‘Islamic extremism is a danger to society and a threat to public safety. It must be defeated wherever it is found’.
Well it’s no secret that I think this is wholly true. Anyone who reads my posts on Islam knows that I consider it to be a sick, depraved cult based on male privilege, misogyny, homophobia, male paedophilia, ‘honour killings’, genital mutilation and violence.
Hallelujah! Is it premature to imagine that some common sense has at last been allowed to spring its green shoots in UK politics? Not so long ago, I would have been vilified for saying things like that, and I know people who have been banned from social media for it. That there is no more grim darkness than the regressive liberalism that infests such spaces has no greater confirmation. And today a minister of State says exactly what should have been said over a decade ago.
J Michael Bailey’s seminal book, The Man Who Would Be Queen(TMWWBQ) sparked huge controversy when it was published in 2003. The furore it caused, while small in focus, was spectacular in its incandescent rage at the author. This was categorically different from the conservative reaction to works of other controversial authors like D H Lawrence, or even Vladimir Nabokov’s deeply unsettling study of male attraction to pubescent girls. In those, the hostility was principally against the work; not so here. It was J Michael Bailey in person who was vilified.
And to cap that, TMWWBQ is not a work of fiction, but of popular science. It is well written, in non-scientific language, is easy to read and deeply sympathetic to its subject. So what on Earth happened, to provoke such a furious backlash? It included entirely spurious attempts to end Bailey’s career, personal slurs and threats of violence against him. His attackers even accused him of sexually molesting his children.
The campaign against Bailey, coordinated by a small group of internet bullies, amounted to nothing more or less than a blatant attempt at censorship associated with a virulent personal attack on the author. It’s time, now, to revisit this book and see why it caused such a storm in a latte cup. Continue reading “The Man Who Would Be Queen”
This article on the two types of trans woman is from 2015 but I’ve updated and refreshed it. The points it makes are still germane.
If you’ve been anywhere near a media outlet over the last few years you won’t ave been able to avoid noticing that trans women are getting a lot of attention. If you have seen images of Caitlyn, formerly Bruce, Jenner, and then Paris Lees, Janet Mock, Laverne Cox or Jai Dara Latto, who was crowned Miss Transgender UK 2015, you might be forgiven for being a bit confused. You might be struggling to figure out what the connection is between an ageing sports jock who looks like a man in a dress, and a glamorous woman who looks like — a glamorous woman. If you’re at all liberal or PC, you might have just accepted that these are the same, but, you know, because time and stuff.
But you’d be dead wrong. There are two completely distinct types of transgender woman and there is no connection between them at all. The conflation that is going on is wrong and potentially lethal.
This is important because one type is the subject of deadly and repeated violence, while the other colludes in it. Perhaps even worse, a vicious form of feminism rooted in the writing of the odious Janice Raymond, has for decades also been colluding in this persecution. Those who follow this are called Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist or TERFs.
Now I will show my cards here: my girlfriend is trans. But she’s not like Jenner. And because she is — being of the other type — a potential victim of violence, I have to stand to the wire. Political Correctness is all very well until people start dying because of it; and that is what is happening. So let me explain.
Autogynephilia was defined by Dr Ray Blanchard. His studies focussed on patients born male who desired Genital Reconstruction Surgery (GRS) to change their male genitalia into cosmetic facsimiles of female ones.
Blanchard’s work is the definitive basis of the science on the subject of male-to-female transsexualism.
He defined, in the first place, a group he called ‘Homosexual Transsexual’ (HSTS). The most important factors that link the individuals together is that they are uniquely sexually attracted to men, in exactly the same way as women are, and that they are remarkably feminine in manners, comportment and appearance. Their parents and siblings would have noticed from an early age that they were ‘like girls’.
I’ve spent a lot of time looking at how societies might have been structured before the development of agriculture. Clearly, we can’t directly study the human groups that existed outside Africa between 50,000 and 5,000 years ago, because they no longer exist. So I also looked at relatives of humans, particularly our closest, bonobos, Pan paniscus.
Our ancestors left very little evidence. Although they did use stone and bone, a great deal of their artefacts were made of wood or leather and were perishable. The few that we do have are somewhat mysterious.
To try to shed light on this, we reviewed a wide range of anthropological literature. We especially concentrated on extant traditional societies, of which there are a surprising number, despite the attempts by religious fundamentalists, especially the Christian and Muslim ones, to eradicate them. (As a matter of fact, Islam has been less damaging to many traditional societies than Christianity, as we see from the number of traditional groups still living, and respected, in Indonesia.)
We reviewed the mythology that was recorded soon after the invention of writing, in Sumer in the 5th Millennium BCE. We then compared this to modern mythologies which form part of traditional cultures. We also looked at similar species, and that’s where bonobos came in.
You have to be brain-dead to deny the fact of Evolution these days. Well, these last 150 years actually… Apparently though, at least 40% of USians (other Americans are smarter), are indeed just so cerebrally demised. Hopped the neurological twig as it were. Zombified the gray matter. Deceased the thinking apparatus.
Now why would we worry? These are sister-shagging Bible belt rednecks who still think the South actually won the Civil War, aren’t they? ‘Oh no man we just kinda took a time out for a mint juleps n some grits n shit them gaddamn Yankees done called time on us!’ So who cares what they think?
There are two forms of Selection involved in Evolution. Both were described by Darwin.1 One is Natural Selection, which is the cumulative effect of the environment on organisms, and the other is Sexual Selection, which is how individual organisms choose their partners. Key to Sexual Selection is attraction: we select partners we find attractive. In humans, this is important, because we have overcome most of the environmental factors that impinge upon us.
While the effects of Sexual Selection are best known in domestic animals, where humans do the selecting, we have shaped ourselves through it, by choosing our sexual partners and at the same time, by making ourselves appealing to our targets.2
I have now almost completed my long-awaited update to the Transgender and Transsexualism Links page here on Rod Fleming’s World. This page now constitutes one of the biggest collections of links to academic papers on this subject area available on the Internet. I still have the link references from my most recent book to enter but that will happen soon.
Please browse the page (it’s over 21000 words) and I should just love it if you left a tip!
Dr Peggy Reeves Sanday is best known for her work amongst a tribal people called the Minangkabau who live in Indonesia. They are also called the Urang Padang and are the largest ethnic group on the island of Sumatra, whose traditional homeland is the west-central highlands. While these are notionally Muslim, they actually follow what is locally called an ‘adat’ which is a tribal set of beliefs, permitted under the local form of Islam. There are many of these.
Feminism has always been a lie. It is a deception perpetrated on women, in order to make them the front-line troops in a Communist Revolution. If you don’t believe me, read Gloria Steinem: ‘the only thing Marx got wrong is that the means ARE the end’.
The sex-doll issue, which was bubbling in the news-feeds as feminists set it up for attack — until COVID-19 stole the show — is illustrative of how they use sex to exercise power over men. No women are harmed in a sexual exchange between a man and a piece of plastic, yet somehow it is still ‘demeaning to women’ for this to happen. How is that even possible? It’s a SEX TOY.