Again and again, over the last couple of years of dealing with the “transgender” issue, I have asked myself why most of the people supporting the transgender agenda don’t really seem to have the full picture of what a full “transition” involves. Transition is the word used for a sex change. They also don’t know about the lack of definitions for “gender” or “gender identity”. And they don’t know about the dynamic within the LGBT “community”.
I also asked myself why most supporters don’t see the misogynist motivation and the stereotype enforcing outcome of the trans agenda.
And least of all, they are aware of the strategies employed in funneling children into sex changes or wish to see the mutilation inflicted on children who are “transitioned” into the opposite sex, such as puberty blockers and other irretrievably life changing drugs and procedures. Notice the passive voice in the “transitioned”.
Throughout, I continue asking myself why intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties express not an inkling of doubt about the ability of a child to make decisions that will irreparably affect its life forever. None of these intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties would let their own child drive a car or get married at age 7 or 10 or 13, or entrust them with a loaded handgun, or send them on a trip around the world by themselves. But they will let them sterilize themselves and set themselves on a life-long regimen of medical intervention?
In terms of adult sex changes, would intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties believe that a person with a history of destructive and ill-fated life decisions would suddenly discover the root of all his or her problems in a divine fuck-up (wrong sex) and then find a successful solution in a new “identity”? Quite unlikely.
What it all boils down to is: Why are so many intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties so ignorant about the issue of so-called gender politics? Why is there even something like “gender politics”? Why is something as fundamental as a person’s sex made subject to political wrangling and propaganda?
And why are these countless intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties not only ignorant about what they are supporting but also insist on staying ignorant about what they are supporting? The ignorance seems to serve a purpose. It helps . . . something
In Praise of Prejudice
(In Defense of Natural Ignorance)
In the middle ages or whatever far away time, we lived in some type of a modest-sized village or tribe or other community, and we knew what we knew. And if we didn’t know, we didn’t know that we didn’t know. There was a road of sorts, a path to get from point A to point B , maybe or maybe not. There probably existed some kind of shelter like houses, tents, or huts or caves, and we knew who was in charge of things. And we also knew who wanted to be in charge of things. We knew when it was cold or colder. And things were good, bad or indifferent.
But all in all, the quantity of information in our lives about all these things like roads and shelter and cold, hot, wet, dry, and the people around us was of a dimension that we were equipped to process. Our nervous systems, our brains, our immune system and our human capacities in general haven’t changed that much since.
There were animals that grew up in the village and we had relationships with them, they were domesticated. There also were wild animals and maybe those wild animals were dangerous to one’s own or one’s domesticated animals’ well being. So if you heard a growl at night in the forest you assessed that as being dangerous, pre-judged it as dangerous, and that was a good thing to do that.
Outside that village there may have been a town or larger accumulation of people, and there was likely some higher authority; there were things or markets with people and wares that were different from what the person who came from the village was familiar with. The town and its realities, the markets and the people were something strange, something “out there” or “other” than the village.
This allowed for an assessment, let’s call it the “non village” label; and all its ingredients were othered and that was a safe, healthy assessment under the circumstances.. For the village person, the town was pre judged as being ‘town’, as being other, and all those discriminatory boundary labels. And that was a good thing for everyone’s individual safety and the community, along with a scope of decision-making the human mind was readily able to manage.
Under those circumstances, when a stranger comes by the village that you may or may not have heard of in the town, the hair in the back of your neck stands up, and you think “who’s that?” There is no familiar response stored for that one.
It’s all a very healthy way of dealing with the unknown, to pre-judge it as being unknown, and it requires that moment of “hmmm I’ve got to figure that out” or “I gotta stay away from it” or “I gotta run from it”. Again, all creating a fairly safe place, despite being good, bad or indifferent. It’s not about whether it was bad or good in quality, but that it was manageable for the psyche. I’m talking about the design of the psyche, if you will, of the wiring. I’m basically arguing in defense of prejudice and that it is a good thing and it is a means to make life safe. It keeps your adrenaline at a reasonable level.
The Sound Barrier of Tolerance
Fast forward to today or even fast forward only to the second half of the 20th century. In the first half, there were two world wars and there were changes, changes, and world events of such indescribable dimensions that no person could possibly understand it or digest it or deal with it on the type of “village level” that we are designed for. What options does that leave?
As a brief “biographical” side note: Whatever state of the U.S. someone was born in, there was slavery at one time or another, which pre-judged the slaves as being slaves. Or to take it back a couple of centuries further, let’s assume you’re Native American, and here come some pale dudes and because you’re a nice person you don’t pre-judge them as danger. And it doesn’t turn out so good – which leaves you with a justified pre-judice. The high road got you six feet under, and you’re unlikely to forget that.
To continue with that unfortunate experience: So you’re going to have a prejudice and maybe even act on that prejudice and try to get rid of these people whom you pre-judged as human beings and correctly so, but they’re trying to kill you all off. Therefore, for a Native American person to be prejudiced against white people is accurate, is healthy, is good. Maybe it’s a life saver. Remember the high road.
Someone else may have been born in France or in Austria or in Japan or New Zealand, and acquainted with the life at their respective home, be that as a female or a male, poor or rich; and there comes a person who dresses different and speaks a foreign language. What are you going to do? Of course, you’re pre-judging that person. I’m not saying it’s a mono-factorial issue at all. In fact, the outcome of the encounter may be determined not by the language barrier or the unfamiliar dress but by a smile that conveys good intent and a benign personality. Just look at the eyes, there may be charm or if the person happens to be of the opposite sex there might be “chemistry” also. But that’s a different subject or maybe it isn’t. We’ll get there.
Finally approaching today’s “news” media inundated world, we have to recognize that a smile can’t fix it any longer, even though the information peddlers try very hard with make-up and cleavage, TV star look-alikes or “sexy” 5-o’clock shadow. The amount of information is simply overwhelming. But there is relief, if you only limit your world to what Fox News or CBS or CNN or NBC or ABC or their equivalents in other countries serve you up. You may feel fairly safe.
On the other hand, if you are an educated, world open person who is looking at the world in differentiated ways and from different angles, you are facing a politically incorrect problem. While that world open person knows more and is aware of the multitude of facets and viewpoints of many world events, that world openness far exceeds their wiring and their psycho-emotional capacity.
What happens next is that for sheer survival, a great deal of facets and considerations must be pre-sorted – or pre-judged, except that in the case of the educated, world open and differentiated person, the prejudice is pushed underground because it contradicts your (and others’) perception of yourself as being open-minded, tolerant, and all that good stuff. Your need for a safety boundary to protect you from information or feeling overload in how you interact with the world must stay invisible, most of all to yourself.
One effective way of protection is profuse – and necessarily insincere – agreeableness.
Of course, because the human “system”, the mental, emotional make up, not to mention the physical, is not designed for life without boundary, the unlimited open-mindedness becomes a façade, at least for most people who have not experienced or are not in some way pre-disposed to an affinity with cultural exchange with “other” human beings. For most, the boundaries therefore are repressed, one could say, the boundaries themselves are pre-judged. The means of reasonable discernment are filtered away by what is perceived as politically or otherwise correct.
The problem with repression is that whatever is hidden, will grow, uncontrolled and never examined: It festers. Where does that leave the person, especially the educated intelligent card carrying liberal with fully developed critical faculties, who might otherwise discern a problem with someone else or someone’s thinking or communication but cannot admit that discernment for fear of spoiling the politically correct self-image? What happens? Will it not be a kind of “immune defense suppression”? And in time, such a suppression will irreparably fatigue or disengage the immune system.
At the same time, because we are more afraid of what we are suppressing than of the prejudice we have to employ to defend against the prejudice we are suppressing – all while having to deny that we do: We get addicted.
So what happens with repressed emotions, repressed sentiments? They fester and instead of being beneficial, they become destructive. This does not spare our more or less stereotypical yogically educationally, spiritually, politically correct person whose prejudice is compulsively under wraps, underground and festering. And the more the world becomes insecure, the more things like the non-sustainability of the way the world operates is in your face, the more a mere Prius-ness is insane, but your status depends on it because you don’t get the job unless you do have a Prius because the yoga instructor who doesn’t come in a Prius but in an old V-8 pickup is terrible and on and on . . . . . no way can you do it. In other words, the more the onslaught of the real world (I’m not wronging the world) would provoke or demand increased or strengthened boundaries, the more the prejudice against prejudice requires a build-up of the façade of tolerance. So you start lying to yourself. Normal thing, depressed, denial, denial of things, we get addicted. Did I just say that?
Again, the real prejudice – and along with it some degree of discernment – has gone underground and you need to protect the undergroundness more the more it is underground. What ensues is an ongoing battle between some degree of armor your soul needs and the need to maintain the façade. So now, here comes addictive. compulsive non discrimination.
Imagine what happens if you live in some established neighborhood and someone of a different race or culture wants to move in next door. What is your reaction? But your image of yourself doesn’t allow you to react the way your armor wants you to react. Remember, you’re addicted to non-discrimination. Perhaps you see a muscle car and it triggers any number of pre-conceptions. Or you see a very well-dressed person and fear their judgment of you. Of course you don’t say any of this and you don’t admit any of this to anybody, including yourself, because you are an intelligent, educated, tolerant, progressive human being, and you disapprove of any kind of discrimination.
Let’s up the ante and introduce the subject of sex. Sex triggers much deeper and much more stubborn reactions than race or culture. (That alone should tell us something.) There is fear on the one hand and the desire for control on the other, and a variety of feelings in between, depending on the triggers, depending on your sexual preference or the lack thereof. But because you are an intelligent, educated, tolerant, progressive human being, you cannot admit to most of them. Instead, you are likely to profess to non-discrimination and equal rights under all circumstances, and you are likely to maintain that card-carrying lieral image even if things get sticky. Let’s assume you’re female and good looking and there’s a good looking woman coming down the pike. What you may feel is a cascade of conflicting feelings, conflicting mainly because you don’t want to feel that you are judging the person. Right? She could be competition, she could be a potential hot fling, or she could be just another superficial, self-engrossed pretty girl.
Now let’s assume you’re a hetero male, and here comes a stunning looking female, and you can’t take your eyes off her, you can almost feel her in you hands, her cleavage, her tight skirt . . . you’re drooling, and then you see her embracing, kissing another woman. Okay, you tell me what kind of non-prejudicial stuff is happening in your gut. Bullshit. Your whole system was geared for ‘gimme, gimme’ and now someone else is doing the getting and you can’t even compete. Where does that leave your intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant hetero male hard-on ego? Hanging out to dry and shrivel, I guess, but you must find a way to protect your well educated, progressive, tolerant image. And the only way is not to know, not to discern what just happened but to hole up behind the sandwich board of the intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant image.
To go one step further, this time assuming you’re female, and you have a company. Someone is waiting on the other side of the glass wall for a job interview with you. From what you can see, she looks very very. But when the door opens, a big thud hits your gut. It’s a biological male introducing himself as ‘Jeanelle’. What happens? Are you going to hire her/him? Are you prejudiced? Can you see the person as a “sister” or does your female fear reaction versus the male prevail. But you can’t allow that. Do you want to know more about his/her psyche? Your mind is racing, scrambling for a plausible reason not to hire her/him. Do you want to know more about anything concerning this person? Let’s just lay it all out. Do you want to know more? No, you don’t because you just, by the skin of your teeth, you’re hanging on to your self image as intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant, open-minded and non-discriminatory.
To Know Or Not To Know
These are a just few examples; yours may differ. But are there really any of us who don’t ever need to shut that door on some experiences we have that threaten to wake the sleeping dog? In fact, don’t many marketing methods capitalize on this conflict on a daily basis: Feed the stereotype, raise the righteousness, and sell to appease the conflict. This is where most people live, unable to face it themselves, just making “non-discriminatory” decisions in the abstract.
You need to close that door. No, you need to slam that door of discomfort and judgment, slam it shut as tight as you can. Remember, your judgement is underground, your pre-judgment, the armor, the walls, all that is underground, and you need to keep it there, quickly, before any of that armor gets chewed on by information, by understanding by non ignorance or fear. To maintain that ignorance protects you: “No, I don’t want to know. I don’t need to know, to understand, to discern. All I need is to be tolerant and non-discriminatory.” Put on your, politically and otherwise correct façade and smile: How wonderful diversity is, isn’t it!
How would the armor underneath the liberal tolerance mask react if it were forced to know, to understand, to discern, to form a differentiated opinion and act on it responsively? How would that “safely progressive” person react toward someone holding different opinions? Worse, if they actually had plausible arguments to challenge yours. Could such a person endure their own feelings contradicting their progressive, tolerant, liberal convictions? Could such a person be tolerant toward those feelings and sentiments and thoughts that, Goddess forbid, might lead to different opinions?
Here is the American Heritage definition of a bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The fictional person above fits this description in at least one way: Due to her or his perception of righteousness and political or moral correctness, he or she is extremely intolerant toward any of her or his own impulses that could rock the intelligent, well educated, progressive, tolerant and non-discriminatory boat. There is no muscle of self reflection to keep the boat afloat and steer it through waters of doubt or challenge.
To the contrary, in order to protect the boat, no questioning of any progressive, tolerant and non-discriminatory premise or idea or law or opinion must ever be tolerated. In service to and for the protection of the safe, non-discriminatory boat, the fully developed critical faculties must be suspended or at least heavily sedated.
Your soul, your village soul is in there, forgotten under the progressive, non-discriminatory paint, but controlling your inner safety mechanisms nevertheless.
As a result, what we have here is the closet bigot hiding his or her closet prejudice.
And since hiding and self-lies require increasing propaganda, we need to act in a way that is counter to how we feel because we don’t know how we really feel anymore because we have assumed a persona that is superficially consistent.
This is not an accusation or a judgment. It is an attempt to understand the intolerance with which intelligent, educated, progressive, tolerant adults with fully developed critical faculties protect themselves from challenging information and differing views. And there are many millions of them.
They desperately need the alibi of believing their own progressive, liberal, non-discriminatory propaganda. They are closet bigots clutching their politically correct alibi of indiscriminate non-disrimination.
While this would generally be a benign occurrence, since these millions really rank among the nicest ones, it becomes destructive and harmful when people in willful naivete let their good intentions be hijacked.
You see, now I understand why most of the people supporting the transgender agenda don’t really seem to have the full picture of what a full “transition” involves, why they don’t know about the lack of definitions for “gender” or “gender identity” or about the dynamic within the LGBT “community”. I guess I understand why so many supporters of undefined “equality” don’t see the misogynist motivation and the stereotype enforcing outcome of the trans agenda, why they are not aware of the strategies employed in funneling children into sex changes and don’t want to see the mutilation inflicted on children who are “transitioned” into the opposite sex, like puberty blockers and other irretrievably life changing drugs and procedures. Now I think I understand why intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties express not an inkling of doubt about the ability of a child to make decisions that will irreparably affect its life forever, and why so many intelligent adults with fully developed critical faculties are so ignorant about the issue of so-called gender politics in general and insist on staying so..
Maybe now I understand and can meet them with compassion.