image
Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.
Triumph of the Trannies
It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists donât support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I donât think theyâve properly explained it.
Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?
I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the leftâs love of transgenderism and the leftâs love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926â95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:
The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the âvery organization of natureâ; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will â in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)
Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the âexercise of human willâ allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?
Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects âcan be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.â Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbardâs explanation. Yes, heâs right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of âhuman will,â but he doesnât discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.
The high and the low
Letâs look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have âwilledâ that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women â the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs â have âwilledâ that men canât become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the menâs will prevails and the womenâs will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? Itâs easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.
Trangendered men are part of the âLBGTQ+ community,â which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv canât admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.
Actual authentic lesbians
Yaniv and other âtrans-womenâ must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yanivâs Twitter account states that he is âOne proud lesbian. Iâll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.â Yaniv isnât a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians â that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women â quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.
Feminism has the concept of the âglass ceiling,â whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the âcotton ceiling,â whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:
Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all peopleâs desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans womenâs bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence peopleâs desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.
The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldnât be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)
Itâs not âcompletely different,â of course. In both cases, people with penises are âsayingâ (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a âfemale penisâ that, despite all appearances, is âcompletely differentâ to the nasty and objectionable penis of a âcis male.â
Aspects of religious psychology
I use the term âtransubstantiationâ deliberately. Itâs a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christâs flesh and blood. If you disagree, youâre probably safe nowadays, but you wouldnât have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.
This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert â leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the âfemale penisâ are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we canât prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.
The âfemale penisâ vs the âunisex brainâ
And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the âunisex brain,â namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, itâs partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the âfemale penisâ is an obvious absurdity, the âunisex brainâ is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.
And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesnât exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.
Better than Black
Indeed, as I pointed out in âPower to the Perverts!,â transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are âtransgenderâ and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.
However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal âwilledâ that she was Black, while Blacks âwilledâ that she wasnât. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naĂŻve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support âtrans-racialistsâ like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didnât support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.
{Submitterâs note: Langdon rants on and on⌠see the source link if youâre really interested about the rest of it}
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13088105/sperm_decline_chart.jpg){kind=link}
