‘LGB’ culture in the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, was strongly transgressive, after the ideals of men like Harry Hay, one of the founders. He was a card-carrying Communist Party member who finally realised that Communists hated homosexuals even more than mainstream society did; so his solution to destroying the culture he lived in was to use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
Peter Tatchell, a ‘gay rights’ activist, first noted for the deliberate exposure of other people’s private lives said, in a 1996 polemic:
‘Those who advocate gay rights alone, without any deeper commitment to the transformation of sexua1ity, are concerned only with removing homophobic discrimination. They want to reform society, not fundamentally change it. Their insistence on nothing more than equal rights for queers, and their typical view of lesbians and gay men as a distinct class of people who are destined to remain forever a sexual minority separate from the straight majority, have the effect of reinforcing the divisions between hetero and homo. It encourages the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people. Such attitudes preserve society as it is’
The underlying intention of Western LGB could not be more clearly stated. Those struggling for ‘gay rights alone’ are to be condemned because they only ‘want to reform society, not fundamentally change it.’ To ‘preserve society as it is’ becomes an epithet. But from whence does the idea that ‘fundamental change’ is either a desirable or an achievable thing come, or that society should not be preserved as it is? How do we improve, fundamentally, a free, democratic society in which the rights of the individual are respected? Certes, modification and improvement may be desirable, but ‘fundamental change?’ How so and in what direction? What is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
Thousands of years
Humanity spent thousands of years arriving at a model of civilisation in which the rights of the individual were paramount — doesn’t ‘fundamental change’ mean they must no longer be? Are activists like Tatchell seeking a return to Feudalism, in which they might well be burned at the stake, as homosexuals, then called catamites, were, by the Inquisition? No, of course not. The ‘reform’ they seek is the imposition of Communist totalitarianism and they have been using sex, sexuality and gender to try to do this, for fifty years and more.
Note: ‘insistence on nothing more than equal rights’. In other words, homosexuals, according to Tatchell, a notorious shrew, were to be what? Greater than equal? The Freudian slip is clear. And then: ‘the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people’. Why is that false? If homosexuals are not different, then why is there a rights issue at all? And on the other hand, if it is not true that ‘gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations’ then what are they? A matter of choice? I thought that was directly counter to LGB dogma.
If sexual orientations are not pre-ordained, then surely they can be changed — but if that be so, why do LGB activists rail so against ‘reparative’ therapies? Why not embrace them, if ‘being gay’ were a mistake that might be rectified? What can be changed in one way can be changed in the other, surely? Instead of changing society, one changes oneself, and the ‘discrimination’ goes away: simple. Except that the point of LGB activism, just like feminism, has never been to get rid of discrimination. Oh yes, that is seen as a desirable by-product, to be sure; but the real end has always been, and remains, the destruction of free democracy — because it was invented by largely heterosexual, European men.
Western transgressive activism
LGB activism in the West does not seek to live happily within a society that accepts it. It is seeking to destroy that society; it is one of the vehicles being used, today, to undermine free and democratic societies from within and replace them with the collectivist hive. To that end it long ago put the destruction of democracy and Capitalism at the centre of its programme. It was and remains an utterly cynical project that is specifically and deliberately transgressive, as this quote and thousands like it show:
“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”
— (US) National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy director, Paul Ettelbrick
In other words, the family had to be disgraced and got rid of, because it suited the interests of politically motivated Western homosexuals. This quote sets out the underlying political imperative of Western LGB: to use non-conforming sexualities and gender to compromise and ultimately destroy the society that tolerates it. Just as Harry Hay had always intended. Note too, the compulsion: if one is queer then one must be transgressive, must work towards the destruction of society. That is the true meaning of ‘queer’; same-sex attraction is just a by-product of a militant political ideology. No backsliding permitted.
Last year, Pride in Protest, a transgressive, extremist ‘gay rights’ group in Australia, attempted to take over the 2019 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. The group posted to social media
‘It may not be 1978 anymore, but we know that the fight for Queer rights isn’t over. What we have we won because we rioted, we protested, and we campaigned in the community for decades.’
The post outlined a series of left-wing policies that they wanted to see adopted by Mardi Gras, including endorsing BDS (a notorious anti-Israeli movement widely linked to antisemitism) and banning any police presence or that of the Australian Liberal Party, from the event. The group failed in its attempt and its proposals were voted down at the AGM, but the illustration of its transgressive, iconoclastic and, indeed, Communist agenda is clear. Despite the manifest changes in Australian society, which has become one of the most politically correct on the planet, the transgressivists will never be satisfied until the society that supports them fails completely.
The Curse (of feminism)
Feminism, since the ‘Second Wave’ has had exactly the same intention — to destroy traditional, liberal, democratic society and freedom of speech alongside Free Market Capitalism and to apply and enforce a Neo-Marxist Utopia, in which there will be no genders (and nothing but misery.) This is the feminist answer to Tatchell: okay, so we can’t repair our sex, but if we get rid of gender, it’s almost as good.
Sex, sexuality and gender have been weaponised by the demagogues behind these movements, not to ensure tolerance, acceptance or egalitarianism, but so that the Collectivist hive-mind is enforced, in a society in which women and homosexuals are not equals to heterosexual men but have supremacy over them. Heterosexual men, especially white ones, are to be Helotised or, as many feminists openly desire, eradicated altogether.
Theorists and thinkers
This desire is explicit in the writings of ‘queer theorists’ like Foucault as well as ‘feminist thinkers’ like Dworkin, Steinem, Greer and many others. It is to be done using anti-democratic methods, by suppression of free speech, by ‘shaming’ or ‘de-platforming’ those whose views do not align with the hive mind’s, by pretending that political activists represent groups that are somehow ‘oppressed minorities’ whose ‘rights’ transcend everyone else’s, and so their claims must simply be accepted. This is the most dangerous, toxic philosophy extant and it has one end only: the destruction of its host culture. To make matters worse, the people behind these transgressive political movements will not hesitate to use violence if they are gainsaid, as we have seen time and again since 2016.
Southeast Asian gay cultures are not transgressive
The various forms of transitioning and homosexual culture in southeast Asia, like kabaklaan (Philippines), waria (Indonesia) and kathoey (Thailand) are not transgressive. Instead, they are socially conservative.
‘Gay’ parades here in southeast Asia, when they happen, are not the aggressive, transgressive protests that they are in the West; they are inclusive, family-fun street parties. In any case, one sees far, far more ‘Miss Gay’ pageants than rallies; that’s hardly transgression.
There are a few, like Neil Garcia and Sass Rogando Sasot, who continue to try to sell Western, principally USican, values to baklas (gays and transwomen) and tomboys (the female equivalent, lesbians and transmen) in the Philippines. Largely, though, since the election of President Rodrigo Duterte, they have been in full retreat. Sasot, indeed, seems to have placed herself in voluntary exile. She never spoke for anything but a tiny minority anyway and most baklas have never even heard of her; even fewer have heard of Garcia. Duterte’s massive ongoing popularity and his avuncular support for baklas and tomboys, has rendered the transgressive globalists irrelevant in the context of homosexual and transsexual politics.
Heterogender and heterosexual
Kabaklaan and its equivalents provide an accepted social space. In it, persons with non-conforming sexuality and gender may function as individuals and couples within a traditionally conservative, family-oriented culture. To do this, they accept one basic axiom: that ‘girls go with boys and boys go with girls’. In other words, heterogender, though not necessarily heterosexual, relationships are accepted.
Let me put that more bluntly: relationships between straight men and transwomen, and between straight women and transmen, whatever the local terminology being used is and no matter where they exist, are culturally conservative. They are part of the same philosophy that makes most ladyboys in southeast Asia devoutly religious, believing firmly in family values; the same as why baklas and tomboys in the Philippines are almost all Duterte-supporters. They are conservative, not transgressive.
They do not wish to see society change, they just want to be accepted by it. In fact, not only do they wish to see society remain unchanged, most would make it more conservative, more family-oriented, more traditionalist. There is no bakla in the Philippines throwing up her hands in horror at Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’, which has caused such pandemonium in Western media; no, they are sanguine about seeing outlaws and gangsters brought to rough justice. Each one is another low-life ‘holdaper’, intent on mugging baklas for drug-money, whose account has been closed. ‘Hell mend them,’ they might say.
‘Global Queering’ — not
Kabaklaan and other cultural paradigms like it are the opposite of Western transgressive LGB and this is one reason why they have such a long history: they fit in. This is documented in MG Peletz’ book ‘Gender Pluralism: Southeast Asia Since Early Modern Times’. Peletz shines light on the backgrounds to kabaklaan etc and shows that these are indigenous phenomena, not ones that have been imported from the West. Further, he shows that that their role has always been to permit non-conforming individuals to exist in society with little interference and even, at least in the earlier periods before European colonisation, a significant raising of status.
Kabaklaan etc have nothing, in other words, to do with ‘global queering’ or any other globalist theory. They are indigenous to this region; they are a traditional part of a traditional society. Just because they use modern methods like hormones and surgeries to achieve their desired appearance does not make them intrinsically different from a model that has existed here time out of mind.
By placing same-sex behaviours within a heterogender context, kabaklaan and its equivalents have, for many centuries, allowed a thriving culture of sexual and gender non-conformity to exist. Its path, as Peletz documents, may have been rocky at times, suffering at the hands of religious missionaries and colonialist reformers, but its strength — in being so fully integrated with the broader culture — has sustained it and now, with the increasing openness of the post-colonial era, it is blooming — and has no intention of taking any lessons from a divisive, transgressive, shrewish Western model.
Status, respect and clans
Social conventions like kabaklaan remain affirmative and respectful of the mores of the broader cultures they inhabit, just as they always have. As a result, especially in the Philippines and Thailand, transitioned individuals are, largely, able to live their lives without encountering serious social intolerance. True, they have lost both the formal ritual roles that they performed as ‘transgender specialists’ (Peletz) and the status that went with them, save for a few cultures like the Bugis. (Nevertheless, in Thailand, transsexuals are often still seen as being ‘in touch’ with the spirit world. In the Philippines they are considered talismanic in struggles, against supernatural creatures of the night, that remain surprisingly common, in anecdote anyway.) But in the social context in which they live, they can acquire status and respect.
They begin, it is true, with very low status, but that can be changed. A bakla with a job, even in a carinderia or a sari-sari store, gains respect, because she is not a burden on the clan; she is a hard-working girl. If she is clever and enters in one of the professions baklas seem to specialise in, she will garner even more; and if she becomes the partner of a foreigner (all of whom, it goes without saying, come from lands of milk and honey, where the streets are paved with gold), she will be lionised. She may even, if she is financially secure, adopt a baby and become a mother in the clan matriarchy. This girl has really arrived. She will be far higher in the clan pecking-order than a single natal woman with no job and dependent kids, because the latter represents a real burden.
Tomboys also can raise their status though career but often become the partner of a woman with dependent children, whose husband has absconded or met with misadventure, and provide for her and her children. Such a tomboy is accorded all the respect due to a responsible family man.
HSTS or True transsexuals in the West
In the West, True or homosexual transsexuals (HSTS), alone amongst trans people, have historically tried (and often succeeded) to follow a non-transgressive, non-confrontational path. To do this they would transition, move to a new town and invent a new life for themselves, usually with nobody knowing their secret. This is called ‘woodworking’, from the expression ‘to vanish into the woodwork.’ They are able to do this because these individuals tend to physically look and naturally behave like the opposite sex; with a little care, cosmetics and hormones, the trick is easily performed.
This has met huge, often vituperative, resistance from the transgressive Western LGB movement, which sees it as a political betrayal. They see HSTS, just by fitting in to society, as refusing the political role that is their ‘duty’. As a result, MtF HSTS in particular often live in constant fear of being ‘outed’ not so much by mainstream society, but by jealous, untransitioned male homosexuals. To these we must add the various species of feminists, who appear to see all MtF transition as an incursion on their territory. All of this shocks baklas to their cores, when it is explained to them.
Boys go with girls and girls go with boys
To give another example of how the non-transgressive approach works in southeast Asia, consider this: I have seen, in the Philippines, relationships in which two feminine male homosexuals came together. Shortly thereafter, one began taking hormones, grew out her hair and adopted a much more feminine presentation while the other became more masculinised. A year later, they looked like a completely unremarkable opposite-sex couple.
One of them completed her transition and the other moved away from it, in other words. By doing so they could conform to the ‘boys go with girls and girls go with boys’ rule that informs southeast Asian sexual practice. That in turn meant that they were not transgressing the social norms that they certainly would have had they, for example, both appeared as gender-conforming males, doing something as simple as holding hands in public.
Because they were a heterogender couple, even if they were the same physical sex, no horses were frightened and no apple-carts upset. How one has sex is not so important here; what one appears to be, is. They could freely display the range of behaviours that any opposite-sex couple could. It would not be transgressive because kabaklaan and its equivalents are accepted as part of the mainstream culture and relationships inside it are seen in terms of gender rather than physical sex. It is conservative.
LGB dogma challenged
This challenges the absolutist Western LGB dogma in many ways. Are the people in such relationships then ‘bisexual’? Perhaps, but only as regards the masculine-appearing partner, not the one who had transitioned. His adoption of masculinity would give his partner a masculine erotic target, in line with her female sexual desire. Her increased femininity would cause the male side of his bisexual nature to respond to her sexually and as a result, he would masculinise.
However, a more accurate understanding might be simply to say that the masculine partner had ‘become heterosexual’ in adopting the role that he had. Such relationships contradict much Western thinking, as regards ‘detransitioning’ and ‘reparative therapies’, which are both hot potatoes.
(In the couples I know of like this, the partner who fully transitioned was already more feminine. It would be interesting, as an experiment, to see what would have happened had the partner who reverted and became masculine, actually entered into a relationship with a heterosexual man rather than another bakla; in other words, a relationship in which she remained a woman. Would she have fully feminised and transitioned? The evidence suggests she would. This illustrates again, the importance of social context in trying to understand the transition phenomenon.)
At the end, we have two models, one which accommodates non-conforming gender and sexuality while sustaining the society and culture it exists within, in a sort of symbiotic relationship, while the other is hell-bent on destroying its host society and replacing it with a Marxist dictatorship. It is not hard to see which is preferable. The West is approaching a crossroads, at which it will stand or fail. This is a nettle we must grasp.