Matt Walsh, a Just for Men Beard model in another life who in this life serves as a normie conservative commentator, recently debated a person resembling a sideshow bearded lady on Dr. Phil as to what it means to be a woman and what gender means generally. Theater for normies doesn’t interest me. I have had the same views on gender for a while, but nevertheless the debate was thought-provoking to the extent of moving what thoughts I had into something that could become an article.
Walsh is a smart guy who boils things down simply to appease a normie-IQ audience rife with faces of many races. Fortunately, in writing for Counter-Currents, I’m not required to dumb things down for normies nor appeal to non-whites, so I can offer a perspective that is more truthful.
The first thing that I would note is that most of the biomass on Earth reproduces in binary manner. Call this binary manner what you will, but there is no doubt that it’s binary. A lot of people like to say that an XX chromosome makes one a female and an XY chromosome makes one a male, and while this may be true in the human species, other species use different chromosomal methods to enforce the binary system of gender. The key is that it must be binary.
The binary system wouldn’t work, however, if each participant in the binary paradigm reproduced equally. The only way this could happen is if each organism lived in the exact same environment and had the exact same genes, which is not possible. The reason some reproduce better than others is that they are better attuned to their environment. Because, of course, environments change, there is a low level of mutations that are necessary to help organisms adapt to environmental change, but because environmental change is slow, most mutations are a hindrance to the organism surviving.
Humans, and I imagine most species, reproduce the best, excluding the randomness of environmental factors, if they are representative of their species’ norm. In other words, they have an average size, average balance of facial structures, and average behavior pattern. In humans, this means people with average-looking faces (not average in terms of attractiveness but in terms of where their facial features appear), tend to be rated the most attractive by the greatest number of people, and hence have the greatest ease – all other things being equal — in finding a mate. But of course behavior matters almost as much. An attractive person who is crazy, malevolent, or suffers another character flaw will have trouble retaining a mate, but those who have behaviors closer to the norm will not experience this difficulty.
Traits may sometimes accelerate reproduction in the first generation, but hinder it in the second. For example, one study in Africa shows that neurotic women had more children. One might think that because women are more neurotic on average, it is a limitlessly desirable trait among them. However, the children of these neurotic women themselves did not fare so well as children of women having average levels of neuroticism. Thus, the golden mean of average neuroticism levels best perpetuated a woman’s genes through future generations in the long run. In the short run, which in nature is at least the next several dozen generations, the golden mean usually prevails.
There is a sexual dialectic between men and women where women exchange neuroticism for men’s extroversion. You see this manifest in a character like Mooji, an African-American Hindu-esque guru of sorts who always is very chill and happy (both facets of extroversion), and women with funny accents are always telling him about their insecurities and neurotic emotions, to which he replies in his own extroverted ones. Hence, the damsel in distress is rescued by the gentlemen (extroverted man). In the case of Mooji, it is a kind of a non-sexual (one would hope) generalized expression of this, but it is something that seems to pervade the human species. But for every neurotic woman who has more kids, neurotic men have fewer.
Extroverted men have always had more children, so one must wonder why we aren’t all extroverted. Some see it as a side-effect of good health, but there are genes associated with it. The thing is that having those genes which facilitate sexual success tends to permit a slackening of desirable genes in other areas if there is an excess, and perhaps this is why the children of highly extroverted men, though they have more of them, don’t fare as well. It seems that as much in the case of extroversion as any other trait, there is a golden mean — a wellspring, if you will, from which nature plucks the best.
It isn’t as though genetic entrepreneurs on the fringes cannot contribute, however. There is a reduced feedback, one would assume, from the fringes of the genome, usually centering on fewer genes overall, but highly desirable ones, such as those enhancing whatever traits the environment selects. It therefore seems those who do not embody the golden mean in every feature have something to contribute to the species.
One thing which transgender advocates like to bring up is that some men and women can’t procreate, so should their status as men and women be revoked? The effective reproductive rate for many men and women who procreate and have kids may also be zero, however, because their kids may not go on to procreate if we trace their lineage down through enough generations. Die-offs are part of the binary system, so being a male or female who ultimately is the end of a genetic line doesn’t put one outside of that system. The reason we categorize people as male and female is that we don’t have perfect knowledge of the future and whether, or to what extent, they will end up contributing to future generations, so we make a guess. Most of the time, this is based on the person having male or female genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics.
If people conform to the binary system of gender, they have a better chance of passing their genes on than if they embrace the degrees to which they do not conform. In this sense, being transgender is maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective.
What I found funny about the Matt Walsh debate was when he mentioned the hypothetical circumstance of a male child approaching his parents and declaring he is a girl. Walsh stated that in such a case, it may just a linguistically-frustrated young boy’s way of saying he wanted to act like a girl in a particular manner, such as playing with dolls. I couldn’t help but imagine a mind-numbed parent overreacting to a child being silly in such a way by parading the poor kid around as a transsexual, telling him to act more convincingly like the opposite sex and destroying his reproductive potential by subjecting him to hormone treatments. One feels bad for the child, of course, but it is hard not to chuckle at the parent’s foolishness. Demented parental behavior among humans and other animals can ruin an otherwise successful creature’s reproductive hopes.
To some extent this is an illustration that parental investment and proper instincts play a crucial role in the ability to pass on one’s genes. If one lacks instincts, sells out to a transgender fad, and destroys his child’s reproductive potential, the parent would win a Darwin Award — which is typically awarded to someone who does something stupid and dies as a result of it, but if one does something reproductively lethal to one’s child, then they deserve a Darwin Award by proxy. A good parent who positions their child financially, vocationally, and behaviorally for maximal reproductive success with the opposite sex can pass on their genes by proxy. This is an attribute of sex that it seems is lacking in the transgender conception of it. They look only at an individual, but not the role that parents may play in helping the individual — or hurting them, for that matter.
Dr. Ed Dutton tells us that conservatives like Matt Walsh tend to value their family most, their friends second, their religion third, their nation fourth, and their civilization fifth — or some sort of hierarchy like that. Dutton also tells us that Leftists invert this hierarchy and care most about what people who are different from them (rich Jews, non-whites, etc.) think, and lastly about that their family thinks — and it seems these are the sorts most willing to sacrifice their children on the altar of Ba’al — or Ball-less.
The question is whether this is always bad. In the Bible, God asks Abraham to slay his son Isaac, but rescinds his demand after determining that Abraham was fully prepared to obey him. There are thousands of moral theologians who could evaluate this incident better than I could, of course, but it seems that one interpretation of it is that sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice one’s own for a greater good — if the stakes are high enough, that is. This seems obvious, but it may be a derivative value rather than a discerning of what the authors of the text truly intended.
One may suppose that the practice among Irish Catholics of sending one of their children to become a celibate priest or nun was perhaps a costly signal of sorts of their fitness to be able to have so many kids, but also to show commitments to the greater good as they understood it. Many bemoan this practice as dysgenic, supposing that the children were smarter and could have passed on the genes for intelligence, but it may have also functioned in the opposite direction if they were committing individuals of lower mental function. There is also obviously a question as to how compulsory these arrangements were, as cases of compulsory celibacy offend modern humanitarian sensibilities.
The practice of sending one of one’s own to the priesthood, however, seems to be completely different from altering a child’s sex hormones. It is more of a display of spiritual commitment and willpower than one of a freakish fleshly modification. Transgenderism is a kind of low spirituality perhaps more common among primitive peoples. American Indians had tansgenderish shamans, for example.
I’m fully aware of French New Right thinker Alain de Benoist’s critique of Christianity playing a role in desacralizing nature, which he views as a step in Westerners’ loss of their sense of rootedness, but not all attempts to reground our sense of meaning in matter are good. It’s hard to imagine transgenderism as somehow re-rooting us. I’m sure he opposes transgenderism, but Platonic/Christian spirituality is not as alienating as transgenderism. Resacralizing the world, if that is a positive goal, is a very difficult task, but not all of the attempts we see today are preferable to the Christian past.
There is no doubt that transgenderism is a kind of spiritualized experience for its participants, and is an abstract empathizing opportunity for those who witness it, so it is a kind of sacred pursuit for some. Keith Woods regards transgenderism as part of transhumanism, which he sees as a sort of emerging religion. To me, it seems to reimagine reality as its appearance alone, and renders all appearances a consumer choice. It’s both superficial and fluid rather than deep and eternal, and it seems to be a side-effect of a consumer economy, gratifying to the stupidest of people. It’s probably also an effect of long-term individual choice in marriages and the suspension of parental involvement in arranged marriages, which had been the norm among most of humanity in previous ages. In a sexually free society, obviously people would need to focus more on their sexual natures to reproduce, because the social system wouldn’t be buttressing those who didn’t. It’s possible that this has selected for an increased degree of autosomal DNA which enhances sexual fitness in one gender but not in the other, and thus is more likely to be strongly mismatched with the person’s sex chromosomes. This may play a role in some of them wanting to be transgender, but indulging in this genetic weakness, if you will, would not be justified any more than indulging in any other genetic weakness, particularly one so strongly associated with suicide as transgenderism.
Those who seek to glorify cutting themselves off — and parts of themselves off — think they are overcoming the cosmic order, but in truth they are merely making a lot of noise as the cosmic order, and by extension the golden mean (plus some adaptive steerage and beneficial mutations), persists. While nature’s path may be a little different lately because of lower child mortality rates enabling more people to pass on their genes who wouldn’t have in previous ages, and thus spawn more of what Michael Woodley or Ed Dutton would call “spiteful mutants” who spread maladaptive behaviors in the form of ideologies, these ideologies may remove the sorts of people from the population who would have perished in the past due to their subpar genetic allotments.
Mocking transgender people seems to be a low thing to do, especially of those who are not public figures and who are not trying to promote the lifestyle. They are already hurting themselves, and we shouldn’t add to their misery. Nevertheless, we should instruct young people to reject the trans lifestyle and to be brave in speaking out against its promotion. Unfortunately, powerful institutions, including the public schools, corporations, and the government seem to be unanimous in supporting this fad, and many of us depend on them. Some are forced to remain anonymous to protect their livelihoods and families, but we should reward those who are brave enough to take a public stand with our money so that they can continue fighting the good fight on our behalf.
But in the end, my takeaway from the debate between Matt Walsh and the bearded lady is that Walsh had the better beard.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Ich Klage an: Pro-Genocide Nazi Propaganda or Humanitarian Masterpiece? Part 1
Toward a New Spiritual Revolution
The Fear of Writing
Jonathan Bowden’s The Cultured Thug
David Zsutty Introduces the Homeland Institute: Transcript
“A Few More Steps and We Were . . . On Some Edge of Things”: Staircases That Lead Nowhere, Part 2
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 561: An All-Star Thanksgiving Weekend Special
Used to Be a Bad Guy: Carlito’s Way at 30