Just as it seems we have a whole wave of transgender mania sweeping the Western world in the present day, we see an equally strange way of responding to it by both conservatives and feminists.
When feminists come out to rally against transgenders, it’s ironic enough. Historic feminists from Simone de Beauvoir to Germaine Greer have promoted the disconnection of femininity, women’s biology, and female undertakings such as motherhood, while emphasizing the social conditioning aspect of the female experience to the point of complete divorce from biological femaleness. In this century, the very feminists who may have been influential to today’s transgender activism have come out in opposition. The reason: gynocentrism. Although it isn’t necessarily off-base that feminists would take the gynocentric position against transgenderism, the irony remains that too much of their history and positions have sown the seeds of transgender ideology.
Then, there is the conservative and traditionalist response against transgenderism. It is by no means unexpected that conservatives would turn to fight anything that doesn’t fall in line with their traditional gender idealism. Clearly, they don’t want anyone to have conflicting interests with their prescribed idea of what men and women should be, and the relations between them. What is actually the height of irony, however, is that they would side with the very feminists that would sooner stab them in the back with their misandry. Imagine being so gynocentrically blue-pilled that you are a right-winger white knighting for radical feminists.
Forgive the sardonic remarks thus far and yet to come. However, this is nothing in terms of offensiveness compared to the sort of thing these actual men, who profess to know so well what’s best for other men, have said as they have hopped on the bandwagon against transgenderism. Note that this is not me being in particular direct defense of most of what goes on regarding the transgender craze, but I think it is important to highlight the hypocrisies committed by those alleging to be on the side of science and reason, especially when they throw men under the bus.
While many of the positions and demands taken by the anti-transgender camp are laughable and deserving of not much more than simple ridicule, there are other positions taken by some high-profile traditionalists that should boil the blood of those who care about men’s issues.
The Misandric Argument Against Transgenderism
Among the arguments thrown by feminists who are in attack posture against the transgender wave is a constant one: “Transgender activism is a men’s rights movement”. In fact, that phrase is smack dab in the title of pjmedia.com’s article Radical Feminist: Transgender Activism is a ‘Men’s Rights Movement’. Another title that doesn’t mince words is ‘Trans Rights are Men’s Rights; No Wonder they Clash with Feminists.’ It’s no surprise to any of us that feminists, radical or otherwise, hold disdain towards the idea of men’s rights and any attempt on our part to bring light to men’s issues. By comparison alone, feminists’ objection towards the fruits of transgender activism becomes clear.
Male-to-female (MtF) athletes break record after record of women’s sports. Biological men enter women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Women are “being erased” because young teen girls are undergoing surgeries for permanent change so they can transition. Despite the fact that women have been enabled to encroach into male spaces (girls joining the Boy Scouts and men’s only gatherings accused of misogynistic discrimination) and MtF cases outweighing the FtM cases, we must apparently only be concerned with when the women are erased, dominated, defeated by biological men. The radical feminists and the conservative “manly men” agree on this, it seems.
Feminists and traditionalists alike have been referred to as TERFs (“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”) in response to their insistence that biological men are men, biological women are women, men and women are different, etc. With regards to the metaphysical aspects and inner and social workings behind the transgender phenomenon, I can think of no better distillation than Peter Wright’s article Transphobia vs Manphobia. Be sure to give that a read as it is an insightful source of ideas on the transgender psyche itself.
I bring this up because despite how concise and scientific-sounding “men and women are different” may be, neither side has given the nuance the subject deserves from a psychological standpoint. Those referred to as TERFs indulge in the argument from biology so long as it suits their ends. Feminists believe that women are as strong and as able as any man and yet they call upon males to fight off the transgenders for them; traditionalists are fully willing to throw biological males under the bus as long as the women they want to be protectors for (no matter how much they’re hated by them) are being trounced by the same biological males.
As much as we may laugh at the desperation TERFs exhibit as they declare transgenderism as only an evil men’s rights movement, they unintentionally make our point for us: this is all about hatred of biological males and wanting to put them in their place in gynocentric society. This is a misandrist mindset.
To be absolutely clear here, “TERF” is a funny term with its own set of ironies. As stated before, transgender ideology has been well rooted in feminism of the 20th century. “TERF” no doubt was created within radical feminist circles when a split seems to have happened: “We are radical feminists that are inclusive of transgender women, and they are the trans-exclusionary kind of radical feminist and we hate them!” Social justice warriors and the “woke” crowd have taken and run with this term calling anybody with criticism of transgender ideology a TERF, despite not actually being against radical feminism anyway. How odd, that they have kept this term. Another irony is that a feminist need not actually be a “radical” kind to practice flagrant misandry to their heart’s content.
Germaine Greer, a “women’s liberation” advocate who had been under fire for saying that “transgender women are ‘not women’”, has argued in her works that femininity is not femaleness. She states in a talk for Channel 4 News: “There is nothing feminine about being pregnant. It’s almost the antithesis of that. There’s nothing feminine about giving birth”.
In her focus on relegating femininity completely to the realm of social expectations, imposed by men or in any case on behalf of men, Greer has in essence created an asymptotic standard as to what constitutes a “real woman” – if a woman is feminine in any way, she is that much farther from what is a true woman.
Due to her emphasis on how much social training is involved in being a woman, even if she said it in a lamenting way, she should not have been surprised when someone would take these ideas and interpret it as “all you need to be a woman in this world is just to be socialized into being one”. Therefore, a man may assume the identity and in his mind expect the social standards of a woman to be accepted as such. It’s strange to me how Greer gets a lot of non-feminist support even though the majority of her approach appears to involve blaming men for women’s issues in any possible way. By failing to identify some genuine synergies between biological femaleness and femininity, she simply sounds like a hypocrite in her whines against the current state of affairs.
Another example is a quote from Simone de Beauvoir, recently skewered by Lucian Vâlsan in his article. In her work The Second Sex from 1949 she stated: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female acquires in society; it is civilization as a whole that develops this product, which one calls feminine.” For all the complaints from the feminists of today saying “but she didn’t mean she supported transgenderism”, the hypocrisy still stands as the transgender activists’ idea of “becoming a woman through socialization is definitely possible” can be traced back confidently to statements such as that of de Beauvoir.
In any case, the response by those that suddenly wish to support biological women against biological men in defiance of the premises of clearly feminist origin is to resort to biogynocentrist misandry. The modus operandi of TERFs and the traditionalists that sheepishly curry their favor have a particular focus on MtF transgenders as enemies, and FtM transgenders as victims. The biogynocentric path is the easy, often-traveled path; disappointing, but not surprising.
What does Biogynocentrism have to do with this?
You may be wondering why is this a biogynocentric problem than a more broader gynocentrism issue. While I don’t necessarily deny that gynocentrism with all its facets comes into play in these sort of matters, the biogynocentrism shows itself when the arguments against transgenderism attempt to appeal to the potential dangers of the biological male which delicate, precious women with golden uteruses must be defended from at all costs.
If necessary, do familiarize yourself with the specialized concept of biogynocentrism and what I had to say previously on the subject when I introduced it. In short, biogynocentrism is the specifically biological appeal to which the argument of male disposability and female royalty is made. Too many in the field of evolutionary psychology indulge in the premise of the survival of the woman being the crucial factor in a human group’s survival as opposed to the equal importance of males and females. They then proceed to explain away the double standards of society as it promotes male disposal and biological prioritization of females in this way.
The idea has trickled down into the common mindset of the people as they take it for granted that men exist to be disposed of; “It’s biology and evolution,” so they say. Women demand service because they see themselves as the biological prize and end goal, and men have browbeaten themselves into thinking they are the biological means to an end. Even some supposedly in the men’s movement indulge in this fallacy, which is a sad truth about biogynocentrism.
So how are these TERFs biogynocentrist?
Again, biological men are breaking records in their chosen women’s sport left and right. The losers feel robbed by the winners identifying as women. Said losers exercise their conditioned impulse to damsel and appeal to the public, followed by the likewise conditioned impulse by the malleable public to appease these poor women. These women athletes are then regarded as needing protection from these bad men. Men are dangerous, women should be defended from them. Such is the narrative.
We are also now supposed to be concerned with female prison inmates and how they are vulnerable to predatory biological men entering these women’s prisons while identifying as women. In ways that make feminists absolutely proud of them (or so they hope), conservatives demand that these poor criminal women be protected from the male of the species.
As a sidenote I don’t recall these same conservatives (let alone the feminists) giving much attention to male prison inmates in their own men’s prisons despite issues like prison rape and general inhuman treatments to name a few existing. Once again, men are the biologically expendable class but we must not let anything happen to our valuable women…even if they are criminals serving time. If they want to argue for humane treatment of prisoners, would they be so kind as to extend the same compassion to men, whose prison experiences are joked about?
As a third example, probably one of the earliest issues I’ve noticed when transgender mania was kicking into momentum this century, we have turned our attention towards biological men in women’s bathrooms and changing rooms. Conservatives wasted no time raving about the dangers of men in women’s restrooms, as if just putting any given man in the little girls’ room (is this term another indication of the child archetype?) magically turns him into a predator after women and girls. The debate about possible ulterior motives for some transitioned predators aside, this argument is very telling; Biological men are once again a force of danger to be barred from women.
Never mind the fact that if a man is a predator he could equally be targeting male victims, young boys for certain. And certainly, female predators exist as well. As long as bathrooms have been segregated, sexual predation in bathrooms generally hasn’t happened in any normal fashion and the cause for panic is almost nonexistent. We generally don’t speak of great efforts to protect boys from predators in their own segregated bathrooms. It is reasonable then to assume that the rate of sexual predation would be the same low amount if integration were to occur for any reason. However, biogynocentrism is an easy path to feeling like a hero, and there’s nothing like jumping into the bandwagon to flex their muscles for gynocentric masculinity in service of the dear damsels in distress.
So, the conservatives join the feminists in buying the narrative that men are in fact Schrodinger’s Rapist – at all times potentially a rapist even if they aren’t one and won’t be one. If conservatives uphold the idea that the vast majority of normal men are likely to defend and ward off against acts of sexual violence instead of participating or enabling them, then they should act like it is true instead of changing their tune whenever it suits their tendency to white knight and feel important for women who hate them.
These examples illustrate biogynocentrism in play in the anti-trans-activist mindset.
Child Butchery – Only Bad When Progressives Do It?
We in the men’s movement know well that we need a sense of humor as we take apart the casual and serious strains of gynocentrism that have permeated history and affect our daily lives in the modern world. We can laugh at all the damseling, the idiocy of feminists, and the folly of blue-pill men who think they are alphas. Everything I have said so far in this article is worth laughing about as we ridicule the anti-trans crowd in their blaming of the Men’s Rights Movement, and the women who said nothing about their sex invading male spaces but are up in arms about men beating them at their own sports. Unfortunately I have to close this on a slightly angrier note, as it is the most frustrating manifestation of TERF hypocrisy I’ll talk about here.
When I was noticing sponsored posts on Facebook by Matt Walsh’s page abut his new film What Is A Woman?, what grabbed my attention was the text on one of them: “One of the surgeons I interviewed for this documentary confessed to having mutilated the genitals of a 16 year old boy. The Left says this isn’t happening. They’re lying, as always.”
I admitted surprise at his choice of words: “mutilated the genitals of a 16 year old boy”. I wondered aloud, how much does he actually care about a child’s genital integrity across the board? What are Mr. Walsh’s attitudes towards routine infant circumcision? Assuming that he is just another traditional conservative, I had thought that he couldn’t give a shit about male genital mutilation and the serious consequences of it. However, I left it at that because that was all it was: an assumption. I wouldn’t speak more on it until I had concrete proof of what would be his hypocritical stance, and I’d be completely open to be proven wrong as well, delighted to be in fact.
However, there is another, more famous individual whose ideas about male genital mutilation I have a much better idea of: Dr. Jordan B. Peterson.
In June 16th, he posted a video entitled “Doctors & Psychotherapists: Butchers & Liars”, which was in turn a reading of his own article “We are sacrificing our children on the altar of a brutal, far-Left ideology“ for The Telegraph. Due to his choice of words, for a second I had hope. I knew that in all likelihood he was going to mostly focus on the crisis of permanently transitioning minors by surgery and hormone treatments but despite that, and all he said before on the subject of child genital mutilation, maybe he’d finally admit that children being mutilated for any reason whatsoever is never right.
Even after all this time, I admit to naivete. As you can see in the video, he talked about the lies and butchery of those that put children through life-altering surgeries, more regarding the FtM transitions than the MtF. He did not utter one word, not one, about the genital mutilation regularly being practiced in North America not just for religious reasons, but superficial, casual attitudes about cosmetics and even borderline incestuous if not paedophilic attitudes like preferring a circumcised penis personally.
I believe I have lost my last bit of patience for these traditionalists, most certainly for Dr. Peterson. They can rage about anyone in the Progressive Far-Left performing these acts of mutilation towards children, but they still let the mutilation of baby boys still happen courtesy of the traditionalists and the everyday American, no word of protest about that.
To those of you who may say, “But Peterson wasn’t talking about circumcisions, he’s talking about the transgender crisis!” my response is that Peterson was very much talking about the subject of child mutilation, quite particularly about the genitals. It is absolutely impossible to properly talk about child genital and anatomical mutilation and permanent surgical change without mentioning Routine Infant Circumcision and the damage and permanent changes that would happen on such a normal basis in North America.
We know for a fact that members of the “Intellectual Dark Web” will deplore female genital mutilation no matter what the reason. It is rightly deplored, of course. But those same people have still been silent about male genital mutilation with the sole exception of to justify it for religious reasons.
There is more irony to deploring transgender surgery while being mum on circumcision. As many of us know, David Reimer of Canada (born Bruce) had his circumcision botched (and also as many of us know, this is a redundant term, as circumcisions are a botch of nature) and was made by the psychologist John Money to be socialized as a girl (as Brenda), even having made to undergo sexual rehearsal play in which he and his twin brother Brian had to act out sexual positions and acts.
As he entered puberty “Brenda” learned the truth about his reassignment and became David. This was by all accounts an attempt at transgenderism forced on a child that went horribly awry leading to the eventual suicide of not just David but also Brian.
When the David Reimer case is ever spoken of, the forced transgenderism is attacked but the butchery that led David into this particular situation is never given the regard it deserves; at best it is referred to in the context of a botch of what they may think is a completely normal procedure. The irony is completely lost in these minds as they are unable to point to circumcision as an actual problem in itself, throwing these male infants under the bus as they virtue signal about how so many girls are harmed because they thought they were boys, and how biological men are dangers for identifying as women.
Traditionalists like Peterson have the absolute gall to cry foul at child mutilators particularly when the Far-Left does it. Furthermore, I profess to be no friend of the Far-Left in any way, I am not the one defending them. But the hypocrisy of those that callously ignore the problems males face as they pontificate about the “erasure of women” is something we cannot afford to ignore any longer. More to my point, Peterson and his ilk have actually gone on to rationalize the practice of circumcision in the religious context.
In The Rubin Report, after Ben Shapiro justifies the mutilation of his own son in the name of “pre-committing him to a set of values”, Dr. Peterson proceeds to talk about how that is a “sacrifice to God” and that if one is a proper parent then they do sacrifice their children to God. The irony is too much considering he has recently deplored the “sacrifice of children” across history in his recent article and video.
In his lecture ‘Biblical Series XI: Sodom and Gomorrah’ he talked about the alleged spiritual virtues of circumcision and the necessity of acting on “behalf” of the child as opposed to having it done voluntarily at a matured age. The biggest of ironies is when he spoke of the bleeding from circumcision as “like the male equivalent of menstruation”, at roughly the 26:20 mark. Transgenderism: Peterson style!
In summation, Traditionalists are allying with misandrists as they press onwards in service of the great omniscient damsel. From promoting fear of men in the name of protecting women to disregarding male physical anguish when going on diatribes against what males have undergone most commonly, TERFs and their allies are showing their true gynocentric colors more so than they have ever in the past. It is high time we start exposing them more for what they are.