Recently we have all been witness to a massive push in favour of Transgenderism. The idea that we can change our sex and that it is really nothing to be worried about at all. To many people and nearly all Conservatives this is mystifying. How can something so radical in it's effect be portrayed as something benign. But to Liberalism this is all logical.
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that each person is completely free to make their own choices in life. To choose their own religion, to choose their own partner, their own career, their own homeland, their own identity. And that when any of that doesn't work out, for whatever reason, to be able to discard of it, any part of it without any consequences. But there remained some things that Liberalism couldn't change, primarily race and sex. But they found ways around both of these, not perfect ways but still ways. For race they encourage interracial relationships and bi-racial children. For sex they encourage Transgenderism.
First let me explain the difference between sex and gender. Sex is biology, you and in fact all mammals are born either male or female. Gender, until the 1950's referred to either masculine or feminine words within a language. Or to a plants sex. In the 1950's it was proposed that gender be used instead of sex because while sex was static, you were either a male or a female. Gender was changeable, flexible. While sex was biological, gender was a social construct, able to be changed, manipulable. Gender is not a neutral word, but is instead a political word, a Liberal word.
The first sex change operation took place in Germany in 1930, although it is possible that was only the first time it was publicly known. Now of course it is called gender reassignment. You may notice that there is not only a change of words between "sex change operation" and "gender reassignment", but a change in philosophy. An operation is a medical procedure, reassignment is a choice.
But Liberalism doesn't force people to be Transgender, instead there exist people who believe that they are males who should be female, or females who believe they should be male. Liberalism simply uses these people to support it's own ideas and beliefs. It pushes a harmful idea, the idea that people are perfectible. That people are the best judge of whats best for them, in all circumstances and that we all need to go along with it.
People with Transgenderism are suffering, how can believing that your entire body is wrong be anything but mental anguish. They need care, they deserve our sympathy but they do not deserve our complicity. They have been sold a lie, the same lie given to the married. That if you are unhappy all you need to do is to change your circumstances. If you are married and you are unhappy, become unmarried and be happy again. But as far to many Divorcees have found, divorce is not the road to happiness, it is simply changing one set of problems for a new set of problems, sometimes you don't even get to be rid of the old problems. The Transgendered are told that if they change sex they too can be happy, they can escape what ales them and that they can finally be happy. But that is not how life works. That is not how life works for anyone and it is wrong to think that it does. There is not a person alive who has not suffered and there never will be. Suffering is a part of life, not all of life and I sincerely hope not most of life, but it is a real part of life.
Remember that this push for Trangender rights is a logical extension of Liberalism. It is not really about the Transgendered or about their rights, they are simply weapons and if in the future they need to be abandoned they will be. What is important is that all traditional ties be destroyed so that people can be free of all attachments. This is the end goal of Liberalism and Transgendering is just one of the weapons they use to try and make this happen.
Upon Hope Blog- A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like
Anarchy and Libertarianism
It will be interesting to see how the transracial thing plays out. On one level this seems like the logical endpoint of liberalism. If you can choose your own gender then you should be free to choose your own race. After all according to liberal ideology race and gender are both just social constructs. But liberalism derives its power from grievance politics and transracial is a serious threat to racial grievance politics.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth pointing out that a lot of hardline feminists are very unhappy about the whole transgender thing. Even some lesbian radical feminists are not particularly thrilled about it. At the moment feminists are realising that they are are at the absolute bottom of the victim totem pole but eventually there's going to be some pushback from them.
Good post Mark. Second paragraph sums it up well and I don't think that liberals themselves would object to the way you set out their beliefs. To them this is "freedom" and is the highest good. It is probably difficult for them to really turn their minds to the negative consequences and short-termism of having these beliefs, as this would undermine the primary belief they are committed to. They prefer to just "not go there".
ReplyDeleteThey have been sold a lie, the same lie given to the married. That if you are unhappy all you need to do is to change your circumstances. If you are married and you are unhappy, become unmarried and be happy again. But as far to many Divorcees have found, divorce is not the road to happiness, it is simply changing one set of problems for a new set of problems, sometimes you don't even get to be rid of the old problems.
ReplyDeleteThis is the crux of it. High time preference or an unwillingness to think in the long term.
The reason we are in such a bind is that our problems are caused by not only complex and new ideologies (egalitarianism, universalism etc) but also by a problem as old as the sun, a shift in time preference and an accompanying loosening of moral standards.This second cause used to go by the name degeneracy.
The mainstream media concentrates on the second cause but not the first, whereas the intellectual critics concentrate on the first but not the second.