Counter-Currents
2,539 words
TERF is an acronym for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” It is also a slur. Unlike most political slurs, it is an accurate description of the people that the acronym describes.
TERF names the subset of radical feminists that opposes the inclusion of transsexual men (aka “transwomen”) in the category “woman.” Some radical feminists welcome men who believe they are women, and many others do not. TERF names the latter and contrasts them to the former.
A TERF, among her other opinions, believes that “woman” is an exclusive club, and only humans who were born female and have matured in female bodies are entitled to belong to it. Feminism is therefore reserved for “womyn-born womyn.”
It is an indication of the transsexual movement’s power that an accurate label for its feminist opponents can become a powerful slur. Normally political slurs, especially slurs coined by the Left, are devised to conceal or distort the beliefs of the people they vilify. In this case, the slur TERF, though it describes succinctly a key belief of transsexualism’s feminist opponents, can nevertheless be wielded against them as a verbal weapon.
It is also an indication of transsexualism’s power that the opprobrium directed at TERFs is steadily flowing into “radical feminist.” Although “TERF” technically divides radical feminism into two categories, “TERF” and “radical feminist” are now becoming almost interchangeable. TERFs and radical feminists are both retrograde opponents of the steady advance of human rights. Not so long ago, “radical feminist” suggested cutting-edge modernity. It now suggests an older feminist standing athwart history and asking progress to stop.
Most non-Leftists have not yet heard of TERFs. That is not surprising, since TERFs and transsexuals both belong on the Left, and the slur itself is only about a decade old. The angry conflict between trans-exclusionary radical feminists and transsexual men is, however, much older.
An important moment in the history of TERFs occurred in 1973, decades before the label’s invention, at a gathering of the West Coast Lesbian Conference. The location was San Francisco. Well over a thousand women attended, along with at least one man.
Beth Elliott, a transsexual man who identified as a lesbian, had helped organize the conference and was scheduled to perform as a folk singer. Many of the assembled lesbians, especially an aggressive contingent calling itself the Gutter Dykes, did not believe that Beth Elliott was a woman. They organized a protest against him and threatened violence. He was eventually ejected.
The keynote speaker for the event, the radical feminist Robin Morgan, joined the attack. She revised the text of her speech to include criticisms of men like Elliott who invade female spaces: “In our mother’s names and in our own, we must not call him sister.”
In the conflict between TERFs and transsexuals, the cultural distance between 1973 and the present is surprisingly small. Not much has changed, except that the power balance has shifted drastically. TERFs and radical feminists (“radfems”) are now on the run, and transsexuals, mostly transsexual men, are pursuing them. If some TERFs want to get together to discuss their trans-exclusionary thoughts, and to convince others to share them, they must prepare for aggressive opposition. TERFs and Jared Taylor have that experience in common.
Robin Morgan favored Elliott’s exclusion from the lesbian conference not simply because he was born a man and had a male body, but because he belonged to a class of oppressors, and all women belonged to the class that men like Elliott oppressed:
I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman.”
This sentence must be understood literally. Inasmuch as a woman is still alive, she is a survivor. Radical feminists take this idea seriously.
“Woman” is not a category created by nature or biology. It does not denote a female essence or a collection of female body parts. It does not require or imply a distinctively female brain and typically feminine behavior. It is instead the name for the half of humanity that has survived oppression at the hands of the other half. Radical feminism’s vision of woman is strangely featureless. It is oppression and only oppression that makes a woman.
Members of the class woman are therefore right to hate their oppressors. Misandry is justified, Morgan argued in her speech, because “the oppressed have a right to a class hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
Since women are formed by the male oppression that they have suffered throughout their lives, a man who claims to be a woman, and tries to look and behave like a woman, is necessarily a female impersonator. Because he has not been shaped and contorted into womanhood, any female mannerisms he displays can only be affectations mimicking the “noxious femininity” with which patriarchy has disfigured members of the oppressed class woman.
With this set of ideas in mind, Morgan likened men claiming to be women to whites pretending to be black: “We know what’s at work when whites wear blackface; the same thing is at work when men wear drag.”
Those of us who, like the arch-TERF Janice Raymond, “don’t accept . . . that someone’s desire to be a woman, or a man, makes one a woman or man” should have no objection to the radfem conclusion Robin Morgan arrived at in 1973: men cannot become women, so a man who presents himself as a woman can never be more than a transvestite. The premise she relied on is, however, both radical and unhinged.
Radical feminists do not make the modest claim that men have been “unfair” to women. They make the radical claim that, long ago in the dark mists of pre-history, men shaped woman as a subjugated class, and ever since a female body, relentlessly patrolled and dominated by men, has been an unpleasant location for a human to inhabit. Females are relegated at birth to womanhood and must endure their sad lives trapped within it.
Transsexual men cannot become women because, as Raymond puts it, “these men have not had to live in a female body with all the history that entails.” Only a female-bodied person who feels her class subjugation can claim the title woman.
In part, transsexual men arouse the anger of TERFs because, by voluntarily attempting to assume womanhood, they put the lie to this preposterous tale. It is possible to convince the ignorant that, centuries ago, the lives of white women were filled with endless subordination and degradation. It is harder to convince anyone today that, in Andrea’s Dworkin’s words, modern Western women are confined “inside a system of humiliation from which there is no escape.” The real world is much different from the dark fantasies of radical feminism. Being a woman confers many benefits, and the desire of sexually confused men to become women provides a twisted confirmation of that fact.
Transsexual men also disturb TERFs because they value the sexual markers of womanhood, which feminism views as physical locations that patriarchy has demeaningly objectified and fetishized. For example, most men find women’s breasts sexually attractive. That male attraction to female bodies is based in men’s biology, and is therefore both natural and inevitable, is genuinely difficult for radfems to understand. For Raymond, “breasts and legs in our society are fetish objects containing the essence of femaleness.” Normal men want to possess and control them, whether by looking at images of them or by copulating with women, whereas transsexual men want to acquire them for their own bodies.
Transsexual men are therefore especially culpable. Their attempt to become women by acquiring fake breasts and (sometimes) fake vaginas indicates that they believe their new female sex markers are outward signs of an inner femininity. They believe that the femininity they feel within themselves must receive physical confirmation in the female body parts that patriarchy has fetishized.
From a TERF perspective, transsexual men are thieves of a male-manufactured womanhood: men not only constructed womanhood and debilitating femininity millennia ago; they now, through surgery and hormones, believe that they can steal this womanhood, as though it were an actual essence, and place it inside their own male bodies. Transsexual men are thus guilty, on many counts, of violating the class woman.
Out of this line of feminist reasoning came what is certainly the best-known sentence in the history of TERFism: “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves.” The author was Janice Raymond, whose Transsexual Empire appeared in 1979. She is the TERF that transsexuals hate the most.
Feminists often use “rape” as a metaphor for any male behavior they find objectionable. In 1973, radical feminists called Beth Elliott a rapist for what a press report described — no doubt correctly — as his failed attempt to seduce a lesbian. On the other hand, Raymond’s sentence, despite its feminist hyperbole, is both true and insightful.
Transsexualism assumes that each human has a fixed inner sex within a malleable physical body. A transsexual man’s malleable body can be shaped in order to match the permanent woman trapped within it. Each transsexual man can decide for himself how much shaping he wants to inflict on his body. Only he can judge how much outward feminizing his inner woman requires.
Most transsexual men — at least seventy percent — do not plan to acquire vaginas through surgery. This figure may overstate the number of transsexual men who will eventually mutilate their genitals in the hope that they can then pass as fully female. In any case, it is a certain fact that the majority of “transwomen” still have penises and testicles. Some psychiatrists plausibly claim that fear of castration is part of a boy’s growing awareness of his sex. By that standard, those transsexuals who choose to remain anatomically male are still psychologically masculine.
The decision of most transsexual men to retain their anatomical maleness is concealed by the deceptive language of transsexualism. If a transsexual man has facial electrolysis, or acquires artificial breasts, or has his penis and testicles mutilated, each of those transitioning acts can be called a “gender-affirming surgery” that makes his outward form more closely resemble the inner sex he feels. In fact, in the language of transsexualism and the medical system that serves it, men can transition into womanhood without any medical intervention whatever. Many transsexuals prefer the zero-surgery option, which can be done with or without hormones.
The difference between genital mutilation and no medical intervention of any sort is large in reality, but in the language of transsexualism each is only one choice among many. Transsexualism asks us to believe that a transsexual who merely dresses up as a woman is just as committed to realizing his inner womanhood as a transsexual who has his genitals removed. They are simply taking different routes to get to the same destination.
A sensible response to transsexuals would be that, since a person’s chromosomal sex cannot be changed, a sexually confused man should stick with the body he has and cope with his identity disorder from within it. Surgery, hormones, and wearing pink dresses cannot turn a man’s biological sex into a woman’s biological sex.
Back in 1979, Raymond recommended that transsexual men, since they could not physically escape their maleness, should remain within their own sexed bodies and should use their non-conformity to challenge constricting sex-roles. That, at least in part, is what many of them today are doing, though they are going much further than she intended.
An important cause for transsexual men is the redefinition of men’s bodies as potentially female. A penis is a female sexual organ, if the man it belongs to defines himself as a woman. If a man believes he has a woman lodged somewhere within his inner self, then his genitals, just like his eyes and his toes, must belong to his inner woman, and the old idea that women have vaginas must be revised to accommodate his peculiarity.
Since liberals have difficulty drawing lines between categories, just as they have difficulty recognizing borders between places, the transsexual belief that anatomical males can be authentic women has become a mainstream truth on the Left. Most feminists have capitulated, and only TERFs remain outside the current-year moral consensus.
The much-hated Janice Raymond now turns out to have been a gifted prophet. Forty years ago, she warned feminists that transsexual men sought to colonize women’s identities, and her infamous sentence warned that transsexualism threatened the integrity of female bodies. She argued that transsexual men saw women as collections of fetishized items, which they wished to acquire for themselves, as though distinctively female physical features were no different from man-made feminine accoutrements, like cosmetics and jewelry.
A self-identified “transwoman” who acquires a woman’s breasts through surgery, but declines to remove his penis, is surely treating womanhood as a collection of separate physical objects, each somehow containing a female essence, the possession of which helps affirm his feeling of femininity. He plunders this womanhood for the parts he likes and ignores the others.
Among transsexual men such selective plundering is the norm, and the body that results from it purportedly belongs to a woman. The real female form has been redefined by transsexualism to include not only artifactual imitations of it, but also male-female composites that do not even claim that the integral whole is their model.
At the lesbian conference in 1973, Robin Morgan presented herself as a Jewish mother working to bring calm to the fractious family of women who had come together in San Francisco. Radical feminists like Morgan should be seen as the ideological mothers of today’s transsexuals. More than any other group within second-wave feminism, they denied the significance of sexual differences. They thereby helped clear a space for confused men and women to engage in the doomed experiment of changing sexes.
If, as radical feminists believe, men and women belong to separate classes, and not to discrete biological sexes, then the physical features that distinguish women from men can only carry political information. They tell you who is being subjugated and who is doing the subjugating.
In the future that feminism strives for, they will become even less significant. According to the radical feminist Shulamith Firestone, “the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself.” If this goal were ever reached, physical differences between men and women would become culturally meaningless. For radical feminists, behavioral sex differences in humans are neither natural nor inevitable, and feminism will eventually make them disappear.
Since radical feminism denies the significance of sex differences, and sees “biological determinism” as its greatest enemy, it is poorly positioned to explain why the physical markers of the opposite sex should be not be available to any man who wants to acquire them, and why a man who has acquired manufactured replicas of them should not be permitted to join the sex he chooses.
Transsexuals are only taking radical feminism’s rejection of biology to their own preferred conclusion. Radfems helped deprive womanhood of much of its content, and a small band of transsexual men have now stepped forward to place their own meanings within it.
26 comments
What I’m curious about is, how does anyone become this insane?
I think that is the most important question here. There is something dark and insidious about all this. There is a book called “A Natural History of Rape” where the authors make the case that sexual coercion, rape, is an evolved tendency among many species. It actually makes perfect sense when you think about. At one point in the book, they talk about certain male insects and their attempts to overcome the females attempts to thwart forced mating. To resolve this, the males can give off a scent like a female, or actually adjust their appearance in some cases to look like a female. At this point they can find a way to trick the female into mating or get past their defenses some how.
I though of this tranny movement when I read that, because I don’t have any better explanation. No think sexual hedonism has a lot to do with it. The Bible’s Soddom and Gommorah story indicates an anything goes, permissive society can deteriorate into the current state of the West. But I think something more primal is at work. Sorry if what I have written is not clear.
Regarding TERFs and trannies, to steal Henry Kissinger on the war between Saddam and Khomeini: It’s a shame they can’t both lose!
These groups deserve each other. I hope they both waste tremendous resources fighting it out.
I’ve been following this controversy for a long time; years ago I read the ‘The Transexual Empire’ and I’ve read the recantations and disavowals of those pathetic castratos, who had the chop job and only found regret and broken dreams in “womanhood”—-and there are many.
Recently no less a giantess and icon of Second Wave Feminism than Germaine Greer was deplatformed, ostracised and will soon become a none person because of the TERF war. She is, as Obongo would say, ‘on the wrong side of history’. The Left cannot backtrack on ‘the 67 genders’ and the dogma of ‘biology is not destiny’ because this would loosen the stone upon which the entire shit house is built: ‘race is only a social construct’ (racial equality and multiculturalism). Yu can’t doo dat. The TERFs indirectly threaten the very foundation of GloboHomo.
This article accurately depicts tension between TERFs and trans people, as well as the anti-biology and commodity culture which causes all this.
It’s a confusing read though. “Transsexual men” refers to biological women who identify as men. “Transsexual women” refers to biological men who identify as women. The author seems to have swapped the standard usage.
I’m guessing this was an attempt to subvert the language of trans theory, but it just comes across as jumbled and uninformed in my view. There have to be more coherent ways to refer to trans women without adopting the language of the trans community, if that’s what you’re going for.
It’s a confusing read though.
That you find “transwomen” easier to understand than “transsexual men” is an indication of how our concepts have been distorted.
In the saner past, “male transsexual” meant a boy born male, and identified as male by his family, who comes to believe that he is female. My usage is consistent with how psychologists formerly thought about transsexuals.
Since I do not believe that men can become women, or vice versa, “transsexual man” is the logical choice to describe a male transsexual — that is, a man who believes he is really a woman.
“Transwoman” should be unacceptable to anyone writing critically about transsexualism, since it has become a verbal concession that an impossible transformation has repeatedly occurred.
What psychologists used the term “male transsexual” in that way, and in what era? It’s not something I’d heard of.
What psychologists used the term “male transsexual” in that way, and in what era?
It was the common way of describing men who believe they are women at least until the 1980s.
I have _The Sexual Experience_ (1976), which was based on the _Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry – II_ and assembled by its editors.
In the entry for “Transsexualism,” the definition reads as follows:
A sexual deviation in which a person shows a desire to change his sex. Some male transsexuals, many of whom have adopted the role of a female since childhood, have undergone sex-changing surgical procedures, accompanied by intensive hormonal therapy and psychotherapy, in order to live as women.
This definition was probably written by Robert Stoller, who wrote the chapter on Sexual Identity, which also uses “male transsexual” as I described it above. In Stoller’s usage “female transsexuals,” similarly, refers to women, not men.
It is worth noting that an authoritative source in 1976 did not describe a man who had a sex-changing procedure as a woman. Instead, the procedure made it easier for a man to live as a woman, because he, as a result of his operation, now more closely resembled a woman than he did before.
When Janice Raymond discussed “male transsexualism” in her book, she meant men who think they are women, not women who think they are men. Her language was no different from the language of mainstream psychology and psychiatry at the time of her book’s publication.
Because she wanted to emphasize the impossibility and artificiality of sex changes, she came up with the unwieldy term “male-to-constructed female transsexuals” to refer to men who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery. She properly refused to describe men and women who subject themselves to sex-change operations by the sex that they wanted to become. What someone yearns for does not determine what he actually is.
Here’s a sentence, selected almost at random, from Raymond’s book:
… male transsexualism may well be a graphic expression of the destruction that sex-role molding has wrought on men.
I don’t agree with that sentence, but I have no difficulty understanding what the author is saying. On the other hand, someone who has internalized the worthless transsexual ideology of recent decades will find it confusing that by “male” Raymond means men.
That’s odd, in my opinion.
There have to be more coherent ways to refer to trans women…
A bit more on Kelsey Blain’s complaint, though I know I’m preaching to the choir…
While researching this subject, I came across an account by a young lesbian who formerly identified as a “transman.” She was put on hormone treatments at 16 and had her breasts surgically removed at 17. She “cackled” with glee when her physician told her that her breasts would be incinerated as medical waste, since she believed herself to be a man and wanted rid of anything that suggested otherwise.
Three years later, she realized that she is not a man and is now identifying as female again, minus her breasts.
While she still had her breasts, they were of interest to the “transwomen” with whom she interacted in the online transsexual community:
… two different transwomen I knew had pressured me into sending nude photos of my breasts to them. I messaged them first, as a 16 year old, after seeing them repeatedly posting about being horny and suicidal, and how only nudes would make them feel any better.
https://4thwavenow.com/2016/04/27/shrinking-to-survive-a-former-trans-man-reports-on-life-inside-queer-youth-culture/
It must now be the least of her problems that pictures of her breasts are likely still on the hard-drive of a horny and allegedly suicidal “transwoman.”
What language – which nouns and which pronouns – should we use to describe this event?
In the language of the transsexual movement, the event occurred as follows: “a transwoman talked a teenaged transman into sending her photos of his breasts.”
My sentence would be, “a transsexual man talked a transsexual teenaged girl into sending him photos of her breasts.”
It is possible that the first sentence could be understood by someone who has immersed himself in the world of transgenderism, but only the second sentence tells us what actually happened and why it happened. “Transwoman” and “transman” obscure rather than clarify.
Culturally, we are at the point where the only two groups of people who can be relied on to understand an event like this, and to describe it accurately, are TERFs and right-wing men. They are also the only two groups that uniformly understand that it is unwise to send anatomically male “transwomen” to women’s prisons or into women’s restrooms.
Just to play devil’s advocate with this macabre story: Let’s say a teenage biological male underwent surgical transition and developed breasts, then was then guilted into sending photos of them to an older biological female who had also undergone surgical transition.
The sentence in general trans language would then read: “A transman talked a teenage transwoman into sending him photos of her breasts.”
In your language it would read as: “A transsexual woman talked a teenaged transsexual man into sending her photos of his breasts.”
The language is confusing in both sentences, but I suspect a lot of people might have an easier time of understanding the former in this example.
I think that if you’re making an argument for using language in a certain way, the stronger argument is based moreso on how the language will affect people’s behavior and self-image in society, rather than what’s more easily comprehensible, because it’s fairly confusing to understand all this either way.
Many years ago I was the director of a non-profit with a lot of lesbians working for it, and one of the newer staff was an MTF transexual. The wymyn decided to have a wymyn’s staff meeting once a month. And the MTF showed up.
The wymyn came to me, the White Male Authority, to demand that I exclude “her.” In those days, the Party Line Orthodoxy was that only a “born-woman” was real. How times, and Party Lines, have changed.
Anyway, I demurred, on the grounds that it would be inappropriate, at the least, for someone of my race and gender to dictate the membership requirements of a group of wymyn and that they’d have to work that out among themselves, as empowered wymyn.
I enjoyed that.
The most interesting aspect to me about this TERF war is how the left power structure comes down on the side of trannies at the expense of feminists and does so reflexively. Why? Look how queered women’s competition sports is as a result. If is entertaining to watch, if not much else is.
The most interesting aspect to me about this TERF war is how the left power structure comes down on the side of trannies at the expense of feminists and does so reflexively.
I find this weird too.
I think that what Pierce called the System has a bias against anyone protecting borders of any sort. So feminists who defend “woman” as a category, no matter how stupidly they do it, become enemies. Anyone speaking, as Raymond does, of “the real female form” risks being labeled hateful.
The idea that TERFs are fascists is common among transsexuals, and since they define these feminist women as fascists, violence against them is defensible.
Another view might be that the System, rather than actually being ‘leftist’, is ultra-liberal. There’s a difference.
The contemporary left would likely accept that women have been historically disadvantaged compared to men. The contemporary left is also keen to protect the identity of what it sees as disadvantaged groups. See, for example, the stringent rules about who qualifies as Aboriginal in Australia. This is a sore point for many on the Trot/liberal left. When whites criticise light skinned Australians for claiming Aboriginality, the Trot left will howl them down as racists. However, the left – and Aboriginal lobby groups themselves – maintain strict criteria (genetic and cultural) about who can legitimately be considered Aboriginal:
http://www.antidiscrimination.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/adb1_community/adb1_aboriginal/adb1_aboriginalitycert.aspx
In this way, the disadvantaged status of Aboriginal people is guarded from interlopers in the same way that these so-called TERF’s guard womanhood.
By contrast, the socially ultra-liberal (and not really left) System cares less about disadvantage than it does about exclusion. TERF’s exclude trannies. Nationalists exclude other nationalities. We’re all mean bigots standing in the way of a globalised utopia where there are no exclusive communities, just happy consumers. This is also why the System often incorporates economic policies that create disadvantage. As long as no one’s excluded from a community – or any community – pandering to capitalism’s desire for austerity economics is fine. Who cares if no one’s had a pay rise in 15 years, as long as lesbian women of colour can shop without feeling uncomfortable?
At the risk of sounding pedantic, I get frustrated by the loose use of ‘leftist’ and ‘the left’ as terms for ideas or positions that aren’t anything to do with the traditional (and woefully inadequate) left/right political axis. It’s a lazy generalisation that leads to misunderstanding the nature of the System and – as such – what we should do in response to it.
.
Bullseye nineofclubs!
Thanks A.M. Great to see people still reading the older articles. I do so myself, often going back to pieces by Kerry Bolton, Michael Walker and James O’Meara for that bit of extra inspiration.
I question to what extent liberals and leftists can really be disaggregated. But from the perspective of the most important question facing Occidentalists at this time – does this group or that policy aid or harm white genetic interests? – both liberals and leftists are enemies of Euroman, and so minute exercises in ideologically discriminating between them are largely irrelevant.
If I’m certain of one political thing, it is this: white preservation is a value and ideology of the Right, not Left.
According to irreversible genetic determination of the sexes, a close analysis demonstrates that human civilization is a male construct evolved from the dominance hierarchy caused by testosterone. A single male cannot create a civilization but a group of males, in close association, cooperation and focussed aggression, a mannerbund, is the historic foundation of human civilization. It is male aggression, via mannerbund, that territory is staked out, protected and expanded. The male and female sexes are meant to enable the reproduction of the species under control of men. Via genetic determination, the male stakes out a territory, admits a female, produces offspring then defends and expands that territory in order to fulfill his natural order proclivity for reproduction and expression of creative potential.
It is the male, by way of testosterone, who goes out into the world and, through domination of resources, garners the materials to form a nest for his woman. It is the woman who accepts the resources provided by her husband and applies them to maintaining the nest. Without men, women are incapable of building civilization, nests or maintaining them for the purpose of reproduction. The female is a resource to be applied by the male for the creation and maintenance of civilization. The male is dominant, the female is submissive. It therefore behooves men to treat the absolutely essential female resource with whatever is necessary to facilitate the creation and maintenance of an ideal civilization.
Based on this, the current cultural disease of feminism is a mental illness that threatens to destroy the civilization created by men. It is furthermore concluded that the cultural disease and mental illness of feminism is also a male construct. Men have allowed this condition to take seed and flourish.
Instead of whining and complaining about male oppression, feminists are invited herewith to go out into the world, and through aggression, stake out a territory populated only by women. In that Land of Females, they are free to engage in agriculture, manufacture, construction, arts, sciences, and all other forms of creative expression issuing from female physicality, intelligence and psychology. All of this shall be accomplished without the presence or support of men. In the absence of men, feminists will no longer be able to play the victim card nor will there be any men to oppress them. The scientists of the Land of Females can then utilize their vast technological resources, coming from female only enterprise, to devise a means by which one egg may fertilize another egg and miraculously give birth to a human child. If that is not possible, the Land of Females will last only one generation.
The disease and mental illness of feminism will continue to plague humanity until men awaken to the fact they have created this mess and it is they only who can bring the female resource back into its natural order primary function of nesting. When this has been accomplished, the mannerbund may then resume its unfettered project of creating and maintaining an ideal civilization. Therefore, the first step is to create mannerbund culture as the primary objective and, in doing so, set aside all secondary distractions, such as polemics and armchair speculation.
A brilliant comment. You should be regularly writing here at CC.
That said, I think patriarchal civilization will, and will only, be recreated once feminist-weakened contemporary nations have either a) internally decayed into such disorder that “strong men” are able and needed to take back control so as to reassert that public order without which technological society collapses and mass death results; b) been imperialistically conquered by other, still-patriarchal and thus stronger nations; or c) fissiparated into ideologically diverse parts, one or more of which could be expected to draw in those – male and female – who individually prefer to live in traditional (patriarchal) ways. I’ve known many women over the decades who’s main life goal was to be a good wife and mother, and who either didn’t/don’t work (outside the home), or wish they didn’t have to. Some women love the “freedom” and “rights” feminism has won them, but others, differently psychically constituted, don’t.
IOWs, hardcore feminists are not going to be rationally persuaded to give up their juridico-political gains. They will have to lose them, either through internal or foreign conquest, or via an internal collapse following national breakups and the mass separation and emigration of the truly necessary elements of society.
Modern feminism – indeed, modern liberalism – only survives because it parasites off of the skills, discipline, and attitudes of still present if disempowered traditional social elements. Remove those “trad values” people – those who defend property, support policing and punishment, insist on guarded boarders, and at least themselves continue to exhibit and uphold normal families and social relations – and the all-progressive society would fairly rapidly disintegrate or be overrun.
As a “Heathen” who accepts reincarnation as a working hypothesis of what happens after one’s death, I would suggest that such dysphoriacs take their subsequent re-births as biological (XX) females.
This absolute lunacy is what comes of allowing the “LGBTQ+” community any rights other than not being tossed in jail or mental institutions for their degenerate practices. Give these freaks an inch and they take…over the Western World.
That is correct. The (paleo)libertarian offer to the queer community – “stay in your closets, and you may practice your perversions in peace” – is absolutely the most that white and Western preservationists can ever allow. The public squares of our civilization must be recolonized exclusively by heteronormativist heterosexuals.
William Jennings Bryant warned US.
Quite a deep dive into realms of absurdity. Our Lysenko Left will next claim that the Earth going around the Sun is just a social construct.
Thank you to Irmin Vinson. This was a very informative article on a subject about which I would otherwise know nearly nothing, given my non-interest in all things “queer”, as well as my strong emphasis on RACE as the real issue facing the West. Everything we hate is being empowered by the multiracialization of the West. Once the white man has become racially strong again, the rest of the Culture War will get resolved quickly and easily.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment