August 1, 2013

Like I've been saying ...

For a long time now, I've been suggesting that after gay marriage, the next big Civil Rights Struggle will be transgender rights. The New York Times agrees, editorializing today:
EDITORIAL
The Next Civil Rights Frontier
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: July 31, 2013 
Federal civil rights officials reached an important settlement late last month with a California school district accused of discriminating against a transgender student by denying him equal access to educational programs and activities. Under the agreement, the Arcadia Unified School District in California will revise its policies and ensure that the student, who was born female but has since assumed a male name and identity, is treated fairly and like other male students. The agreement should be required reading for school officials at all levels nationally.

86 comments:

Truckee Man said...

What about polyamory?

Beefy Levinson said...

I think this problem will be self-correcting. Jocks will start loudly proclaiming their female identity and demand to shower with the cheerleaders. Progressives will quietly throw the fight then.

jody said...

i think a useful exercise would be to ask liberals "is there an end to the number of changes that have to be made to our society" or perhaps "what is your ideal end state?" the state of things in which no more change is necessary, and a nation it has reached it's ideal political status.

do they see it as a battle against normalcy, but really normalcy is their proxy for "the war against heterosexual european males and their awful, terrible, dreadful society". when heterosexual european males are eventually swept aside, maybe then the culture war can end?

or is it just a never ending battle against normalcy in the abstract. where there is no end state. we never get to "ok, that's good enough. don't need any more political battles. every issue is won now."

maybe that's how it will be. there is no end. or that is to say, the liberals will never want to stop fighting. until one of their victories, open borders, eventually forces them to stop fighting, because they're now outnumbered 5 to 1 by the vibrant in their own political party.

some of whom are not so interested in the liberal agenda anymore, and eventually the brazilian version of america reaches gridlock, then goes over the cliff, and some issues start reverting backwards, against what the liberals achieved.

i don't see a nation where europeans are a greatly outnumbered minority, having a political party where EVERY politician is marching in lockstep with orders handed down from liberal central command. what i see is a future america where some of the vibrant politicians, who are not on the same wavelength as the liberals, begin winning elections, and overturning some of those "set in stone" political victories from the past.

Orthodox said...

That's the end of women's sports.

Severely Jetlagged said...

When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog.





Anonymous said...

I've got a horrible feeling that the 'one after next' big so-called 'civil-rights' struggle will be the ultimate truimph of the immigrationists and the abolition of all border controls in the white west (and only the white west, mind you), on the grounds that 'nationality' is 'discriminatory'. All ready the trial balloons are being floated, the trendies are getting excited and second rate socail science and law professors are starting to pass wind on paper.
Of course 'clever' journos and 'clever' economists will soon jump on to the bandwagon and the dumb filth that govern us (ie politicians) will just have to prove their 'cleverness' cooties by making crap into law.
That's the way these things work, the guff-bandits at the top (or should I say bottom)by manipulating the media and 'elite' opinion tansform a pile of turds into state-violenec enforced policy by making it 'trendy' and 'clever' - just like they are in fact.

Back in the mid 70s the older generation used to laugh and scorn at so-called punk-rock fashions. 'How can anyone be so dumb as to think that purple spiked hair, safety pins through the nose and plastic trash can liners, bondage trousers etc could ever be a good look?' but thousands of the young dressed like utter, utter dicks because they thought by doing so 'trendiness and cleverness' you know just like the SexPistols have got, would magically rub off on them.

Politicains are no better. In fact they are worse.

Anon Seven said...

You called it, Steve.

As an Arcadia High alumnus I am curious to know: is the psychologically-disurbed girl at the heart of the matter Chinese or white or something else?

Anonymous said...

I like this from a comment thread out there:

"If I feel in my mind like I'm over 65, can I start collecting Social Security?"

I feel about 70. They owe me.



Anonymous said...

I wonder what the next big thing after trans rights will be.

Animal rights is one candidate. "Animals are people too", as the PETA crowd likes to tell us. But most leftists like eating meat. As a left-wing philosophy professor of mine once said, "I should probably be a vegetarian, but I just enjoy meat too much." They could crusade for absurdly high levels of animal welfare, but won't it all seem a bit hypocritical if Bessy is still going to end up in the slaughterhouse?

Polygamy is another option. In practice, however, polygamy will consist mostly of polygyny (most human societies that have ever existed were polygynous), and I'm not sure if the feminists will approve. On the one hand, it presumably gives women more options as they need not look for a mate only among single men. On the other hand, it will probably benefit powerful and dominant men the most, and they are the feminist's mortal enemies. And it's not like men are going to be lining up to get in polyandrous relationships with feminists.

I can't imagine any movement to legitimize pedophilia in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps the legalization of recreational drugs will be next. It could be spun as a bonafide civil rights issue since, as we all know, billions of young black men are imprisoned merely for smoking a little weed. Furthermore, leftists like drugs, which is a huge plus. They can go on a moralistic crusade with an objective that benefits them personally. I'd put my money on this being the next big civil rights campaign.

If they run out of plausible new "civil rights" causes, they can always double down on blacks and feminists. After all, The Gap hasn't gone anywhere and women are still not quite like men. As they like to argue, mere legal equality isn't enough, real equality requires special handouts and social engineering. In fact, not providing these things is basically a civil rights violation itself!

Also, with the large and ever growing Hispanic minority, Latino centered demagoguery is going to be a huge growth industry, and might spawn some movements of its own.

Anonymous said...

That's funny, my kids were born white but there's a chance they might assume black names and identities in time for college admissions.

rightsaidfred said...

So the desired future is one of identical, androgynous, mocha clones. Check.

Anonymous said...

My daughter had a terrible bullying experience in college 3 years ago with a male who is now in process of becoming a female. We know a young man who had a very bad experience in middle school with a girl who has since announced being "transgender."

Maybe a half dozen or so years ago Barbara Walters did a special on transgender kids and it stuck with me. I don't think the message I got was the one I was supposed to get. The 3 kids featured were (1) a girl who thought she was a boy and was constantly cruel towards her/his parents, did everything possible to hurt them; (2) a boy who thought he was a girl and would beat up his sister (3) a very young male child, maybe 5, in a large family. What I noticed there was how happy and skipping around the transgender was and when they showed the other kids, they all looked subdued and frightened.

There is so much about homosexuality in the public discourse nowadays that any young person who hasn't had a relationship by age 20 wonders if he/she isn't "gay" and some of them, many of them, wonder if they should "experiment." Terrible that they feel that way. Theres a lot of pain and confusion in that feeling.

I have a hunch that a more welcoming attitude towards kids who think they are "transgender" will result in more kids thinking they are transgender and more pain and confusion.

slumber_j said...

A travesty.

Cail Corishev said...

It's interesting (and deplorable, of course) how they're using little kids to push this one. On the one hand, the idea that a little girl knows enough to "be" a boy without being pushed into it by her parents is laughable. But on the other hand, adult transgendered tend to be pretty damn creepy, so you don't want them on your posters.

Anonymous said...

I kinda doubt Chinese school admins have to waste time on made up problems like this.

BTW, how can a child be transgender? Poor kid.

Anonymous said...

Predicted new frontiers for progressives: polygamous marriages, decriminalization of sexual relations with animals, decriminalization of sexual relations with children, human-animal marriage, adult-child marriage, cannibalism,.....

John said...

Wouldn't wanna be no blogger - have to read the NYT all the time! Gack. Why they don't get robots to write that stuff, I can't guess.

Me, I've been reading human-generated Nicaraguan news websites. This canal they've been talking forever about building...well, "forever" threatens to remain accurate, but meanwhile, the Chinese hunger for seriousness and the Central American hunger for a jackpot make a nice combination.

And since I'm way off-topic, did you know you can get a great deal on a new car in Turkey during Ramadan? Hurry, it ends next week! You won't find any of this stuff in the NYT.

Anonymous said...

I guess that means sheit must get into fights like the other boys.

Maybe that will cure sheit of the idea that it is cool to be transgendered.

David said...

Textbook decadence.

It appears America won't omit to include a single detail of Rome's decline as it sinks Gibbon-ward into irrelevance.

It's also "decadent" in the y Gasset sense: the vital power of Americans is generally lowered. But we've known that from the averaged birth rates.

Anonymous said...

They are running out of causes. Getting sillier and sillier. Trivial Rights.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/

vandelay said...

And gay activists are now pushing for a boycott of Sochi over Russia's anti-gay laws. I guess it's natural that they'd want to flex their muscles internationally after totally dominating their enemies at home, but I don't see this one working out for them. For one, Putin's not gonna budge, and second, people would be piiissed if they find out they have to miss the Olympics (because no one watches other countries) for the sake of a group of people who they mainly only like in the abstract.

countenance said...

The "tranny" "rights" movement has already started. They even have their ism word: Transphobia.

Why? Because, civil rights is a revolution in permanence.

And where will the tranny rights movement? Everyone in one big shower. Don't drop the soap.

Anonymous said...

"When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

Oh, come on. I'm gay. Steve can be a little insensitive toward the bulk of us sometimes, but he hardly "drips with contempt."

Anonymous said...

Bestiality is the new love that dare not speak it's name.

I think we should grab the bull by the horns on this one.

David said...

>i think a useful exercise would be to ask liberals "is there an end to the number of changes that have to be made to our society" or perhaps "what is your ideal end state?"<

"Doin' right ain't got no end" - from The Outlaw Josie Wales

Anonymous said...

We've essentially gotten to the point where anyone can say they're anything and claim the right to be anything and it's "discrimination" to say that they can't or prevent them from doing what they want. Which potentially makes just about all laws invalid.

"When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

I always find it funny that liberals have this idea that all young people love homosexuals to death and despise anyone who even remotely dislikes them.

Also, you people are in no way intellectuals.

Anonymous said...

"When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

Yeah, what "intellectuals" under 40 have any problem with transexuals?

That's a broad brush you use, that there's such a universal acceptance of non-heterosexuality that surely even readers of Steve Sailer have no problem with it. But it's funny you invoke HBD as the exemplar defining label in this case- there is a kernel of truth in that regard, since many "HBD" believers are weirdos, nerds and aspies who have no proper understanding of how a society should function or what proper social behavior truly is, so maybe there is a greater rejection of "homophobia" on this blog and others like it than what would be expected from a right-leaning scene.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, because everything is so hunky-dory in the U.S. We really don't have any problems at all so we need to make some up.

Polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality -- what great civil rights campaigns we have to look forward to.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Severely Jetlagged said...
"When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

Try under 18.

Anonymous said...

"...decriminalization of sexual relations with animals..."

Chacun à son goat.

countenance said...

When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog.

I'm searching like Diogenes for that resolution that GLAAD passed at its last convention supporting racialist-based and HBD-based research.

Meanwhile, the base of the future American racial/ethno nationalist political movement will be the same people who are today the base of the Republican Party: Steve Sailer's baby and marriage gap, i.e. white adults who are involved in traditional nuclear families.

carol said...

It's been said but progressivism really is a religion substitute, and a direct descendant of the dilettante's communism.

I've been reading Doris Lessing and her work on 1950 British communists admits throughout that the uber atheist-communists really had nothing else to live for but trying to undermine Those People they Hate so very much, even if it is really themselves.

If it's not one pet cause, it's another, in the name of some ill understood victim, and there will be no peace, ever.

Melendwyr said...

'Oh, come on. I'm gay. Steve can be a little insensitive toward the bulk of us sometimes, but he hardly "drips with contempt." '

I concur. People are confusing the content of the site (including the comments and commentators) with the focus of the site. I see no meaningful evidence to indicate that Mr. Sailer is a bigot; quite a few of the most prominent posters, however, are.

Anonymous said...

So if I declare myself to be a lamppost, must public institutions accommodate that flight of narcissism? What if I declare myself to be a little teapot, short and stout?

What kind of lesson is that, to teach kids that they can impose their own subjective view upon others in defiance of objective biological fact? Sure, you may have two X chromosomes, but if you complain loudly enough you can get money and prizes for pretending otherwise!

Kids being kids, I'm sure there are genuine instances of cruel homophobic (or transphobic or whatever) bullying. But I can't help thinking that, as far as the politics go, the real bullies are the ones who insist that society must celebrate and yield rather than merely tolerate.

Indeed, it increasingly seems that "civil rights" are a naked writ for the exercise of state power against traditional society, to prevent the latter from acting for its own defense and preservation.

I say the side with the legal monopoly on violence is the aggressor here.

Anonymous said...

"When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

Um, intellectuals have been sexually adventurous for millennia; long before the advent of contemptible, dumbed-down, Bolshie, LGBT identity politics.

Anonymous said...

David: Nevertheless, we must "endeavor to persevere."
Heh.

Jody: There will be no end to the state of constant revolution in American society, because this is not a liberal agenda which is being advanced, it is a Democratic Party agenda. Constantly stirring the pot serves the ends of people like my own state's Sen. Charles "Schoom" Schumer and his cohorts.

Anonymous said...

I'm genuinely curious about something.

It's generally understood that gay trumps black on the left. Witness, for example, the left's indifference to gay marriage opposition among blacks.

If it is indeed the case that gays outnumber blacks in positions of cultural power and political influence, why is that so?

Is it purely a matter of the black bell curve being shifted downward relative to the general population, so that any randomly selected group of ~4% of the population would produce more heavy hitters than the whole black population?

Or is homosexuality not randomly distributed? E.g., are gays smarter on average? Is there some distinct cultural charisma that results from the interaction of female aesthetics and personality with male visual-spatial skills and over-representation at the right tail of the bell curve?

Or is it just a faddish judgement by straight liberals that blacks are yesterday's victim group?

Anonymous said...

When it comes to gender identity issues, Steve does not exactly follow Aquinas' example of refuting his adversaries' best arguments, even if that means he has to improve them for them.

All of the print in the world won't convince me that a person would change gender solely to become a women's sports star. Where are you putting 'women's sports stardom' on the hierarchy of needs? Above reproduction?

While considering this topic, I started to wonder why Darwin put the anus so close to the sex organs, and why, especially did he allow the prostate to be stimulated to the point of orgasm for the catcher, and why did he shape that hole so similarly in size to the vagina?

My guess is population control: the submissive male monkey gets humped and has a orgasm - hey, why keep fighting for that girl I never get? The weak, but less submissive male monkey has finally found a girl nobody is chasing him away from - all of the fun and none of the battles. The monkeys continue doing all their monkey chores with a much lower rate of frustration.

Anonymous said...

"Doin' right ain't got no end"

Typical Kansas Jayhawker attitude. 150 years of world-improvement with no end in sight.

Anonymous said...

rightsaidfred said So the desired future is one of identical, androgynous, mocha clones. Check.

Thats right, 100% diversity!

Anonymous said...

And it's not like men are going to be lining up to get in polyandrous relationships with feminists.


the ultimate dystopia. very few women and all of them ugly feminist bitches.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine any movement to legitimize pedophilia in the foreseeable future.


Yeah, I don't see that either. Mostly because they can't stand the fact that rich powerful men could easily attract young females which are now legally "children" even though in all previous generations biologically mature women aged 15 or so, were considered fair game. pardon the pun.

Anonymous said...

I mean, how do they define mental illness? Seriously, homosexuality was once defined as mental illness. Then they made the argument that gays were happy being gay and were able to otherwise function, so, okay it is not mental illness. Gays as a group don't actually have similar life outcomes to straights, but neither do blacks have similar life outcomes as whites, but being black is not considered mental illness.

Anyway, transgender folks are a far far smaller fraction even than gays and they have pretty poor mental health in other areas as well.

So, again, when is it mental illness?

Anonymous said...

Any parent who lets their 12 year old daughter sleep in a camp cabin full of 12 year old boys - whether she identifies as a female or not - should be arrested for child endangerment. Of course if she had slept in the boys' cabin and was raped the parents would sue the pants off the school so they can afford her reassignment surgery.

Gloria

Chief Seattle said...

The NYTimes has been warning us of Trans Fatties in our Cheezy Poofs for years.

Samson J. said...

When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog.

Assuming that you're serious and not trolling, a number of responses could be made to this, but here's just one: you've proven his point. As little as five years ago, the in-crowd would have been stridently in favour of "gays and lesbians", but it's only in the last year or so that "trans" has been included in the big list of things that cool people obviously support.

I can't imagine any movement to legitimize pedophilia in the foreseeable future.

Really? You really can't? It will begin slowly - age of consent will gradually be lowered first. They won't lead with a 45-year-old man and a 12-year-old girl.

As others have mentioned, I believe bestiality is on deck as well. Did anyone else see that recent piece about German "sex zoos"?

Me, I've been reading human-generated Nicaraguan news websites....
And since I'm way off-topic, did you know you can get a great deal on a new car in Turkey during Ramadan? Hurry, it ends next week! You won't find any of this stuff in the NYT.


Thanks for contributing all that. I'm serious; it's interesting to see what's in the media in other cultures.

Harry Baldwin said...

Any estimate on how many transgenedered people and transgendered wannabes there are out there? It's hard to believe there could be that many. Kinda makes you wonder why it's worth devoting any attention to.

Darwin's Sh*tlist said...

I'm still skeptical that tranny rights will become the next cause celebre like gay marriage has over the past decade.

1) Numbers: I don't have any hard data, but there just aren't as many trannies as there are gays and lesbians. The disparities in funding and political connections are probably even greater.

2) Cultural prominence: Even before promoting gay marriage became fashionable, both gays and lesbians already had established themselves in fields of notoriety and some influence: fashion and the arts for gays, athletics for lesbians. If trannies have an equivalent, I'm not aware of it.

3) It's a different argument. A coherent, utterly reasonable case can be made for gay marriage that fits perfectly within the classical liberal tradition: simply put, allowing them to marry doesn't affect anyone else's ability to do so, so there's no valid reason not to allow it. As far as I can tell, trannies aren't making this argument. They expect everyone else's daily life to be reworked to accommodate their eccentricities. Asking the kindly, church-going lady at work to put up with her gay colleague's wedding pictures on his desk isn't the same thing as asking her to tolerate a male cross-dresser defecating in the adjacent stall of the ladies' room.

I can see some movement with respect to kids on the anti-bullying front (which I would support), but not much beyond that. Legislating on behalf of the adults is a different matter because, to be honest, so many of them are so freakin' creepy.

Every society has its margins. Those who feel a compulsion to have a perfectly-working set of genitals mutilated are as good a candidates as any for it.

Udolpho.com said...

The question "what's next" is difficult to answer because the core problem is mental illness. If someone is crazy what will he do next? Hard to tell.

a Newsreader said...

The Next Civil Rights Frontier

What is this, Lewis and Clark?

Anonymous said...

Cultural Marxism will go on and on, since it taps into a seemingly inexhausatable reservoir of some of the worst of human emotions: hatred, envy, sadism, hypocrisy, sanctimony, officiousness, abusiveness, self-abasement, etc; all are legitimized, encouraged, rewarded, in a nauseating and revolting parade of lies and distortion.

Anonymous said...

"When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

As reality is banished from mainstream academia on PC grounds any curious individual is going to be forced to look online whatever their sexual orientation.


I'd say the average HBD attitude to homosexualtity - including mine - is more puerile than contemptuous.

Petey said...

Obviously transgender people can seem strange and unsettling, but I think it's important to realize how many of the "arguments against them" are basically just retreads of the old arguments against homosexuality (it's gross, they need therapy, they're just faking it for attention, etc). And I think even the most hardened critic of modern gay rights would concede that most of those old arguments are quite ignorant based on what we know about gays today.

At the same time, it seems there is a larger question about when is the appropriate time to introduce children to the concept of sexuality, particularly differences in sexual orientation. I don't think it's homophobic or transphobic to suggest children might not be equipped to understand these issues, or may be naively self-identify as something they're not out of immaturity, desire for novelty, or whatever.

Yet there's also the question of straight kids getting sexually active at younger and younger ages, looking at porn and whatnot. The issue of the sexualization of childhood is a complex one, and certainly one bigger than just the LGBT angle. I worry about conservatives fighting against LGBT kids simply because that's the easiest battle in the short term, in the same way they fought against gay marriage because that seemed to be the easiest way to pretend to be doing something about the broader decline of American marriage.

Hunsdon said...

David said: "Doin' right ain't got no end"

Hunsdon said: That is my favorite quote from that movie. (Among many quotes that I quite like from that movie.)

The enclosed link, however, knocked me goggle-eyed. Rob Roy was about the Irish? (Aside from that one, no doubt whisky induced, error, I liked the link.)

Anonymous said...

Wait until some diverse students start saying: "If it looks like a pussy Ima gonna fsck it."

I think she will rediscover she is a she pretty quickly.

Anonymous said...

A significant minority of kids, particularly to-be-gay kids, have symptoms of gender identity disorder. The overwhelming majority of kids with these feelings grow out them. I worry that pushing trans-acceptance on kids will cause these kids to get stuck in this phase.

But then, like Petey said, people said the same thing about homosexuality and kids, and there's been zero increase, according to the General Social Survey, of homosexual men across generations over the past thirty years.

Rates of female homosexuality (practice, not orientation) have skyrocketed, but most of that is decadent "let's turn the boys on" crap.

elaine said...

"Severely Jetlagged said...
When you repeatedly drip with contempt for gays, lesbians and trans people, I doubt many intellectuals under 40 (even among those agreeing with HBD) want to read your blog."

This "under 40" -- didn't it used to be under "30"? -- thing is launched as such a shaming device. I went through the 60s, when the young were going to take over the world, and believe me the goals of most of them were no different than what's being promoted now in the MSM. There is a saying: "if you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain." Now I don't really subscribe to the false dichotomy of "liberal" and "conservative", because the definition is as changeable as the MSM decides, but it'll have to do as shorthand for the kind of subjects discussed here.
The point of this post is not "contempt" for homosexuals or transgendered. It is contempt for those who will force rare (yes, even homosexuality is not that common; just very visible by its oddity) situations to be front and center in our concerns when there are so many more important things to worry about. My position as a woman who used to worry about feminist concerns, is that the legal battles were won long ago in western society, and the challenge is to take responsibility for your own behavior. That's my opinion of "gays" and transgendered. The latter condition contains one of my best friends from long ago.
"Contempt" is far too warm an emotion to describe most commenters' opinions here. More accurately, it is exasperation at yet another "others's" problems that the traditional "majority" (whites, nobody worries that blacks are their most contemptuous foes) are being blamed for. And the potentially humorous musing as to what "victims" of this horrible, oppressive, tax-paying "majority", will they muster up next?
To maintain power, enemies must be created and maintained.

Archie said...

"Jocks will start loudly proclaiming their female identity and demand to shower with the cheerleaders."

I used to say I was 'pre-conversion butch lesbian transsexual."

Deconstruction: I'm hung like a man, I look like a man, I dress like a man, I prefer females ... but "deep down inside" (trust me on this!) ... I'm a girl.

[I probably need to change it to say "cis-gendered" or "trans-gendered" but I just can't remember which PC terminology is correct.]

Anti-Democracy Activist said...

I addressed this in one of my own humble columns. Basically, there's a lot to do with covering for the left's massive moral failure in doing nothing about unnecessary middle east wars and the creeping surveillance state in this:

https://antidem.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/gay-flag-burning/

Anonymous said...

A very interesting article on trangenders in New York Magazine .

Most unsettling info: "But true transgenderism usually emerges very early, as it did with Molly, and is fiercely persistent. "

Even the most liberal New Yorkers agonize over the condition.

I wonder if transgenderism, like IQ, can be determined in infancy. Nature cares not a whit about how we feel the way things ought to be.

Vinteuil said...

@ Petey: I think the main "argument against" transgender people is that they seem to claiming something that is either straightforwardly false or utterly mysterious.

If somebody's got a Y chromosome and male reproductive organs, then why should we take his claim that he's really a woman any more seriously than if he claimed he was really a hamster, or a rhododendron, or a klingon?

Is there some sort of female essence, independent of the usual physical identifiers? If so, where is it located? In the brain? In the imagination? In the ether?

Anonymous said...

"I've got a horrible feeling that the 'one after next' big so-called 'civil-rights' struggle will be the ultimate truimph of the immigrationists and the abolition of all border controls in the white west (and only the white west, mind you), on the grounds that 'nationality' is 'discriminatory'.

I think you're right.

It used to be that people could discriminate against other people by looking out for their own. You could hire who you wanted, live near people you wanted, have clubs with people like yourself, and keep people unlike yourself out of your country.

There are people who think even countries and borders are not legitimate.

Exclusive groups are not allowed anymore, even countries.

The saying now is everyone agrees that discrimination is a bad thing.

This means white people have to give up their countries, neighborhoods and even families to the "other".

Anonymous said...

I disagree:
I'm under 40, agree with hbd, don't see any contempt for lbgt (or what ever the acronyms are) from Steve or any one in the majority. Don't you know lgbt is the new black?! What you see as contempt is nothing but emotional exhaustion towards the fiction of absolute biological egalitarianism and the contempt for logic that it's proponents have.

Udolpho.com said...

Obviously black people can seem strange and unsettling, but I think it's important to realize how many of the "arguments against them" are basically just retreads of the old arguments for slavery (they're animals, they have smaller brains, they're just not equal to us, etc). And I think even the most hardened critic of modern civil rights would concede that most of those old arguments are quite ignorant based on what we know about blacks today.

Udolpho.com said...

"Asking the kindly, church-going lady at work to put up with her gay colleague's wedding pictures on his desk isn't the same thing as asking her to tolerate a male cross-dresser defecating in the adjacent stall of the ladies' room."

yes it is, in both cases she is asked to pretend to have no morality other than harm-avoidance and her feelings will be dismissed by libertarians

David Davenport said...

just retreads of the old arguments against homosexuality (it's gross, they need therapy, they're just faking it for attention, etc). And I think even the most hardened critic of modern gay rights would concede that most of those old arguments are quite ignorant based on what we know about gays today.

Review for us us what we know about gays today, including the percentage of homosexuals with sexually transmitted diseases.

Anonymous said...

"Is there some sort of female essence, independent of the usual physical identifiers? If so, where is it located? In the brain? In the imagination? In the ether?"

In the brain I imagine. I think we'll have the simple problems like cancer, Alzheimer's and HIV solved before we discover where "self" resides in the brain. Gender confusion is a delusion, but delusions are real to those suffering them. I'm not sure we should indulge them, though most people do so in the case of late stage Alzheimer's patients, but I doubt the victims are lying about them. I don't think youth makes you immune to mental illness. My suggestion is that if you have a "funny" relative avoid having kids. Back in the almost medieval village my mother came from, having "insanity in the family" limited your mating prospects - and they knew nothing about scientific genetics.

Cail Corishev said...

Obviously transgender people can seem strange and unsettling, but I think it's important to realize how many of the "arguments against them" are basically just retreads of the old arguments against homosexuality (it's gross, they need therapy, they're just faking it for attention, etc). And I think even the most hardened critic of modern gay rights would concede that most of those old arguments are quite ignorant based on what we know about gays today.

I think you'd be wrong. I used to be fairly agnostic on gays, and then I spent time around a few, plus one "transgendered" person. Every one was a narcissistic drama queen who was hiding deep unhappiness and serious emotional problems. It appears to me that the more we learn "about gays today," the more the "old arguments" look pretty sensible.

Nationalist Alternative said...

Some Progressives have been more honest, to admit that Gay Marriage is a way to push the deconstruction of Western ideals. What is fascinating is the speed which they are pushing this.

http://www.natalt.org/2012/06/26/gay-marriage-and-culture-wars/

Firstly, after gay marriage has become not just a legal fact, but a realised fact, they will remind us that this is what marriage now is, a union between two people, not solely between a man and a women. With the inclusion of homosexual pairings into the definition of marriage, the battle will continue against heterosexual ideals of marriage, using the very fact that presently gays are married as an argument that marriage as a heterosexual institution is “outdated” and “obsolete”.

Anonymous said...

The next step is clearly to widen the definition of marriage to include three people; then two people and a dog; then three people, a fish and a tomato; and on and on.

Anon.

Petey said...

"If somebody's got a Y chromosome and male reproductive organs, then why should we take his claim that he's really a woman any more seriously than if he claimed he was really a hamster, or a rhododendron, or a klingon?"

Well, I suppose you can ask the numerous doctors who have studied this question over the years and found it to be a legitimate condition. The claim that something "doesn't make sense to me" is not an argument. Huh, this person says tiny, microscopic bugs inside his liver are causing him so much pain he can't get out of bed? I say he's just a lazy slug!

"I think you'd be wrong. I used to be fairly agnostic on gays, and then I spent time around a few, plus one "transgendered" person. Every one was a narcissistic drama queen who was hiding deep unhappiness and serious emotional problems. It appears to me that the more we learn "about gays today," the more the "old arguments" look pretty sensible."

Well that's a pretty dumb thing to say. Hang around some straights and I think you'll find plenty of "unhappiness and serious emotional problems" in that community, too. In any case, is it not possible that homosexuals could be unhappy because it's still relatively tough to be gay in this country? Certainly if I was gay and had cruel people like you as my friends, I might be a bit miserable too.

Cail Corishev said...

Certainly if I was gay and had cruel people like you as my friends, I might be a bit miserable too.

Who's more cruel: the person who tells the sufferer of mental illness that there's nothing wrong, that he should celebrate his confusion and dysfunction; or the person who would like to see him get some help?

It's like "fat acceptance": tell people "big is beautiful" and fitness is just a social contract, and feel good about your open-mindedness while they die at 50 from obesity-related diseases. Who's the cruel one again?

Udolpho.com said...

"Well that's a pretty dumb thing to say. Hang around some straights and I think you'll find plenty of "unhappiness and serious emotional problems" in that community, too. In any case, is it not possible that homosexuals could be unhappy because it's still relatively tough to be gay in this country? Certainly if I was gay and had cruel people like you as my friends, I might be a bit miserable too."

Clarity on these and other issues will arrive when your Aspergers is successfully treated. Much of pathological gay behavior, such as hedonism, drug abuse, promiscuity, and latent sociopathy have no apparent connection to bullycide or whatever stupid fad explanation you have. The fact that gay pathology is fairly well controlled when they are closeted and explodes when they become "out" strongly suggests that repressing their pathology is the ONLY useful treatment. But go on believing that gays are just like in Modern Family, you sheltered dweeb.

Dr. Stephen J. Krune III said...

"While considering this topic, I started to wonder why Darwin put the anus so close to the sex organs, and why, especially did he allow the prostate to be stimulated to the point of orgasm for the catcher, and why did he shape that hole so similarly in size to the vagina?"

Good God, Steve, someone posted this comment on your blog and you are babbling about football palaces. Why don't you write about how addled so many of the people in the HBD world are? Has it really escaped your notice when you see and approve beep boop comments like this?

Cail Corishev said...

Some Progressives have been more honest, to admit that Gay Marriage is a way to push the deconstruction of Western ideals. What is fascinating is the speed which they are pushing this.

I think some of them are smart enough to realize that the window of opportunity will close someday. The media-induced warm feeling the public currently has for homosexuals is a historical aberration that won't last forever, and may have already peaked. Pro-gay forces run every level of government (even the military now), the media, the school systems from K to PhD, most churches, and most large corporations. It makes sense that they'd try to push things as far as possible -- if not now, when?

Anonymous said...

As far as people trying to sell me transsexual rights and The Outlaw Josie Wales goes, "Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining."

Here in the Northeast the pedophiles, or as they've asked to be called, other-age identified, have already started pushing.

JDangle said...

@Petey, it is entirely possible, and probable, that social attitudes have an impact on the emotional state of homosexuals. However, you seem completely unwilling to accept the possibility that depression and other deep-seated psychological problems co-occur with decidedly broken sexual behavior.

If social attitudes towards homosexuality were the whole, or even most, of the story, then one would expect to see some obvious differences in something like depression or suicide rates among homosexuals between countries with varying levels of homosexual acceptance. Yet, where ever you look, homosexuals are mental cases the world over.

It is amazing how far some will go to avoid explanations involving inherently abnormal psychology for a population whose behavior is by definition exceptional.

elaine said...

""Is there some sort of female essence, independent of the usual physical identifiers? If so, where is it located? In the brain? In the imagination? In the ether?""

I don't know, other than the naughty bits, nothing is too certain. Where is the male essence?

Anonymous said...

"Has it really escaped your notice when you see and approve beep boop comments like this?"

I thought it was kind of like asking "why does a giraffe have a long neck?". In the future I will try not to offend your sensibilities. I'll just concede that my comment was absurd without ever really knowing why, because you seem to have no intention of enlightening me.

Hepp said...

"Obviously transgender people can seem strange and unsettling, but I think it's important to realize how many of the "arguments against them" are basically just retreads of the old arguments against homosexuality (it's gross, they need therapy, they're just faking it for attention, etc). And I think even the most hardened critic of modern gay rights would concede that most of those old arguments are quite ignorant based on what we know about gays today."

Why isn't "it's gross" a good enough argument to keep something in the closet? Public nudity is banned because it's gross, and likewise most people do not want it to be a normal thing to see two men kissing on the street. And a lot of people would like to avoid working with transsexuals because they're grossed out by them, but the gay rights movement still pushes for anti-discrimination laws.

Anonymous said...

Just wait until Islam finds solutions for all these problems! Muslims are the only ones with the guts to do this. Everyone else is enfeebled by PC and their own hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

When gays and transgenders are allowed to follow their innate appetites, they have will no children and, if their proclivities are genetic, they will eventually go extinct.

If they are stigmatized and they have kids to adapt to the societal norm, their weird genes are granted another chance - the law of unintended consequences.

Anonymous said...

"can't imagine any movement to legitimize pedophilia in the foreseeable future."

Really? You really can't? It will begin slowly - age of consent will gradually be lowered first. They won't lead with a 45-year-old man and a 12-year-old girl."

I don't think this is in the cards (genes) for most people of European descent. There is that shifty illuminati with their child sex slaves of both sexes, but I am not sure they exist to the extent some claim. Certainly hope not.
But as far as what we can prove, going back to the middle ages, the average age for marriage and birth of first child has always been well over 19, much less 12, which is something so many don't realize. Some seem to think marriage at puberty -- which was usually a couple years later in those days than the norm for now -- was the rule for most people prior to the prevalence of the modern educational system. But in fact, very early marriage has never been the norm for Europeans. Ancient Roman law said 12 was earliest for girls, 14 for boys.IN practice the girl was typically a few years older and the "boy" was usually at least in his mid-20s. The Catholic Church continued that with the strong recommendation that both genders should be atleast two years older than the minimum. Special dispensation was required for brides under 14 or grooms under 16. In practice, the vast majority were well over that. In a roster of brides, circa 1600, England, among 1,000 listed, only about 10 were 15, one was 13, a few were 16 or 17, and about most were over 19. I believe the overall average was 23. Perhaps Europe inclined more to the Germanic custom, noted and admired by the Romans, of both bride and groom being well grown, at least 20, and well known to each other, choosing their own mates, and listening to each other's "council."
Sure beats Yemen where you've got 8 year old girls who are wives in "every sense of the word" according to one investigator. Even other Yemenis get freaked out, because even in Yemen, this is somewhat gruesome. The husband is trusted to wait if the girl is still a child. Apparently some cannot be trusted. Surprise surprise.

The success of western civilization derives in part from having other drives and goals than sex with the weakest link you find, reproduction, and early death.
We sort of figured out you could get more done and have more of a life if you controlled those urges up to a point. I think it's in our genes.
But if I'm wrong, we may have to culturally spanked by Yemen, which is now in the process of forbidding child marriage, and think this is progress. They may have to come over here some day, wagging fingers at us.

Anonymous said...

I see no meaningful evidence to indicate that Mr. Sailer is a bigot; quite a few of the most prominent posters, however, are.

Chief among them Whiskey and Truth.

Dan said...

Best treatment of this:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e01-mr-garrisons-fancy-new-vagina