A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance

Transgenderism and So-Called Gender Affirming Care Must Be Banned

But what ends when the symbols shatter? A depiction of male and female anatomies shattering the transgender symbol. By destroying that symbol and what it stands for, one affirms humanity and the mammalian essence.

Author’s Note: this essay was published on The Occidental Observer, and reposted on unz.com. Readers are encouraged to visit these links to help foster future engagements with the editors of these publications.

A brief assessment of both the transgender menace and the more-or-less mainstream voices speaking out against it reveals a fatal flaw in the opposition to this civilization destroying madness. The arguments against transgenderism, at least as they have been expressed heretofore, concede far too much ground to the transgender contagion, limiting discourse to two central objections; that demands to open women’s spaces, namely women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, spas, as well as women’s athletics be open to men (provided they ‘identify’ as female) are unacceptable, and that preying on children and minors, encouraging them and coaxing them into the transgender delirium must stop.  In this way few if any mainstream critics of transgenderism categorically oppose so-called “gender affirming care,” provided it is not rendered to minors. Nor have they expressed categorical opposition to promoting or propagating transgender ideology to the public at large, but limit their objection to transgender lunacy being advocated to minors.

This characterization applies to a number of well-known conservative and moderate pundits, demonstrating how limited in scope mainstream opposition to transgenderism has been. “Billboard Chris” always qualifies his opposition to so-called gender-affirming care as it relates to minors.  While he correctly states minors do not have the reasoning ability or maturity to make such a decision, he fails to take that extra step to achieve a more enlightened view of uncompromising intolerance. Peter Boghossian has repeatedly stated that he has no opposition whatsoever to “consenting” adults deciding that they are transgender or subjecting themselves to any number of surgeries that help these deluded individuals think they are something they are not.  At the very outset of the infamous appearance of Abigail Shrier on the Joe Rogan podcast (video edition of which had been removed but is now available again), both Rogan and Shrier disclaim that the discussion does not concern “transgender adults,” and that neither are opposed to adults choosing to consider themselves transgender or to undergo any battery of these procedures. Joe Rogan insisted yet again that adults can do whatever they please with their bodies during a recent appearance by Matt Walsh.  All of this is a grave error.

The problem with entertaining this “moderate, temperate” approach is that it concedes that anyone, even if an adult, should be allowed to make such a decision. Society generally does not allow people to mutilate themselves.  We do not let deluded, crazy people who think they are intrinsically crippled to have their limbs amputated. Nor does society let alcoholics or drug addicts indulge their addictions to the point of self-destruction, at least not in theory.  So it must be with so-called “gender affirming care,” which, as will soon be demonstrated, offers only a very poor counterfeit of the sex coveted, reducing those so deluded to a horrible, grotesque abomination.  As this recent review of When Harry Became Sally attests, Ryan T. Anderson correctly discerns that men cannot become women and vice versa, and that sex is an immutable characteristic that one is born as, a characteristic that begins at conception. However, much like Billboard Chris, this author limits opposition to encouraging children and minors to transition, as well as offering so-called “gender affirming care” by way of mastectomies of adolescent girls and puberty blockers for both sexes. 

This objection to transgenderism as it relates to minors is coupled with opposition to demands for access to women’s spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s athletics, and so on). Anderson states outside of those contexts transgender people “must be treated with dignity and respect” and is even against denial of service by schools or establishments open to the public. (197) Nowhere does he express opposition to adults indulging in transgender lunacy, nor does he condemn so-called “gender affirming care” for adults, even as he outlines why these procedures in no way actually allow someone to transition sex or gender.[1] One of the only mainstream pundits who opposes so-called gender affirming care across the board, for adults and minors alike, is Matt Walsh. Several considerations inform why neither these procedures nor any recognition of one’s supposed “gender identity” should be tolerated in the slightest; very simply put,  transgenderism should not be countenanced, sanctioned, or tolerated by society in any way.

This treatise will set forth several inter-related contentions that, considered in tandem, mandate what is at this moment considered by many a somewhat radical position, but is in fact a position that is perfectly sensible and necessary for the greater good and welfare of society.  The first and central premise before all others is that humans simply cannot change sex. Even conceding that a very small percentage of persons are born with bona fide gender dysphoria, humoring their malady by allowing transgender surgeries or promulgating transgender ideology in public discourse begets a plethora of social ills. The harm these socials ills cause eclipse, by many orders of magnitude, any perceived social utility allegedly achieved by humoring the madness of transgender ideology.  This is a correct and obvious conclusion even if one concedes that some very limited instances of gender dysphoria are genuine and not induced by external influences--that is, not an idea planted into the minds of children, young people, or mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable adults by any number of externalities. These external influences can range from a sick, polluted cultural milieu, to deranged, maniacal parents possessed by any number of illicit motivations, whether Munchausen by Proxy, or a desire to sacrifice a child’s well-being in order to be perceived as a deep, caring, enlightened person, or whatever their motivations might be. Aside from allowing these nefarious ideas and practices into the stream of public discourse and the fabric of society, tolerating transgender ideology to flourish in any way allows nefarious elements to profit off horribly destructive practices, from “gender affirming care,” administration of puberty blockers, to a burgeoning industry of transgender counseling rackets not to a mention a well-financed punditry circuit that encourages and promotes these insane ideas.

Humans Cannot Change Sex or Gender, Horrific Surgeries and Fanciful Notions About Gender Identity Notwithstanding.  

As explained before, no one can change sex. Sex is determined at birth, at conception actually, and it is immutable (Anderson, 9, 77-85).  Any individual who has succumbed to transgender delirium in no way changes sex, but merely conceals or obliterates as many characteristics of the sex they were born as, to whatever extent is feasible for that individual, while counterfeiting signs of the sex they covet. Usually these attempts to imitate the sex coveted are poor indeed. As Dr. Paul McHugh concluded long ago, sex change surgery is “bad medicine” that “‘fundamentally cooperat[es] with a mental illness’” rather than treating it. (Anderson 17). In relation to both “male-to-female” and “female-to-male” transgenders, the result is a grotesque abomination that fools no one.

Some of these “tells" are not categorical in an absolute sense, but are in the aggregate. For example, there are some women of German and Nordic descent who have relatively large hands compared to say a woman of English or French descent.  But it is rare if not impossible that such an outlier would also be an outlier in all of these other criteria that cannot be obliterated, obscured, or masked through cosmetic surgery, deceptive angles in photography or posing in deceptive clothing, or, in the instance of so-called “male-to-female” transgenders, applying copious amounts of make-up, derisively referred to as “war paint” by some gender critical women, and so on. A buxom, blonde Brünnhilde, endowed with the fairly large hands and elongated fingers customary of her phenotype, will also have a slender, elongated neck, more voluptuous hips, and other “tells” that unambiguously signal the female sex.  Not so with the “troon” imposter who attempts to replicate the female sex with such disastrous results.

The ultimate tell comes down to what is between the legs, the genitalia, as that is the single greatest distinction between the sexes and also the one characteristic that plastic surgery fails to imitate in such spectacular, horrific fashion.  With some extremely rare sexual abnormalities excepted[2], having either a penis or vagina determines whether a person is a man or woman, whether he ejaculates sperm or whether she ovulates or can conceive of birth. Even the most deceptive transgender, always the outlier, fails that ultimate test.  Either a “male-to-female” transgender still has a penis and testicles, or has undergone a so-called transgender vaginoplasty.  Even the most deceptive “pooner” either still has a vagina, sometimes crudely referred to as a “bonus hole” both by transgender lunatics and their detractors, or the mangled monstrosity that is the so-called “neo-penis.”  As articulated in “Leaping Into Delusion, Death, and Personal Destruction: The Cost of Tolerating Transgenderism,” hardly anyone takes a romantic or sexual interest in transgenders.

Very simply put, straight men and lesbian or bisexual women want actual women, with a woman’s body and biology, including female pheromones, women’s breasts, woman’s hips, as well as a fully functioning vagina and uterus. The simple juxtaposition of a vintage Penthouse centerfold from back in the day, or any image of an attractive nude woman with any image of a troon, especially one depicting what is between that individual’s legs, demonstrates this is irrefutably so.

The same applies to the female-to-male variety:

Whether endowed with the vagina. . . or a “rot dog”. . .. [g]ay men and heterosexual women alike desire other men—not women pretending to be men, but men—endowed with an actual functioning penis, the broader shoulders, generally greater height and denser skeletal frame of a man, not women who have mutilated themselves [beyond recognition].

The horrors associated with surgeries that attempt to construct a “neo-penis” and “neo-vagina” have only been mentioned in passing.  Neither surgical construction is anything like the genuine article. Some of the defects of the “neo-vagina” include, but are in no way limited to, the following:

• cannot lubricate like a real vagina;

• cannot contract, convulse, or expand like a real vagina (the sexual organ is designed to give birth). Indeed there are accounts that it cannot accommodate even the moderately endowed;

• does not emit female pheromones, and in fact often wreaks of excrement;

• no g-spot or clitoris;

• is not self-cleaning;

• needs to be dilated regularly.

The horrors associated with the neo-penis are far more harrowing. Those readers interested in learning more are advised to consult with the discussion on this matter in Irreversible Damage.  The detailed accounts offered in that text are informative, but are also shocking, and not for the faint of heart. For the purposes of this treatise, it will simply be noted that:

• a neo-penis cannot achieve an erection without a rod or inflating device;

• cannot ejaculate sperm;

• cannot orgasm;

• is visually horrific,

• requires multiple surgeries, very often with terrible complications.

In relation to genital mutilation and surgery, it must also be stressed that very often if not nearly always such surgeries destroy the ability to orgasm.

In Society’s Efforts To Be Tolerant, It Simply Encourages The Maddest Delusions

All of this demonstrates that by countenancing transgenderism at all, society is encouraging a false, fantastical delusion that cannot be realized.  This should be so obvious that debate on the transgender question should have lasted about five minutes.  Tolerating and countenancing transgenderism does much more than encourage this fantastical delusion to those who succumb to it directly, it harms society at large while inflicting those individuals not susceptible to this mass psychosis and hysteria with a multitude of societal ailments.  The sane amongst us have been coerced to humor the farce of customized pronouns and call men “trans women” and women “trans men,” often at threat of losing a job or otherwise being “cancelled.” Since transgenderism has entered the stream of society and culture, the sane amongst us have suffered a psychic toll as well, a matter elaborated in greater detail below.

Abigail Shrier and many others insist that legitimate gender dysphoria exists in an exceedingly rare number of young boys—that is gender dysphoria not instilled in the minds of the susceptible and gullible by suggestion, coaxing, or social contagion, but gender dysphoria that emerges without any external cultural influence or other externalities. In the introduction to Irreversible Damage, the number she provides is roughly 0.01 percent, or one in one thousand (xxi), although even that seems high; it must be noted that in her first appearance on Joe Rogan, she estimated legitimate cases of gender dysphoria were about 1 in 10,000, or, she incorrectly states, 0.01cases—the correct percentage for that figure is 0.0001 percent. Cass recently corroborated many of Shrier’s contentions in Irreversible Damage in the Cass Report, although she did disseminate a letter distancing herself from Shrier while also confirming the legitimacy of transgender identity in some patients and even condoning “gender affirming” surgeries in some limited instances.  Even presupposing this conclusion is correct, it imposes a false economy on society. For the benefit of a small scintilla of the male population, untold number of burdens are imposed on society at large.

Above and below, a screenshot excerpting Cass’s disclaimer, and a suggested revision by this author as to how it ought to read.

Social Contagion, Defining Deviancy Down, and Desensitizing

As stated, so-called “gender affirming care” does not allow one to transition sex because changing sex—or gender—is impossible. What sanctioning or countenancing such absurd delusion does do is give these ideas, to the extent one can call them ideas at all, a foothold into the stream of our culture and society.  This then contaminates the minds of others in any number of ways. The social contagion theory advanced by the likes of Shrier and others is persuasive, as it is evidenced by the fact that transgenderism was so incredibly rare before this lunatic agenda gained a foothold in our culture. The cluster phenomenon is real, where harmful, self-destructive behaviors by one or a few people rub off on others.   As articulated in “When So Many Do Jump off a Bridge,” media have various protocols in place because even suicide will “rub off” on other people in ways utterly devoid of reason or rationality.  Society acknowledges and responds to these phenomena in human psychology in a number of different ways, including laws rightly banning or severely restricting cigarette and tobacco advertising. These bans and restrictions were implemented because masses of people do respond to advertising, no matter how illogical or self-destructive smoking cigarettes actually is. These phenomena in human psychology also inform important, vital policy considerations for imposing criminal sanctions on vices like prostitution and gambling.  For even though prostitution, gambling, and other such vices have always existed and will likely always exist, the prohibition of prostitution not only deters prostitution, it applies a social stigma on both clientele and the prostitutes alike, a sort of negative advertising against it. Before the age of the Internet, similar rationales informed the restriction of access by minors to pornographic material or even nudity in print and film.  The same rationale applies to illicit drugs and other vices.

Indeed, sanctioning or otherwise providing limited allowances for adults to pursue so-called “gender affirming care” or indulge any of the fantastical tenets of transgender ideology or radical gender theory demonstrates once again the axiomatic principle of Defining Deviancy Down. That principle, as written about before in other essays by this author, dictates that if a society tolerates deviant behavior to a certain extent, that society loses the ability to regard such behavior as deviant or outside the mainstream—society loses the ability to resist such deviance effectively. Eventually, absent a proper response, formerly deviant behavior becomes mainstream, and other deviant behaviors that are even greater outliers then move up to the fringes of borderline or deviant behavior that is still stigmatized or regarded as deviant, but to some lesser extent.  By tolerating transgenderism to any degree, any degree whatsoever, even those cases that Shrier and others regard as legitimate, it becomes normalized and then gradually creeps into all facets of public life, including how public life relates to children, minors, young people, and especially young women who up until recently were very rarely or never known to suffer from gender dysphoria. Conceptualize tolerance of transgenderism (or any social ill, really) to a small, non-lethal dose of poison, that is gradually increased until the subject can consume ever larger doses of the poison that, while no longer lethal with built-up tolerance, are still toxic poisons that the body should not be exposed to. In this way, every encounter with a transgender person, every appearance on Dr Phil or transgender video on tiktok constitutes further incremental intake of that poison, destroying the body’s natural intolerance of that poison. By not tolerating transgenderism at all, transgenderism would have been stopped in its tracks and it would not have advanced to the precipice of the mainstream, such that it is promoted in many corners of our education system and mainstream culture.  

Eliminating the Profit Motive

There is another consideration that applies to allowing horrific procedures touted as “gender affirming care.” By tolerating or allowing these procedures in any way, nefarious elements in the medical and counseling industries are allowed to profit off of these procedures, and profit quite handsomely. Some sample figures for the cost of the more prominent procedures are as follows:

• between $25,000-35,000 for so-called “phalloplasty,” that is the construction of a neo-penis which is, of course, nothing like a real penis. It cannot grow erect like a real penis, does not ejaculate seme, etc. Other estimates top 65,000;

• a so-called vaginoplasty costs between ,,$25,000-35,000 to over 45,000;

• a mastectomy (lopping off a woman’s breasts) can run over $10,000;

• a regimen of puberty blockers can run $1,200 a month;

• facial feminization surgery costs between $25-50,000;

• who knows how many thousands of dollars for “counseling” sessions that simply encourage and promote this cursed plague.

Very often these and other procedures are covered by health insurance, as demanded by the transgender lobby. This means society at large finances this through increased premiums, or surprise bills that health insurance companies impose on the public by denying coverage for reasons no one really understands. And so far society at large has tolerated this.

An image on twitter demonstrating the explosive proliferation of these clinics that profit off of human suffering and delusion.

Once any such enterprise is allowed to prosper in any way, it will always find a way to expand the market share. This axiomatic principle is demonstrated in this caption above depicting the explosion of gender clinics over the past fifteen years. Even presupposing that gender dysphoria legitimately exists in a small fraction of boys as is contended, and even conceding that drastic surgeries help such unfortunate persons cope with their lot, such considerations are outweighed, by many orders of magnitude, the need to prevent nefarious elements from peddling these procedures—at a handsome profit—to the public that otherwise would never have considered such lunacy in the first place. If genuine gender dysphoria does exist in a very small number of male children, a rarity tantamount to a deformity or other abnormality, society must come to the conclusion that that is simply their cross to bear and that they must deal with their sordid affliction as best they can, without society sanctioning or tolerating the fanciful notion that such individuals or anyone could ever transition sex or gender.

On the question of whether society should allow for the marketing and propagation of the transgender fantasy—and the so-called gender affirming procedures in particular—the answers may lie, at least in part, in a somewhat radical doctrine in products liability law and public policy known as product category liability, whereby a class of product is regarded as so dangerous, so undesirable, or offering such low social utility that the entire category of product should be banned altogether.  Examples of this include certain cheap, above the ground swimming pools, lawn darts[3], or the cheap “Saturday Night Special” pistols from decades ago.  Asbestos is probably the most infamous example of product category liability. That some children and even adults could use lawn darts safely was outweighed by the plethora of injuries and even fatalities that occurred because that product was allowed to be on the market at all. Of course, these procedures, in actuality, offer no redeeming social utility. There is no social utility in bodily and genital mutilation, just as there is no social utility in encouraging the abject lie that people can change sex.   If this doctrine cannot provide a legal solution to this menace in our irretrievably corrupt legal system, the underlying rationale of this doctrine is at least very instructive, as it enunciates reasons why undesirable, destructive product categories of low or no social utility should not be allowed on the market at all.  No product or service is more deserving of being removed from the market altogether than transgender procedures and transgender counseling.

Society Bears the Costs of the Psychic Toll for the Benefit of Remarkably Few

Indeed, the social costs incurred by offering any accommodations or conceding any ground to transgenderism—even in those rare instances that Shrier and others argue are legitimate—cannot be quantified.  Consider the psychic toll that allowing transgenderism—as an idea into society—imposes on everyone. This excerpt from “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern” describes the matter thusly:

Put bluntly, looking at these creatures takes a psychic toll on the mind, body, and spirit. Seeing a person who is obviously male in woman’s attire taxes the optic nerves of everyone who beholds such a monstrosity.  This is not merely because such persons break societal norms.  They are an affront not just to human sexuality, but an affront to the mammalian essence.

To look at these people is an affliction on the optical nerves, to be around them or hear them is an affliction on the ears as well as the eyes. Seeing men, most of whom suffer from autogynephilia, dressed in sexually provocative women’s attire imposes a cost on us all. Reconciling such attire and other feminine accoutrements with tells that unmistakably signal male—from broad shoulders, large hands, narrow hips, an Adam’s apple—imposes a psychological toil on the mind that is forced to reconcile two conflicting sets of information, one set consisting of remnant tells of the individual’s actual sex, which are in conflict with the counterfeit tells that range from preposterous, to the grotesque, to, in a small minority of instances, somewhat deceptive.

Being exposed to TikTok videos and other appalling instances in social media depicting otherwise attractive, healthy white women destroying their bodies exacts a hefty toll on the mind as well.  This social contagion, which is the focus of Irreversible Damage, strikes at something visceral, instinctual.  For younger readers who are millennials or zoomers, this contagion directly affects the pool of available women who would otherwise be suitable as potential girlfriends and hopefully wives.  Many younger readers might know a young woman who destroyed her body and mind in this way, maybe even a woman someone dated or fancied in some way.

For those older, it evokes a paternalistic instinct.  This mental anguish incurred at the mere sight of such monstrosities strikes at something ancient, primordial, going back to Helen of Troy. “A face that could launch a thousand ships” has been a centuries long adage for a reason. That men have not been more protective of our young women is a terrible harbinger of our fate to come, harkening to island peoples and other primitive civilizations that did nothing about foreign imposters interloping with their women, or for that matter formerly great civilizations in prolonged imperial decline before the fall.

The transgender menace has exacted a toll in other ways. Both genders must now more closely scrutinize dating profiles, which can be hard because a facial profile does not show the entire body, as photos can be taken with deceptive angles or lighting (that concern of course pertains to other things as well, including weight). Grumblings online in transgender circles have evinced a repeated intention to at least try and deceive others into thinking that a transgender person is the sex coveted and not the sex such a person is born as and is. This is nothing less than constructive rape.  That a sizeable contingent of transgender “people” have such intentions and designs weighs on the mind. This is so even though the likelihood of a person actually being able to pull off such deception is extremely limited, although in the past some promiscuous men were apt to receive offers of fellatio from loose women without reciprocating in kind. Now, however, there is the possibility that it could be a man feigning the appearance of a woman to coax a man to agree to having such relations when he otherwise would not.  This of course is not to suggest tacit approval of such behavior, but even those who disapprove of such seedy behavior can still have empathy for what is in effect the use of deception to fool someone to consent to sexual activity that he in fact does not consent to.

This is what temperate, moderate conservatism has allowed to enter into the stream of culture, discourse, and society. Even those who would never allow themselves to be in such a situation are affected, by way of empathy for others, human decency, and many other considerations the left gives lip service to.

Objections such as “why do you care?” notwithstanding, the presence of transgenderism and more particularly the odious sorts who have succumbed to this collective psychosis imposes a mental strain on those who are subjected to their appearance and presence. As explicated further in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern,” even those “rare instances of transgenders who pass reasonably well have an uncanniness about their appearance that forces the mind to scrutinize the conflicting signals received, a most unwanted mental toil that transgenderism forces on us all.”  In regard to those exceptional outliers who deceive most at initial glance, such individuals “pass” by an elaborate form of deception, through radical, drastic surgeries and other forms of deception described earlier.  And even the most exceptional outliers never quite succeed in concealing or obliterating “all signs or tells of their actual sex.” Invariably, there are remnant “tells” of the person’s actual sex that conflict with the sex such individuals desire to be. In the instance of the “male-to-female” transgender, “the brain struggles to process. . ..those nagging ‘tells’ that signify male—for example unusually narrow hips, large hands, or an Adam’s apple for a man presenting as a woman,” as those tells stand in direct contradiction with the “feminine” tells that the transgender individual has feigned by any number of deceptive methods, from plastic surgery, to “war paint” to carefully curated articles of clothing placed just so to hide that Adam’s Adam or obscure that narrow waste. The very same cognitive toil is afflicted by the sight of a creature, born female, who perpetrates the same sort of fraud. Of course, in all instances, the charade ends eventually, either when such a person is in a state of undress in a bathroom or gym locker or if someone should be so foolish or unfortunate as to decide to attempt having intimate relations with such a person:

And even for the rare transgender who reasonably passes as a woman at first glance, the lying and delusion ends in spectacular fashion for anyone stupid or gullible enough to believe that so-called transgender “women” are women when they see—or worse yet experience in other ways--what is between the legs: either a penis and testicles or the assorted horrors of the so-called neo-vagina.

There simply is no legitimate reason why the population at large should be subjected to this sort of mind fuck to appease a minute fraction of the population.

Moving Toward Uncompromising Intolerance

Quite recently Texas passed a law mandating that the Texas Department of Public Safety shall no longer allow deluded individuals taken with the transgender mania to “change their sex” on driver’s licenses. This policy correctly communicates that the state of Texas does not countenance or recognize the delusion that it is possible to change sex. This is an excellent first step, but it does not go nearly far enough. Indeed no state has banned transgender surgical procedures outright, that is for both adults and minors.  A list of states that have prohibited such procedures for minors in whole or in part is featured in this article.

This map exemplifies the problem. Just like limp-wristed, apprehensive conservative pundits, so many just stop at these procedures for minors. The proper response is to ban it altogether.

As set forth in this treatise, even supposing that there is some small benefit to the exceedingly rare instance of genuine gender dysphoria, that small benefit is engulfed by the massive costs and social problems suffered by society and those sane individuals among us. Simply ban both the procedures and the advertising and promotion of transgender ideology, not just for minors but for adults as well. With the current system and regime in place, this may be exceedingly difficult.  First Amendment jurisprudence offers far too much protection to commercial speech. Then again, if smoking is regarded as such a threat to the public health and the greater social good warranting severe restrictions against the advertising of tobacco products, not to mention other severe regulatory restrictions, this insane, deluded ideology deserves a far more robust response, as that ideology encourages people to mutilate their bodies and genitalia, rendering them sterile, unable to experience orgasms, not to mention subjecting such persons to astronomically high rates of suicide ideation. The problem of course is that, unlike with tobacco products, the medical profession, counseling racket, and other related lobbies that wield extraordinary influence over such public policy considerations are, to put it mildly, subject to ideopolitical capture. 

Beyond the sort of regulatory or legislative restrictions envisioned in how the state has reacted to the tobacco menace in various countries, one approach that is feasible with the Constitution and the current regime in place is to simply deny transgender people any special status as a protected class under the onerous civil rights regime currently in place. This then allows level-headed communities to engage in extra-legal sanctions, such as denial of service.  Even if one concedes the onerous regime of civil rights laws are overall an intrinsic good, there is a fundamental distinction between denying service based on an immutable characteristic like race—even if mainstream conservatives and conventional wisdom are so incredibly wrong about race being a superficial or innocuous difference—and the manner in which a person chooses to dress. If a sports bar catering to Red Sox fans can deny service to Yankees fans, if a Manchester United bar can deny service to Liverpool fans, then those opposed to transgender lunacy ought to have the right—and indeed do have the right and obligation—to deny service to transgender “people.”  Expressing animus, even hatred for transgender people is not only the right thing to do, denying service sends an important message, a message desperately needed in Europe and the West today; that message is transgenderism is not normal, it is abject insanity, and it is not tolerated or welcome here.

Given the seemingly impeachable status of civil rights laws both as a legal regime and a sentimentalized cultural legacy of the worst sort, even the right to not associate with such persons is under incredible pressure, as people have been sued for choosing not to bake a “transgender cake” or rendering other services.  As those questions impugn the tendency to fetishize or sentimentalize the Constitution, civil rights claptrap, and the democratic form of government as some sort of normative ideal, the inefficacy and timidity of mainstream opposition to transgender ideology shows familiar flaws with establishment conservatism. These flaws have revealed themselves in how pathetic and ineffectual resistance to gay marriage was and is, as well so many other catastrophic losses at the hands of mainstream conservatism.  Such flaws include a lack of intellectual sophistication, whereby very few can articulate how tolerating transgender ideology defines deviancy down, that by tolerating transgenderism people become desensitized to it, and in time, it loses its stigma as deviant behavior before becoming accepted as mainstream, to be replaced by something even more onerous (what that could possibly be one shudders to think). Nor have they considered that by allowing transgenderism to be promulgated to adults, both the tenets of transgender lunacy and a syndicate of for-profit rackets peddling “counseling,” surgeries and procedures, and professional-class punditry are allowed into the stream of discourse—into our culture—which will invariably influence not only vulnerable adults, who, contrary to all the hand-wringing, must not have the right to indulge such lunacy, but minors as well.

As with so many other catastrophic losses in the “culture war,” these failures exemplify the problems inherent in placing such emphasis on “individual liberty” to such excess that it outweighs, in such an absurdly lopsided manner, the greater societal costs by allowing and tolerating not just license and abandon, as the West has done for decades, but abject lunacy, delusion, and insanity. Resisting this threat to civilization will require a new approach to traditional, Anglo-American notions about individual liberty and personal choice, a new approach that understands inhibiting some “personal freedoms” allows for greater “freedom” and liberation to the masses. Nothing—no matter how seemingly sacred or long-standing—must be allowed to stand in the way of this epiphany.

---

[1] As articulated in “This Mockery of Language II: Gender Redefined,” Gender is largely synonymous with sex. The insistence that the meaning of “gender” entails definitions that coincide with the transgender agenda has been prescribed by ideologically corrupt editorial staff. The definition by Merriam-Webster explicitly states that the usage advocated by these radicals is prescribed for these various reasons, as set out in “This Mockery of Language II.”

[2] As other influential figures, including Matt Walsh and Ryan Anderson have explicated, citing the existence of rare sexual abnormalities and deformities is an absurd vehicle with which to advance the fantastical proposition that one can change sex or gender.

[3] Lawn darts were banned by regulatory action.  Although not an example of product category liability in regards to tort law per se, the underlying legal theory and social policy underlying this doctrine inform such legislative or regulatory action to ban something, as Professor Ausness and others have concluded that regulatory or legislative action is a better method of dealing with undesirable products subject to this legal doctrine.