Leaping into Delusion, Death, & Personal Destruction
The Price of Tolerating Transgenderism

3,151 words

Soon after the Superman movie was released in 1978, a small boy named Charles Green, after having watched this film, convinced himself that he, too, could fly like Superman. After having attempted to fly by jumping off tables and whatnot, at one point he went to a window in the multi-story apartment building in which he and his family lived and, on the strength of this deluded belief, leapt out the window, falling to his death. Over the years, there have been several such instances, including this death in 2001.

It is unclear how often children entertain such an idea, and more particularly how many merely test the theory by jumping from a desk, table, a jungle gym at a school yard, and so on, where the inevitable fall is not fatal or serious. Doubtless many small children must imagine the possibility, only to be dutifully corrected by responsible, loving parents or family members. A child who tests the theory by jumping off a jungle gym arguably does not truly believe he can fly like Superman and, although limited by the reasoning and cognitive abilities of a child, correctly hedges his bets by making the attempt at a more or less safe height, where the cost of such folly is a scraped knee or at worst a broken bone.

Notwithstanding these caveats, the stories of children who, after having watched any of the Superman movies, jumped to their deaths on the ludicrous, deadly belief that they can fly are instructive as to the true nature of the transgender menace that has gripped society and more particularly instructive as to those adults, whether parents or teachers, who preach the tenets of transgender ideology to children, or to anyone. This is particularly so given that some parents have “transitioned” children as young as four, as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) materials have been leaked urging transition as young as three. Comparing and contrasting this “Superman delusion” with transgender ideology further informs just how tepid and inadequate mainstream establishment conservatism has been in response. By failing to call for absolute and uncompromising intolerance of the utter madness and delusion that it is, mainstream conservatism has failed to offer any meaningful resistance to this menace, as it always fails in relation to any topic of importance.

First, one must consider how closely the tenets of transgenderism resemble the deadly delusion that would compel children to leap to their death under the insane delusion they could fly like Superman. Despite the adamant insistence to the contrary by the advocates of this sick ideology, transgenderism is no less fantastical. Either belief should be regarded as no less insane than the ramblings of an acute paranoid schizophrenic who believes he is being hunted by agents who can physically leap through a television screen. No person can change sex or gender, and the consequences of being deluded into such an insane belief are as wide-ranging as they are disastrous, both for that individual who comes to identify as transgender and society at large.

You can buy Jonathan Bowden’s collection The Cultured Thug here.

All of this is self-evident, and yet mainstream conservative types hem and haw as they equivocate at the prospect of embracing a more enlightened position of uncompromising intolerance. Many such mealy-mouthed conservative types limit their opposition to transgenderism not as it relates to children and minors, but as it relates merely to the prospect of administering puberty blockers, mastectomies on young girls, and other horrid manifestations of so-called “gender affirming care” to children and minors. They balk at the prospect that child protective services should remove children from parents who inculcate their children with transgender ideology, even as our ideological enemies have no qualms about removing children from parents who seek to protect them from such harmful beliefs and ideas. And once someone turns 18, these people think such deluded individuals should have free rein to destroy their bodies by way of so-called “gender affirming care.”

First and foremost — among a wide range of horrible maladies and outcomes resulting from transgender delusion — is the astronomically high rate of suicide ideation and deaths by suicide. 41% has become an internet meme, signifying the suicide rate of so-called “transgender people,” with some reports indicating that the suicide ideation rate is higher. Advocates for transgenderism will insist this is because society does not accept their insane delusions. To the contrary, with very rare exceptions,[1] transgenderism is a craze, a social contagion that would be nearly non-existent if this ideology was not circulated in our cultural milieu, to the extent one can claim we have any culture at all. This is evidenced by how rare of a phenomenon transgenderism was before those advocating for it infected public discourse. The recent Cass Report has demonstrated that much of what has been touted about so-called transgender youth has very little basis in fact, as many countries have implemented important reforms scaling back such life ruination, although no governing authority has gone nearly far enough. In addition, there is also at least one study showing that the vast majority eventually desist from this delusion despite the social contagion or craze aspect that has given risen to such a sharp rise in young people entertaining it.

The high propensity for suicide is just the beginning of a wide range of life-ruining maladies that transgenderism inflicts on those who embrace it. So-called gender affirming care runs a gambit of assorted mutilations of the body and the genitals particularly. For women and young girls, these range from mastectomies to the surgical procedures that create a so-called neo-penis, known as phalloplasty and metoidioplasty. A so-called vaginoplasty for men is no less a horror. Euphemistically referred to as “complications,” the true horrors associated with these barbaric procedures are many and are well documented in trans-skeptical websites and media.

The Internet is rife with tales and accounts of “transgender people” being frustrated at the nearly universal rate of romantic or sexual rejection they invariably face from normal people. This nigh-universal rejection is an invariable consequence from what an abhorrent affront transgenderism is to human sexuality and, indeed, the mammalian essence. A transgender “woman” — i.e., a man pretending to be a woman — either has the penis and testicles he was born with, or a so-called neo-vagina. To any such person who even entertains such folly that a “transgender woman” is a woman for the purposes of sexual relations or otherwise, this harrowing account should offer a word of caution:

A harrowing account of a gullible young man who fell for the whole “trans women are women,” doubtlessly this arose in part out of desperation to seem tolerant. These sorts of accounts, as disturbing and revolting as they are, must be disseminated widely in order to disrupt the insidious message of transgender ideology more effectively.

This account is in fact somewhat benign in comparison to even worse horror stories. The odor described as if it were from a “permanent case of bacterial vaginosis” is obviously the distinct smell of excrement that is often associated with the “neo-vagina,” hence its moniker as a “stink ditch” in Internet parlance.

Very simply put, straight men and lesbian or bisexual women want actual women, with a woman’s body and biology, including female pheromones, women’s breasts, woman’s hips, as well as a fully-functioning vagina and uterus. The simple juxtaposition of a Penthouse centerfold from back in the day, or any image of an attractive nude woman, with any image of a troon, especially one depicting what is between that individual’s legs, demonstrates this is irrefutably so.

Similar considerations apply to so-called female-to-male transgenders, or “pooners,” as they are known in Internet parlance. Whether endowed with the vagina that God or the universe gave them, or a “rot dog,” the same considerations apply. Gay men and heterosexual women alike desire other men — not women pretending to be men, but men — endowed with an actual functioning penis, the broader shoulders, generally greater height, and denser skeletal frame of a man, not women who have mutilated themselves with mastectomies and sparse beards that beget acne and ingrown hairs because the facial pores in women’s skin are not designed for facial hair, as well as a “bonus hole” or rot dog between their legs, among so many other grotesque horrors too numerous to enumerate fully.

These and other such life ruinations seem nearly as inevitable as the death or serious bodily injury that follows if one acts on the mistaken belief he can fly like Superman. So why do so many milquetoast, mainstream conservatives balk at the suggestion of acting on this assessment? Whereas no one would balk at the prospect of taking a child away from a parent who encouraged the deadly belief that his child could fly like Superman, few regard teaching children transgenderism as the child abuse it unquestionably is. Why do they not see that the deluded belief that one can change sex — or gender[2] — is very much the same sort of insane delusion?

Many of the horrors associated with transgenderism are immediately apparent, although there is a gradual timeline from the onset of this manic social contagion to when any such doomed soul crosses any number of the “points of no return” offered by so-called transgender care. Those points of no return include genital mutilation, mastectomies, removal of ovaries to destroy the female body’s ability to menstruate, and permanent damage from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and puberty blockers, among other things. Images associated with these horrors should convince anyone to embrace a more enlightened view of intolerance and that authoritarian ethos that implores us to act on moral conviction when the political power to do so has been obtained.

Even so, the timeline between the onset of transgender delirium and that period when irreparable damage is done is a somewhat long, attenuated one, and thus different in that respect as compared to a child’s belief that he can fly. Similarly. the process by which a victim of transgenderism decides either to detransition as best one can in the face of irreversible bodily damage or commit suicide can be many years, whereas the time between the decision to jump out a window under the “Superman delusion,” and the most likely fatal consequence, is instantaneous. Stated another way, transgenderism has a delay of months or more likely years between the moment a body has been destroyed and the moment the victim has that epiphany that a terrible, life-ruining mistake has been made, whereas there is no delay between the injury and death and any such cognitive understanding thereof when an individual leaps to his death. This could be a big part of the problem as to why many confuse themselves on this matter, but it really should not be such an intellectual stumbling block for any clear-thinking person.

Just because there is a delay of months or years between embracing transgender lunacy and both reaping such a bitter harvest that invariably results and discerning such disaster correctly should in no way cloud anyone’s judgment on the peril that transgenderism — as an idea, such as it is — presents to the individual and society.

A horrific juxtaposition of a young woman before the onset of transgender social contagion and after. It is not so much that the dire consequences of transgender lunacy are delayed, although the process of using HRT and puberty blockers is gradual but persistent. The disastrous effect of a mastectomy, seen above, is instantaneous. However, unlike the victim of the Superman delusion, the realization that this madness is life-ruining can be delayed by months or years, if that realization ever takes hold. Such is the fervor that can overtake those who succumb to such delusion.

For illustrative purposes, let us liken the differences between the error of jumping out a window under the suicidal delusion that one can fly and the latent effect of the dire consequences of transgenderism with two poison pills or “candies”: the first pill, or “candy,” representing the Superman delusion, kills or seriously maims 100% of the time and does so more or less instantly; and the other, the “transgender” one, afflicts any person who consumes it with a suicide ideation rate of about 50% some time down the line, along with the parade of horrors listed above. No sane person would suggest that the first pill should be banned while the other should be tolerated, and yet this is precisely what we see on mainstream conservative platforms. The resolution and will — the will! — to take action against the second “candy” becomes even clearer when one merely considers that those monied interests which stand to profit off the consumption of such an insidious product are promoting it, as so-called transgender clinics and other rogue elements in the medical profession profit handsomely off propagating and peddling so-called “gender affirming care” and other services. By one account, the cost of a vaginoplasty costs between $45,000 and $65,000 for the “neo-penis” surgeries, on top of the wide range of costs associated with a lifetime of medical care to which any such person is condemned. This is, of course, on top of the well-financed LGBTQ Yuck lobby.

That so many mainstream conservatives allow themselves to be so confused is yet another indictment, another testament to their utter lack of fitness due to a lack of moral conviction as well as being so intellectually moribund. None but the worst sort of charlatan would deny that a parent who encouraged his child in the belief that he could fly would be guilty of child abuse and, in the event of death, possibly manslaughter. Parents have a custodial duty of care for children under their care. This creates an affirmative duty whereby any parents who fail to correct — not encourage, but simply fail to correct — a child deluded by such belief should similarly be held liable for child abuse, neglect, and even potentially manslaughter if that child indulges that belief for any period of time, and particularly so if that child acts on such a belief, resulting in injury or death. Conservative apologists might object to this analogy, as they oppose so-called gender affirming care for children and minors, but not the general propagation of such an insane and insidious ideology. Does the more precise analogy of encouraging children that they can fly, all while insisting that the decision to jump out a window must wait until one reaches the age of 18, really make that much of a difference? After all, while it is admittedly preposterous to suppose such a child would still entertain the Superman delusion until he was 18, the improved reasoning and cognitive abilities of young adults as compared to a five-year-old such as Charles Green do not always seem sufficient to protect them from the delusions of transgenderism. The deep delusion and irrational fervor of the cult of transgenderism is just that powerful, such that it has compelled a generation of zealots who have castrated themselves or otherwise mutilated their bodies and genitalia — a modern perversion and distortion of Origen of Alexandria.

You can buy James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro here.

Similarly, few of these hand-wringing mainstream conservatives would object to having parents who — in other contexts beside indoctrinating children with transgender nonsense — are found to have Munchausen by Proxy held either criminally liable if harm is done to a child or having child protective services intervene if this disorder is discovered before the child in question has been harmed. Why, then, in relation to parents exposing their children to transgender ideology, do these ineffectual pushovers hem and haw about whatever nonsense they tend to carry on about while looking for any excuse they can not to take a stand, whether it is the insistence that “people have rights” or whatever the case may be? Libertarians blathering on about the so-called “non-aggression principle” might be the most preposterous of all, and certainly the most offensive. Parents do not have the right to encourage the belief that a child can fly, and they similarly should not — and really do not — have the right to encourage the fantastical and life-ruining belief that a boy can become a girl and vice versa.

But how do we know? What moral authority informs us this is so? If it is not God or a higher power, what informs our moral conviction? The intellectual exercise likening the evils of transgender lunacy to a child who leaps to serious injury or death is elementary for anyone who not only possesses the faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination, but also refuses to dull or soften either his moral conviction or his cognitive discernment with the sickness of moral relativism or other such pseudo-intellectual obfuscation. Contrary to the insistence that any moral conviction must come from God, or more accurately the Bible, appeals to religious conviction — or more aptly stated, religious dogma — have only been ineffective in the past, and have no sway with those correctly rooted in secularism, either from atheism, agnosticism, or simply a commitment to consider any matter of import with intellectual rigor and curiosity. Our faculties of reason and discernment inform us of that which is unequivocally harmful to the individual and society, from the evils of the transgender menace, to vices such as sports gambling, pornography, and the like.

We may not yet have the political power to act on these convictions, and may not for some time, if ever, but every problem starts with an intellectual understanding of the nature of that problem and the willingness — the will! — to take whatever action will remedy that problem when that opportunity presents itself. Equipping a critical mass of people with this intellectual framework and moral conviction begins by confronting and refuting this paralyzing moral and intellectual equivocation wherever it is found or uttered. Do not let cowards equivocate about what transgender ideology is or what it does. Do not let anyone suggest that it should be tolerated or countenanced in any way. Do not allow them to further disrupt that call for uncompromising intolerance.

Please see the author’s Substack, The Raven’s Call, which features additional writings from a hard-Right perspective.

Notes

[1] Abigail Shrier and others insist that bona fide gender dysphoria occurs in about one in 10,000 young boys.  See generally Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. This author is skeptical, but in any case an aberration existing in one out of every 10,000 persons is no reason to change so many aspects of our daily lives, from the language we use, to public accommodations for restrooms, locker and dressing rooms, and the like.

[2] As this author has articulated before, the term “gender” is properly understood and defined as effectively synonymous with sex. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles defines the word gender, in its most pertinent part, as follows: Gender n. LME. 3 The state of being male, female, or neuter; sex; the members of one or other sex.  Now chiefly colloq. or euphem.  LME b Sex as expressed by social or cultural distinctions. (emphasis added). Source: The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 edition, p. 1072.