My Forthcoming book on the vexed subject of trans identity.
Transgender
rights have recently come to the fore as a social issue, and yet
there are many who feel that this is being pushed to far and too
fast.
Claire Rae Randall is a transsexual woman who transitioned over
thirty years ago and is deeply concerned about both the
deconstruction of the traditional understanding of gender, the
normalisation of non binary as a model for our society, and the early
medical treatment of children which is currently occurring.
Can this
have a happy ending?
Claire
Rae Randall’s ‘The War on Gender’ examines the progress of
trans from a personal perspective that has seen it come from being a
marginal issue to one that is now having a disproportionate influence
on social values.
Below is the draft Table of Contents
The
War on Gender
Post
Modernism and
Trans
Identity
Chapter
2Glossary of Terms
3 Foreword
5 Introduction
24 1: Childhood: Early life and realisation
42 2: University: New Realities
53 3: Self Knowledge
62 4: Acceptance
67 5: Transition
72 6: Feminists Oppression Olympics
81 7: Finding Myself
84 8: Borderlines
93 9: Freedom
95 10: New Century Interpretations and Projections
101 11: LGBT!
109 12: Descent into Hell (Cigs Give You Cancer)
126 13: Lynn Conway
133 14: The Jeremy Clarkson Postulate
1xx 15: Where Are We Now?
1xx 16: Archetypes and Metaphysics ~ Gender Conundrum
1xx 17: What Are We
1xx 18: Political Polarities and the Weaponising of Gender
1xx 19: Mental Health and the Ultra Conservatives
1xx 21: Metaphysics
1xx 22: Social Construction and Entrainment of Ethics
1xx 23: Metalogue: Overcoming Resistance
2xx 24: Conclusion
207 App A: GRA Debate 2004 (extract Andy Selous Hansard)
212 App B: Research Addendum 2009
220 App C: Radical Transfeminism London Univ June 2015
I’m writing this because it is about an issue that
is coming up more and more in the online networks I inhabit and I see a lot of
misunderstanding or just plain ignorance about the subject.
I’ve done a couple of interviews on YouTube recently
on the subject, to which I have received mostly reasonable responses, but there
have been a couple of ignorant comments which demonstrated that their authors
had not actually listened to the content, and one of them actually admitted
that this was the case.
I also feel
the need to respond to the rant which Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice TV made on
last Saturday night’s live stream about transsexuals. (Weekend Warrior #32
members’ content http://www.redicemembers.com/.)
Firstly, may I
preface this by saying that I have been a listener to Red Ice Radio for
something like eight years, and not only have I greatly enjoyed an immense
amount of the content which Henrik has presented over the years, but also
tremendously respect the open minded attitude he has taken in his research and
inquiry on subjects which many others fear to approach.
For those of
you who missed that I will briefly summarise that it is my scientific
conclusion based on experimental and other material evidence that while there
may be socialised forms of transgenderism as the proponents of Gender Studies
claim, classic transsexualism develops out of neurological developmental
abnormalities which remain as permanent structural defects within the brain.
News stories
such as the mother/child ‘transition’ which was featured on Weekend Warrior
are troubling. Any psychologist or
psychotherapist worth their salt must surely consider the possibility of some
kind of collusion or folie-a-deux taking place. Having experienced severe gender dysphoria myself
from the earliest age I have deep reluctance to accept what is called ‘late
onset’ transsexualism. The mother of
this child seems to have been claiming this.
My own view is that if one has not had this sense of being/wanting to be
the opposite sex from the earliest age, and it has not been immovable, then
claims of sudden epiphanies later in life must be regarded with suspicion. Especially if it appears to have been
triggered by the child’s announcement that they want to be the opposite
sex. Who knows what kind of unconscious
mechanisms have been at play here?
So far, I’m probably
on the same page as Henrik, or at least close.
Here, our
paths will diverge I suspect.
This
mother/child story is, I agree, deeply troubling, and probably quite messed up.
But there are
tens of thousands of fully transitioned transsexuals out there invisibly
carrying on their lives without most people knowing about this.
I recently
came across this piece of research by Lynn Conway which suggests that at least
in terms of strong feelings of gender dysphoria the population of people for
whom this is an issue, in the USA at least, could be as high as 1 in 500 or
even more.
That is a
figure of 0.2% of the population, and similar to other neurological disorders
such as Multiple Sclerosis.
The population
who have had such strong feelings of gender dysphoria seems to have existed for
possibly several millennia, at least as far as evidence can be found, and could
well have existed long into prehistory.
Communities such as the hijra in India, and the kratoey of
South East Asia are well established social niches that have been evolving for
a long time.
The individual
instances which we may find questionable, such as the mother/child one
featured, should not be used as a straw man to attempt to eradicate the actual
phenomenon itself.
I hear Henrik,
and others on the Right expressing sentiments to the effect of ‘Why do they do
this? Why can’t they just be normal?’.
Sadly, we can’t,
and your saying so won’t make it happen.
There are two
ways we can approach this. I can go
into the developmental neurology but it is probably more important to
understand that what is probably triggering Henrik and others on the Right
about this is the way it has been exploited by the left.
I have
explained here, and on the R314 show how I believe that these conditions arise
in neurological development. This is a
testable hypothesis, and there is already evidence such as that I have cited,
Gooren and Zhou’s work in the early 2000s, and my own favourite, Professor VS
Ramachandran’s work on the likelihood that there is some brain mapping
mismatch, which closely corresponds to my own experience.
So, having
established that the phenomenon of severe gender dysphoria does exist, and has
existed for thousands of years with many tens of thousands of people who have
gone to extreme lengths to reduce this dysphoria, and having proposed probable
brain structure mechanisms as to the aetiology of this phenomenon, which I
fully acknowledge is not survival adaptive in the greater scheme of things, I
have presented the material evidence demonstrating our existence and the likely
reasons for it.
Where I
believe that Henrik, and others in the New and Alt Right are missing the point
and attacking the wrong target is that this genuine phenomenon, which has
existed for thousands of years and found at least some small niche in some
societies has been hijacked and exploited by the LGBT and SJW crowd to their
own ends.
There are
acknowledged to be several prominent homosexuals in the Alt Right, which has
attracted criticism from some quarters, but doesn’t seem to be a problem for
most. Similarly, I don’t think you will
find any of these homosexual Alt Righters promoting LGBT and SJW agendas or multiple made up genders with accompanying pronouns. As is the case with myself. Richard Spencer himself recently tweeted
that homosexuality is a fact of existence and shouldn’t be a stumbling block. Richard Spencer 'Homosexuality isn't going away'
Homosexuality has been a part of European societies and culture for millennia. It's not going away, not something to get worked up about.
I saw a
comment on the Red Ice YouTube channel below my interview with Lana accusing me
of trying to take over the Alt Right with my trans agenda.
Puh-leeze. I have no intention or desire to subvert the
Alt Right, and am quite happy to let it evolve in its own way. The only thing I seek to influence is
awareness of this issue so that its energies are not misdirected in the way we
sometimes see.
As I have
pointed out, there is a large population of unnoticed transsexuals out
there. My own experience of this is
that most of these have no wish to ‘deconstruct’ the gender binary, and feel
that it would only make the situation more confusing if it was.
However, the LGBT
left want to promote transgenderism rather than simply acknowledge
transsexual gender dysphoria as a problem which a very small percentage of the
population experience and find themselves having to deal with.
What this amounts to is suggesting and promoting the
idea that transgenderism is something that almost anyone can engage in, that it
is perfectly normal. Associated with
this is the notion that ‘gender roles’ as such are an oppressive cultural
construct and that it is good to ‘queer them up’ as the activists say, by doing
this kind of thing.
The sudden emergence of the 38 invented pronouns or
whatever it is and the demonisation of all who refuse to use them (like Dr
Jordan Peterson) alongside all this is clearly a viral cultural psychosis, and
I would liken it to the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution in China in the
late sixties. Eventually it burnt
itself out but after having done terrible damage to the country, its people and
its heritage.
I rather see
the current War on Gender, as I call it, in these terms. It is one theatre of conflict in the great
cultural war which is being waged against Western Civilisation and its people
at present.
This is the
target that Henrik and the new right should be focussing on. Yes, point out the ludicrous nature of ‘late
onset transsexuals’, cast doubt on dodgy relationships where weird dynamics are
at work and stick up for the normalisation of the gender binary as the principal basis not only for our society, but for our entire phylogenetic class of
mammals.
But the enemy
is the libertine left who want to parasitise themselves upon a class of
people who, by our nature, seek social invisibility. It is very self contradictory for me to have to engage with this
subject, because I do not gain anything by outing myself as transsexual. I may hope to spread some understanding on
this subject more widely than already exists, but at the same time I find
myself subject to abuse from people who don’t even bother to listen to the
material in my podcasts.
The only
substantial thing I can hope to get from this is a redirection of hostilities
away from the 0.2% of the population of whom I am a member, and hope that it
will be aimed at the proponents of Queer Theory and Gender Non-Binary
who are as much, more even, my enemy than that of the person in the street,
because it turns them against us, when it is the Gender Theorists who are the enemy who are
responsible for all the confusion.
As I will
describe in my forthcoming book The War on Gender, when, some years ago,
I was considering applying to take a Masters in Gender Studies at Leeds
University (something of a Ground Zero epicentre for the world of Gender
Studies, I discovered) I realised that to do so would involve having to listen
to theories of gender which entirely resisted acknowledging all that I already
knew, and which imposed an interpretation on me with which I did not agree
myself.
It seemed
probable to me that I would have been considered something of a catch, possibly
a poster child for the promotion of their fake reality had I pursued that path.
This is the
world to which we must direct our critical attentions, not the medical concept
of transsexualism itself.
Gender Studies
rejects the application of taxonomy to atypical gender conditions. ‘Late onset’ transsexualism in someone who
is middle aged and a parent is considered just as valid as someone who has had
strong feelings since childhood and transitions successfully in their
twenties. All gender is fluid
and choice, and any firmly fixed position is oppressive in their
world.
The simple
problem is that to the non specialist all this conflates to a point where the
baby is thrown out with the bath water.
All we are left with is political demands from people whose only
interest is to deconstruct society, which is entirely the opposite to
what I and many like me want.
So, I address
this directly to Henrik Palmgren. All I
ask is that you understand that this is a more complex and nuanced subject than
previously it might have seemed. I’m
not Calling you out or trying to raise some big internet flame war.
I love your
material, and I’m really proud to have been on your network, but one of the
things about the Right is that we accept what is and don’t try to impose
solutions because we think that’s how the morality of the world should make it. If the SJW left hadn’t been exploiting this
lately you probably wouldn’t even be aware of it as an issue, because people
like me like to blend in and not be noticed, certainly not wave a flag and say 'Look at me!'.
Which is why it is a pain that I have to do this, because I am sick and
tired of the Gender Studies morons spreading lies about people like me and
trying to destroy society through viral contagion and imitation by weak minded
people.
But I have to
do it because someone has to, and I am in a position where I can laugh at the
critics from the left who might otherwise accuse me of transphobia. I’m sure I will still get that from gender
fluid queers but they are an even smaller minority than my own group, and I
don’t care about them. I had expected
to have to deal with them but of course SJWs tend to ignore things they don’t
like. It grieves me to have to address
this to the Right, but if we can clarify this amongst ourselves, then we will
be stronger against the left.
The
War on Gender which is currently being waged by the LGBT lobby puppets of the
Cultural Marxist propagandists has recently stepped up a gear, or possibly two. If
you haven't heard my interview with the estimable Lana Lokteff on her
Radio 3Fourteen show, then I would recommend you do so before you read this so
as to get as much background to the subject as possible first.
Following
the insanity of liberals allowing anyone access to either sex toilets according
to how they ‘identify’ (whatever that means exactly), and the inevitable and
predictable reaction by conservatives to prevent this, we see O’Bummer himself
in a doubtless vetted set piece with a person of female appearance and
Pakistani ancestry who claims a ‘non-binary’ identity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/student-comes-out-as-non-binary-to-barack-obama/
The
mainstream media don’t seem to be questioning what this means, but rather
jumping to ‘support’ ‘them’, while the on-the-ground level reaction I have
picked up so far is that real people are saying “WTF is ‘non-binary’?”
So
what indeed is a ‘non-binary’ identity, and why has it been sicced on an
unsuspecting public at this particular time?
Although
this young person has been associated with the ‘Transgender Movement’, we
should distinguish between several closely related but distinct terms that have
arisen in this culture.
‘Transgender’
is a word now widely used as an umbrella term for all gender non-conforming
people, but this is a comparatively recent usage.It was coined in about 1980 by a person calling themself Virginia Prince as a more acceptable term than that used at the time for cross
dressers, ‘Transvestite’, which was commonly associated with sexual
fetishism.
‘Transgender’ on the other
hand was designed to emphasise the gender aspect with which TGs were
supposedly identified, since they would seek to pass in public in their desired
gender without actually having had medical treatment like transsexuals..
‘Transsexual’
is a term which had been in use since at least the 1950s that was specifically
applied to people who had medical hormonal and surgical treatment to modify
their physical appearance and morphology to be like that of their desired sex.
All
of these at various times have been put forward as mental illnesses, from the
early ‘Psychopathia transsexualis’ to the more recent ‘Gender Identity
Disorder’ but there has been evidence for some time that the closely defined
Transsexual group have an actual neurological birth condition in which they
really do have parts of the brain which had developed as that appropriate to
their opposite physical sex.Thus, it
really is the case that the reported sense of being a ‘woman in a man’s body’
and vice versa is an accurate description.
So
the term ‘Transgender’ has gone from meaning someone who is a Cross Dresser, to
include both CDs and Transsexuals who have a more primary sense of their bodily
identity.Thus the distinction is
blurred.
It
is my understanding that this is a matter of some disagreement in the Trans world,
my own preferred blanket term.Many
transsexuals do not like being associated with people they see as being
entirely unlike them, while TGs often will argue that such distinctions are
irrelevant, or divisive politically and attack TSs as ‘post-op elitists’.
And
this is where ‘Non-Binary’ comes into the debate.
A
large proportion of the general public will accept transsexuals who
successfully pass in their desired sex/gender and who have had reassignment
surgeries.They may not exactly
understand it, but it doesn’t challenge the very nature of sex and gender if
the person involved seeks to fit into an existing pattern and is
morphologically congruent.
TG
is a grey area which has more recently been thrust on an unsuspecting
world.After the term was picked up by
Judith Butler in her books from the late eighties and early nineties it somehow
managed to get to be used as a conflation of several variants, including
possibly the best known, transsexualism.Her observation that there is a ‘performative element’ in gender has
been widely abused and misrepresented to claim that sex is in itself only
performative, and thus anyone can be either sex merely depending on their
behaviour.The finer points of
distinction between sex and gender tend to get air brushed out of the picture
when the LGBT promoters get their hands on it and we arrive at the stage we
have got to at the present in which anyone claiming to ‘identify’ with one or
the other ‘gender’ can use the toilets of the opposite sex.
The
point at which ‘Non-Binary’ can now enter has been achieved because sex
having been reduced to only gender is now only a concept, and so bodies
have become irrelevant.When we had
sex, we knew that there were two forms, or at least two poles,
male and female.There might be
intersex, hermaphrodites and transsexuals who are a mixture of male and female
bodies, but there was this principle dynamic of the polarity, which has been
designed into biological reproduction by nature over a billion years or so.
Enter
‘Non-Binary’.If sex is no more
than gender, then we are no longer anchored in nature, no longer rooted
in the forms which are its means of expression, but we are seeking to repudiate
its classical archetypes.
‘Non-Binary’
is far more than merely TG, TS, Cross Dresser, confused and all the rest.‘Non-Binary’ is not merely saying ‘I don’t
know what I am, I’m all mixed up, I might be a bit of both, bisexual, asexual
or whatever.’No, all that is
kindergarten stuff which we should be able to recognise and understand as the
result of feminising chemicals on embryologic development, early maturation and
the destructive influence of Cultural Marxist programming through the
mainstream media.What ‘Non-Binary’
does is to put a position that is a quantum leap beyond.
Having
got the world all nice and confused with the imposition of ‘Transgender’ as the
blanket term, superseding transsexualism, it then goes on the attack the
existence of gender itself.
So
someone who claims to be ‘Non-Binary’ ‘identified’ is someone who is not just
some kind of androgynous, hermaphroditic, intersex like creature who is seeking
to either find some slot into which they can fit, or something that is some
balance of the sexes that they can become, or that even accepts that they are a
confused mix of these two polarities, but is someone who rejects those
polarities.By claiming to be
‘Non-Binary’, they are not only saying that they don’t fit in, but that the
‘Binary’ on which our entire culture is based is no more than a construct, a
fiction designed by someone for some arbitrary reason which bears no relation
to the functions of nature.
The boundaries, the natural tabu between men and
women are to be broken down entirely.This coming so hot on the heels of the affirmation of transgenders’
rights to use toilet facilities of their preference regardless of appearance or
bodily anatomical status is clearly no coincidence.
In
the wake of the controversy we are to be reminded, guilt tripped into something
most don’t really understand.
First,
gender has been detached and deconstructed away from attachment to an actual
body.
Secondly,
the rights of any who claim an abstract ‘identification’ with that
deconstructed construction are to be recognised regardless of demonstrative
evidence such as physical appearance and behaviour, or medically reassigned
status.
Thirdly,
since ‘Sex’ is now only an incidental physical characteristic and not in any
way associated with ‘Gender’, people who claim ‘identification’ with a
particular ‘Gender’ can thus enter the space previously exclusive to the sex
associated with that ‘Gender’.
However,
since that space is no longer exclusively inhabited by those of that sex
to which it was exclusive, the gendered terms ‘man’ ‘woman’ ‘male’ and
‘female’ are not merely enlarged, or modified as in the case of adapting to the
existence of intersexes and transsexuals, but entirely transformed so that they
lose critical parts of their meaning.
Policing
of dissent from traditionalists is maintained by use of choice words of abuse,
such as ‘bigot’ and ‘sexist’.
It
is perhaps as much as a decade since I got into an exchange on an
anti-Transphobia forum discussing the problematic nature of this discourse when
claiming ‘female’ identity for TGs who have had no medical reassignment
treatment, and got back the response ‘I’m perfectly happy with my female
penis.’Okay, this is a complete
redefinition of language at which Winston Smith would stand back in admiration,
as black became white.
When
the Gender Recognition Act (2004) was passed I predicted that the failure to
require certain medical procedures to be carried before a Recognition
Certificate and revised Birth Certificate could be issued would lead to exactly
the state we have at present.Which
some believe is a precursor to the elimination of legal sex or gender
completely, on the basis of human rights or somesuch.The fewer objective referents which are attached to the
association between sex and gender, then the less meaningful the latter
becomes.As it becomes more amorphous
it becomes easier to push the ‘Non-Binary’, and those who are tempted by this
notion become thereby more malleable.If you have no template to aspire to, no gender role model, then you are
fair game for the Cultural Marxist to mould to their own ends.
What
this ‘Non-Binary’ agenda seeks to do is to break down all that is based on
nature and on the basis of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ to make us all grey and
featureless drones without gender, race or any unique characteristics of our
own.And in the process it seeks to
crush the mind which recognises the cognitive dissonance generated by ideas
which conflict with our natural instincts.
Without
going into details, we need to find some way to adapt to the presence of trans
people in our societies.
This
is probably the point at which I should mention that I myself underwent what
was then known as ‘Gender Reassignment’ in the 1980s.I don’t discuss this online with any great enthusiasm as it has
been a private matter all my life and I wish it could remain so, but it is
important for me to speak out against the current LGBTQ movement which seeks to
represent me, but which has goals entirely at odds with my own beliefs.
Our
existence is a fact which will not simply go away by wishing it, or by
condemning it as some on the Right would have it.But trans people are a minute proportion of the population, even
if the revised levels of prevalence calculated by Lynn Conway are correct,
and
for the general population to have to change their attitudes and behaviour for
one person in a thousand or even in five hundred who is to be given a status
above the law on the basis of no evidence other than a personal claim is not
acceptable.
There
has to be a line somewhere.We can
negotiate where that line might be, but there has to be a line.
I’ve
seen several comments on social media recently from people who have said things
like ‘They’ve just messed it up now opening up rest rooms to anyone who
‘identifies’ as a ‘woman’.There were
probably thousands of successfully transitioned trans women who passed
successfully in stealth and were never questioned when they used women’s rest
rooms, but now any woman with so much as a trace of facial hair are going to be
grilled, or else total pervs will be using the ladies facilities and no-one
will be able to stop them.’
It’s time we have the discussion.Where do we draw the line?
The
two sides are faced off against each other.The liberals demand that anyone should be able to use any public toilet
on the basis of simple ‘identification’, which is little more than a mere
statement of wish, and the conservatives will only accept assignment at
birth.I have to reject the former as
without basis in evidence, merely taking someone’s word for something without
demonstrative evidence is stupidity in the extreme; and the latter, while I respect
the impulse from which it arises, is rather living in the stone age with regard
to recognition of intersexual type birth conditions, both morphological and
neurological.
So
we have to have the discussion.The Alt
or New Right is getting to grips with recognition of the fact that
homosexuality exists and that it is an instinctual inclination in some
people.So long as we maintain a
balance whereby we don’t punish people for inclinations which are natural to them,
so long as they do no harm by them, but at the same time recognise that
traditional heteronormative relations are the best basis for a stable and
culturally fruitful society then we will be in balance.
We
need to take the next step and get to grips with the fact that the trans world
exists and that it cannot be stamped out.But Transgender activists should not presume by this that they can
establish and exploit a hegemonic victim position in order to attack
heteronormative structures through virtue signalling.
We
are a small minority and most of us seek only to pass unnoticed in
society.Those who stand on the soap
boxes and promote ‘Non-Binary’ models of gender, and endlessly push their
victimhood agendas are representative only of themselves, a minority faction
within the minority.
I
have my own position on where exactly I think we should draw the line, but I’ll
leave that for now.However, we must
have a line, and preferably one which accommodates scientific knowledge on
brain sex, but also on morphology, appearance and behaviour.A man or a woman are recognised through
their gestalt, although there are sine qua nons.There must be a line drawn between
male and female.It is an ancient tabu,
both sacred and profane.Some may cross
it due to exceptional circumstances, but those circumstances will be recognised
and understood, there will be rites of passage, and formal recognition.People who claim ‘identification’ will need
to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
I
am even prepared to allow for an ‘Intergender’ category.I mentioned this term to Dr Sally Hines of
the Leeds University Dept of Gender Studies in 2009 when I had several
conversations with her.This would
accommodate those who permanently inhabited a zone of mixed status.I understand there is a term ‘Neutrois’ which
has been adopted by some, but I don’t find this nearly as troublesome as
‘Non-Binary’.
This
latter term is a purposeful attack on the very division of higher life forms
into male and female.People who use
this term routinely attack what they call ‘The Gender Binary’, as if masculine
and feminine were an affront to human dignity, rather than what gives it its
depth of character.
So
we must have a line, and we need to have the discussion about exactly where it
is, especially when it comes to the use of pubic facilities, or we will fall
into the abyss where anyone is anything they say they are, and where the very
binary polarity of life itself is denied.
***
There
is a whole other discussion I could get into about how this is parallel to the
current attempt at destroying national identities and borders in a very similar
way.No Borders is not far from
Non-Binary.No boundaries is what these
people want, and it is no surprise to me that one of the principle tools of
fear that has recently been used against us is the threat of Ebola, the disease
which ruptures cell walls, like open borders and Non-Binary abolition of
gender.This seems to be the template
for the world which the EU, Soros and their social engineers have lined up for
us.
But
I will leave the discussion there for now, and thank Annie Dieu-le-Veut for drawing
this topic to my attention, as well as for the use of her analogy about Ebola
rupturing cell walls.
My
original blog with full 2014 Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry online
audio recording links and reportage from most days at the Enquiry and
other material.
