Skip to main content

The "Right" Never Named: The Problem with "Trans Rights"

The new secular religion of gender ideology relies on adherents accepting its cants without question. As part of the vast majority on whom it is imposed, I can't help but question. For example, when we are told that "trans people" are the most marginalized group in the world, what does that mean? When we are told that trans rights are human rights, what human right is denied people for choosing to identify as trans? What is the mechanism for losing a right when one self identifies as transgender? It might surprise you to know that the people declaring that "trans rights are under attack" won't name the rights they are in danger of losing. Like every declaration from the ideology, it needs to be understood for what is actually being said; the reality the declaration is meant to obscure.

As a whole, the ideology is meant to obscure the fact that we have two immutable sexes, men cannot be women, and that disturbance with the body is a matter of resolving psychological conflict, not extreme body modification. The ideology hinges on pretending there is something called gender which may negate, replace, or subsume a person's sex if they reject their biology and choose a new identity. This chosen identity somehow becomes the basis of the individual belonging to a vulnerable minority. The assertion of this vulnerability allows the adherents of gender ideology to claim the pursuit of "trans rights" a civil rights issue. As a result, the pursuit of "trans rights" is often likened to the Civil Rights Movement and an extension of the Gay Rights Movement. Any consideration of either movement immediately dismantles comparison. They were both dependent on growing a political collective through dialogue and debate. The movement for "trans rights" is dependent on the absence of debate, presidential executive orders, corporate support, and legal coercion. It is dependent on political and economic power that neither the Civil Rights Movement nor Gay Rights Movement had, nor any group of vulnerable minorities might wield.

 Both the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement sought to establish laws against legal discrimination on the basis of the immutable qualities of race and sexual orientation. Neither movement created a conflict with the established rights of outside groups. There are no immutable attributes that make someone trans. The only way to "be trans" is to choose to identify as trans. No one is discriminated against on the basis of a chosen identity. The pursuit of human rights is the pursuit of equal rights denied because of who people are. "Trans rights" is the pursuit of special dispensation to be acknowledged as something people are not. "Trans rights" is the demand for external validation for individuals as the opposite sex. External validation of a falsehood people can't validate for themselves is not a right. The reason "trans rights" conflict with the rights of women is because it is the expression of male narcissistic desire framed as a right.

If anything, the movement for "trans rights" can best be seen as a movement against the rights of women for single sex spaces and the safeguarding of children. It is a movement against free speech and free association. Women have been organizing events in the UK and US called Speakers' Corner to talk about the loss of women's rights and spaces.

"Trans rights" advocates attempt to drown out the participants rather than offer their own political arguments. The adherents of gender ideology are far more adept at silencing women stating their concerns than making the case for accepting men as women. Of course they are. There are no arguments for accepting men as women that are not completely absurd. The consequences of accepting men as women despite the absurdity are growing difficult for even adherents to ignore.

There are repercussions for convincing narcissists that others not regarding them in line with their preferred self concept is a form of violation. This "misgendering" is seen as equivalent to epitaphs for some gender adherents, and as a form of violence by others. The most extreme hyperbolically claim that it is the equivalent of removing their existence. In other words, accurately stating the sex of someone who prefers to be perceived as the opposite sex or without sex is the equivalent of verbal or physical assault. It may even result in death (of the preferred self image they cannot self validate). Obviously, in the face of such violence, self defense is justified. Just ask Averie Chanel Medlock, born Dmontrey Duvall Satchell.

Medlock is a 25 year old man who chooses to identify as trans who attended a cheerleading camp for a Texas community college. During the camp a 17 year old teammate pointed out that Medlock is a man with a penis. In response, Medlock is alleged to have assaulted the teammate and terrorized the team locked away in a dorm room together. This has resulted in a criminal citation for physical assault. In the viral post that first brought this situation to light, Medlock calls his actions, "standing up for myself."

What seems evident is that in the conflict between women's single sex rights and the narcissistic desires of men, desire wins over rights. That is, until male violence makes it clear why the right exists. This is the only explanation for the UK suddenly prohibiting male prisoners from entering women's prisons because they choose to identify as trans. The action follows a number of well publicized rapes and assaults predicted before the first man identifying as trans ever entered a women's prison. There is simply no defense for placing males in women's prisons, which makes the case of Harvey Marcelin all the more frustrating and confounding.

Marcelin was convicted of murdering an ex-girlfriend in 1963, and another woman in 1986, 2 years after being paroled for the first murder. Marcelin was paroled for that murder in 2019. He was arrested in March for the murder of a third woman. He met his third victim through a homeless shelter for senior women to which he gained access as a man choosing to identify as trans. Anne Brennan, a nurse overseeing intake for the homeless shelter objected to Marcelin's entry because of his past violence. She was over-ruled. She said, "[a]pparently his feelings and identity were far more important that all the other women that were terrified of him." A spokeswoman for the city's Department of Social Services noting that placement is based on identity and subsequent handling of Marcelin corroborate Brennans reading. Marcelin is being housed in the women's section of Rykers despite being accused of murdering a third woman two and a half years after being paroled for his second murder of a woman. If a man murdering three women, dismembering the third, does not result in a re-evaluation of housing HIM on the basis of gender identity it's not clear what would be required to reconsider the larger assault on vulnerable women's right to safety.

There is an economic and cultural component to belief in the idea that there are rights lost to people when they choose to identify as trans. The only people who believe preferred external regard by strangers is a right are people who have never experienced any form of prejudice. It is only possible to believe that "trans people" are the most oppressed minority for those who are not minorities or those who have never struggled to meet basic needs. It is only possible to believe one can identify into oppression for the people with no concrete understanding of exploitation. The reason the adherents of gender call "misgendering" oppression and center marginalization is precisely because people who choose to identify as trans are not a vulnerable minority. It is self marginalization to choose extreme body modification in pursuit of an unattainable new reality over self acceptance. It is not discrimination or an expression of hatred to reject the employment or company of narcissists with an untreated psych disorder. 

I don't say this to be cruel. I would suggest that at its heart gender ideology is cruel. It is an attack on the body integrity of the people who choose to identify as trans. It convinces these people that choosing to identify as trans creates a new reality not just for them, but for others. It creates a problem for which it is the only solution, while solving nothing. I would suggest that no one believes that anyone changes sex, especially the people pretending theirs has. The fact is that no amount of external validation will ever be enough for a lie that cannot be self validated. The cruelty is in convincing so many people who cannot accept their biological reality that there is plenty of external validation, and it is their right to have it.


Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that


Meet the F--kers F--kers-9-7.wmv Iraq war delayed katrina relief effort, inquiry finds TIMELINES pt. 2 -the president's timeline -gov. blanco declares a state of emergency Friday, August 26, 2005 -gov. blanco asks the president to decl a re a federal state of emergency Saturday morning, August 27 , 2005 -the president declares a state of emergency Saturday, August 27, 2005

Wokeness: The Ugly Changeling Baby and the End of Shared Reality

I have once again found it difficult to write because I'm just saying the same thing in different ways about the moral idealism in the social justice discourse. For months, I've been reflecting on this moment and the future implications. It's seems increasingly likely that we are reaching towards a point in which there's no shared objective knowledge Instead, we'll just have popular consensus and disinformation, depending on your ideological commitments.  I want to lay this out so that it doesn't just seem like a bunch of completely disconnected impressions, but the logical conclusion of tying those impressions together. I think some of it may already be clear to anyone who sees the obvious parallels between the riot in the Capitol and Russiagate, understanding that only the latter had actual power behind it. But I want to make it clear for those who don't. In August 2020, American Greatness published a piece from journalist Oliver Bateman called " The