‘Identity politics’ claims, on the face of it, that everyone has the right to identify as anything they want, and we all have to accept that. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Brilliant. So egalitarian. And yes, if I decide that I ‘identify’ as a Prosthetic Vogon leading a constructor fleet across the galaxy which intends to obliterate the Earth to make way for an interstellar superhighway, or that I am Superman, Napoleon or for that matter Jesus Christ, then it matters little; I’m just barking mad and decent people will humour me until I become so delusional that I need to be locked up for my own safety. I would be, in common-sense terms, a harmless lunatic.
Suppose, however, I decide to ‘identify’ as something else, something that will impact on others. Say I, as a man, decide that I ‘identify’ as a woman. Well, ‘identity politics’ demands that I must be respected in this and treated, in all ways, as a woman, even though I am a man, with a penis and a beard. Lest you imagine that this is an unlikely scenario, I direct you to the rantings of a YouTube user who calls himself ‘varmit coyote’ who is in fact a man with a beard and, we presume at least, a penis, who thinks that because he occasionally likes to wear a pink flower in his hair he is a woman, and demands to be treated as such. (I am still not sure whether this is an enormous piss-take or not; but we’ll take the example at face value because it is clear that many do.)
So now, all over the United States of eternal fuckwittery and wherever else its braindead ‘thinkers’ are actually being listened to, women’s safe spaces — intended to protect them from potential rapists, in other words men — are being opened up to ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ even if that person is, by any observable measure, a man and therefore a potential rapist who has no business being in spaces designed to make women feel safe from the threat of rape in the first place. If this is not insanity it is hard to imagine what might be. Women’s rights to be protected as what they can scientifically, biologically be shown to be, are to be trumped by men’s ‘rights’ to call themselves anything they want.
‘Identity politics’ is a political philosophy spawned in the US that has no scientific support. It is the product of ‘thinkers’ who have so far been unable to deal coherently with the facts that their nation is based on the theft of land and genocide on a massive scale; that its economy was founded on slavery; that racism and discrimination remain the cancer at its heart; that it has never reconciled the schism within it that led to the Civil War 150 years ago and the cathartic, fratricidal horror that resulted; that it has exported genocide and war to the Philippines, Vietnam, the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere, with a toll of deaths into the tens of millions if not more; in short, that the United States is a diseased and dysfunctional culture based on discrimination, killing and theft that remains determined to dominate the Earth, despite comprising less than 3% of global population.
You’d think its academic ‘thinkers’ might want to address these issues before talking about how the rest of the world should ‘identify’, but their true role is to provide a plausible doctrine that might justify the US’ ongoing attempt to rule the planet by force. We can hope for little better from them.
We are not ‘what we self-identify as’. We are what we can be identified as. A man with a beard and a penis is a man. Calling a man in a dress a man is not ‘misgendering’, it is using common sense. It is using the same skills we use to identify everything in our lives from dogs to dishes. We look, we listen, we compare to a stored collection of models that we have in our brains, and we identify. The dog does not ‘identify’ itself to us; we identify the dog. The dog might well think it’s Albert Einstein, but we disregard that because, guess what, we can see it’s a dog. If we’re in any doubt, we might pat its head and note its reaction, or bark at it and see if it barks back; although in my experience, such confirmations are rarely required. If — incredibly — we were still unsure, we might take a sample of its saliva and analyse the DNA and yup, you got it, still a dog. Whatever it might ‘self-identify’ as, we disregard, because it is self-evidently a fucking dog. This is called common sense and it is the foundation of science, and science is the only credible, defensible means by which we can identify anything.
Ah, but what about ‘transgenders,’ you ask? Well, this term has been hijacked by a small group of fetishistic cross-dressing men who have long since been scientifically identified as ‘autogynephilic’.
These people retain their male hetero-normative attraction to women; in other words, women are sexual targets for them. Sexually, socially and romantically, they are exactly like other men; their brains are ‘indistinguishable from men’s’ (Savic & Arver 2011) and it is obvious after 30 seconds’ exposure, should you ever be unfortunate enough, that psychologically they are men. Let us be clear: these individuals are men. ‘Self-identifying’ as a woman and wearing a dress, or for that matter a fake vagina, just makes you a cross-dressing man with a voluntarily mutilated body. Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner is as much a man now as when he won Olympic gold, or in the 1980s when he was sneaking into his daughter’s room to borrow her underwear to have a good wank in; it’s just that now, his delusion has taken over the plot.
Malt-to-female transsexuals are not ‘transgender’. They are transsexual. They are socially, sexually and romantically women. They desire men in exactly the same way as a woman does. Since sex and sexual relationships are defined entirely socially, sexually and romantically, a transsexual is, in these terms, a woman. Her desire makes her a woman. Transsexuals do not predate on women. They do not desire to use women’s safe spaces because it gives them a sexual thrill to do so, but because if they tried to use a men’s toilet, especially in a diseased society like the United States, they would risk being bludgeoned to death. They have no sexual interest in women at all and to make matters even more condemning, they too are predated on by gynephilic ‘transgenders’, in other words, fetishistic cross-dressing men who ‘self-identify’ as women.
Ponder this for a moment: autogynephilic ‘transgender’ men change their outward appearance but remain men on the inside, in every way, in order to predate more efficiently on women, and accuse anyone who points out the absurdity of this of bigotry, while women are to be prevented from calling themselves women, and must call themselves ‘cis-women’ instead. Why? So that delusional men in dresses can claim to be ‘real women’. Well, my arse. A woman is a woman and an autogynephile is a man in a dress with a delusion and, until he has it excised, a permanent erection at the thought of being a woman.
This is a brazen attempt to suggest that over half the planet’s population, who actually are women, are not, and that to be a ‘real woman’ you have to have been born with a penis. The misogyny is reeking.
Meanwhile, transsexuals’ true identity, which has been described by science and shown to have no similarity to the autogynephilic cross-dresser’s, has to be erased altogether. Why? Because, dear reader, if you ever get to meet an autogynephilic transgenderist and a male to female transsexual in the same room, you will see immediately that the first is a bloke and whatever the second is, she sure ain’t one of those. So transsexuals are erased and suppressed by transgenderists so that nobody will ever make that comparison, and realise the truth.
This erasure includes the deliberate misrepresentation of male-to-female transsexuals as ‘transgender’. They’re not, but autogynephilic men think that if they can persuade us that they are, then we will ignore what autogynephilic men actually are — delusional men with a masturbatory fetish whose erotic stimulus is themselves dressed up in women’s clothing. And because it is definitely not in the interests of transsexuals, especially in the West, to draw attention to themselves, the male cross-dressers have a clear field to disseminate their blatant lies. Enough.
This is a dog that doesn’t just think it’s Einstein, it thinks it’s God al-fucking-mighty. The word ‘delusional’ doesn’t come close to describing the sheer insanity of such claims. And to make matters worse, this dog actually has real people jumping through hoops and believing its drivel.
I don’t know any transsexual who claims to be a ‘real woman’. Perhaps they exist, but I doubt it. Transsexuals are, by and large, far too realistic and have too much respect for women to make that claim. Yet it is made by autogynephilic transgenderists every day; and it is one that shows what they really think of women. Yes, they are the same misogynistic, women-abusing, hateful men they always were, who see women as sexual targets and trophies.
About the last thing a transsexual thinks of women is that they are targets or trophies. Transsexuals may compete with women in terms of beauty and femininity, but they are in no doubt of their relationship to them. They are not delusional about what they are: they know they’re transsexual. They know they’re not women in biological terms. They are, however, women in social, sexual and romantic terms, and this has been described in peer-reviewed paper after paper, notably by Ray Blanchard, whose work remains the accepted science. A male-to-female transsexual has no sexual desire whatsoever for women, instead she has a woman’s sexual desire for men. They may envy women’s bodies but they are not excited by them; they are excited by men’s bodies, very much.
So in some senses a transsexual does have a right to be accepted into women’s spaces, and she certainly presents no sexual threat to women. We would hope that women might accept this; but in the end, to do so or not is women’s’ choice — a choice that ‘identity politics’ deliberately tries to remove from them. But a transsexual’s womanhood, insofar as it exists, is not because of what she ‘self-identifies’ as, but because of what science can actually identify her as. We know what the differences are between autogynephilic transgenderists and transsexuals, because we have the science that documents them; of course, transgenderists, being loud-mouthed male bullies, have made a great deal of noise to try to discredit this science but the simple fact is they have failed. There is no accepted, peer reviewed science that contradicts Blanchard, and indeed, the ongoing body of science — as opposed to political philosophy and related nonsense — confirms his typology.
This is why the absurdity of ‘identity politics’ has become so central to the transgenderists’ proposed, delusional, world view. Lacking any scientific backing for their platform, they rely, instead, on a smokescreen of philosophy. Yet we must recognise this for what it is: a blatant attempt to deny science because some people find it uncomfortable. There is no difference between the transgenderists’ claims and the religious arguments that the Earth is under 10,000 years old and humans walked with dinosaurs. We give no credence whatsoever to such obvious tripe, because it is not based in science; and we should similarly reject the unscientific, quasi-religious claims of the transgenderist lobby. ‘Identity politics’, is no more than a vehicle for the dissemination of blatant lies. Even worse, it is a form of science denialism; how appropriate, then, that it has its origins in a culture where over half the population do not accept the science of evolution.
The thing about science is that it’s true whether you like it or not, whether it suits you or not, or whether you are embarrassed by it or not: it just works, bitches. If you don’t like it, you have to prove it wrong using better science; you don’t get to use philosophical mumbo-jumbo instead. Yet that is what the autogynephilic transgenderists seek to do, to obscure and befuddle using the smoke and mirrors of rhetoric and philosophical device.
As a political philosophy, ‘identity politics’ is not about the individual at all, but about the group and enforcing conformity to the group’s rules and identities. It is rigidly anti-individualistic, and in this once again reflects the cultism at the rotten core of US culture. From Mormons to Scientologists to Southern Baptists to the proponents of ‘identity politics’, such cults have but one aim: to force the individual to submit to their totalitarian rule.
While ‘identity politics’ pretends that anyone can identify as anything they like, in fact, under it, one is only allowed to ‘self-identify’ under umbrella groups pre-defined by ‘identity politics’ promoters themselves. ‘Identity politics’ will accept transsexuals as women, but only if they conform to a broader ‘queer’ identity; that this is an oxymoron is, we suspect, somewhat beyond the reasoning powers of a person who actually believes that anyone is just what they say they are, despite common sense and science saying they’re not. The individual must conform to the group’s rules or be attacked: ‘identity politics’ is revealed as a totalitarian doctrine of oppression and social control, designed to further the political ends of certain groups at the expense of others, in the denial of science. It is a pack mentality and worse, another creation of the patriarchy, which desires conformity above all else.
Underneath all its high-falutin philosophical mumbo-jumbo, its lies and untruths, its straw men and red herrings, the absurd farce of ‘identity politics’ largely exists to prop up one deeply unscientific untruth: that sexual orientation and gender are separate. This mythology, codified as SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression) claims, with no observable evidence, that a person’s understanding of their own gender, their expression of that gender and their desired sexual partners are completely separate and have no relationship to one another. It does this because it seeks to convince us of that which observation disproves: that autogynephilic transgenderists are actually women and that ‘gay men’ are men at all.
The millions of transsexual sisters across the world expose the lies of ‘identity politics’ and SOGIE. They are transsexual because they are socially, romantically and sexually women, but they were born male. A transsexual shows that to desire men, to love and be loved by men, to want to be penetrated by a man makes one a woman.
To the autogynephile transgenderist they say ‘This is what a transsexual is really like. We are not women but we are like them in every way but the genitalia we were born with; you are ersatz, a falsehood, a man in a dress pretending to be something you can never be, a woman. If I, so vastly more feminine than you, can recognise that I am not actually a woman, then where does that leave you?’ To the Western New Gay Man, that absurd travesty of masculinity, they say ‘We are what you would like to be, but you lack the courage to be so. You pretend to be a man but we both know that your desires make you a woman, just as mine do. You would do better to put on a wig and make-up and at least recover some honesty and self-respect.’
‘Identity politics’ and SOGIE are deliberate attempts to deny science and replace it with unscientific, unsupported philosophical gobbledygook: there is no underlying science to support either. They are, simply, glib doctrines that further their inventors’ interests, to the detriment and harm of everyone else. They are at the absolutist, conformist core of the totalitarian, regressive ‘Left’. They are the Communist Manifesto rewritten in sexual terms, and just as completely intolerant of any challenge.