actually transvestites. Blanchard called this group 'Autogynephiles', recognising that they had a narcissistic auto-erotic condition which in some cases could become a clinical disorder.
By 2010, the change in the public perception of a transsexual, from being a glamorous and sexually attractive woman to a bloke in a dress, had all but completed. The great public disputes, such as that surrounding the attempts by transgender males to break into MichFest, an annual celebration of 'womyn and their music', never featured a single true transsexual.
Today, in Britain, there are none in the public arena; every one, from Hayton through Willoughby, is a transvestite, not a transsexual. The former's claim to be a 'True Transsexual' is an offensive mockery, the appropriation of a status to which he has no right. Similarly few appear even in the USA, although Janet Mock is perhaps the most well-known exception.
This virtual absence of actual transsexuals from the public view and the fact that the New Gay Man had as good as outlawed any public displays of male femininity, allowed the greatest lie in this whole festival of untruth to become a shibboleth: that there is no connection between sexuality (whether one wishes to penetrate or be penetrated) and gender (which of the two genders one appears to be.)
This is, of course, blatant poppycock. Gender is how we advertise our sexuality to others. If a woman desires a man, she makes herself as feminine as she can and if a man desires a woman, he makes himself as masculine as he can. Opposites attract, common sense tells us that and if it didn't, the fact that the global beauty and cosmetics industries are worth 250 billion dollars annually, should at least give pause for thought.
Feminists had attacked the gender/sexuality link, the New Gay Man by his very existence did too and now it was the turn of a nebulous new 'movement', consisting of 'trans' people. So now we had femininism, gayism and transism.
Again, the same holds true of transism as of feminism and gayism. One does not have to be female to be a feminist; one just has to toe the political line. One does not have to be homosexual to be a gayist; one just has to accept and promulgate the approved dogmas. And in exactly the same way, one does not have to be transsexual to be a transist. In fact, no attempt to change gender presentation at all is required; pleasant looking men in suits call themselves trans and we just have to accept it.
There is a downside; sheer insanity always has one. Feminism has severely harmed women, at least all those who were quite happy to stay at home and be wives and mothers. Gayism harmed homosexual males appallingly, so that they had to abandon their natural femininity and pretend to be men. And transism harms genuine transsexuals, by refusing the basic, irrefutable link that provides all transsexuals with their identity: that Gender must follow Sexuality. They are not independently variable.
Communism by the back door
The point behind all of these movements has always been the same. We know Communism doesn't work, so if one desires to impose it on a population, especially an armed one as in the USA, one must sneak it in the back door. One does this by pretending to support a particular 'oppressed' group, hoping to fool us through an appeal to our natural kindness. We already have much of the appalling infrastructure of the police state in place and we shall soon lose all the freedoms we ever had, fought for or believed in: freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of belief. Arguably, it is already too late.
Always remember that when you give in to a ridiculous demand, an even more ridiculous one is sure to follow. Civil Rights became BLM and vandalised public monuments, Feminism became the deliberate suppression of men and masculinity, Gay Liberation became locking people up for refusing to bake cakes and trust me, Transism will soon be treading the same path. They are coming for you and your kids.
The fact is that there are only a very few transsexuals, who certainly are vulnerable and must be protected; those I am privileged to know are the most delightful people imaginable. I would never harm a single one of them and neither should you. But the rest of the 'trans' mob are having us on. It's time to tell them that they are free to say what they like and appear as they wish; but they are not free to tell others what they must and must not say or think. It is time to draw the line in the sand and that line is called 'Free Speech'.
To close I give you the words of Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, a nation which knows the evils of Communism better than most:
'In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.
'Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risks being ostracised. 'Parent number one' and 'parent number two,' 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother,' and 'human milk' replacing 'breastmilk' because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak, believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.
'Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.' 2
Please don't say you weren't warned.
1Fisk NM: Gender dysphoria syndrome: The conceptualization that liberalizes indications for total gender reorientation and implies a broadly based multi-dimensional rehabilitative regimen. Editorial comment on male transsexualism. West J Med 120:386-391, May 1974
2 Speaking at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, October 2021.
It's a very bleak picture, Rod. God help us. And I'm serious about it.
The heads of the Hydra that you describe seem to go back to the same destructive purely evil sourse that seeks to corrupt, poison, and wipe out humanity.
Oddly enough, I find myself recently quite sympathetic towards Putin. While I've never been a fan, he's however clearly aware and on point when he speaks about Western malaises, hysterias, corruption, lunacy, and self-destruction.