Home > Current Affairs, Dystopia, Economy, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Contemporary Transgenderism is Based in Regressive CONservatism

Contemporary Transgenderism is Based in Regressive CONservatism

Readers of this blog will be aware of my rather dim view of certain social movements which claim to be liberal and progressive, but are the opposite of what they claim. I have written more than a few posts about how SJW-ism and how the causes it promotes are actually quite regressive (link 1, link 2 and link 3). I have also been a strong supporter of causes, such as freedom of speech, which are currently unpopular just because losers like Alex Jones are invoking it to defend their odious behavior (link 4 and link 5). Moreover, unlikely many self-anointed progressives, it is my opinion that giving your consent or more power to governments and corporations is a really bad idea (link 6 and link 7). My beliefs don’t fit within intellectually dishonest ‘left-right’ classification which dominate the mind of incestuous circle-jerkers aka “credentialed intellectuals”.

Some of you might be aware that I have written posts on this area such as- Contemporary Elite Support for Transgender Rights and Neoliberalism, On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology and Some Thoughts on How TransGenderism Will Likely Lose Public Support. In these, I covered issues such as the connection of this ideology with neoliberalism and late-capitalism and how institutional support for it is eerily reminiscent of past support for other bad ideas such as eugenics and residential schools. To put it another way, I am not a big fan of that ideology- especially the way in which its proponents are trying to force their worldviews on other people. Some might ask.. “how is that different from struggle for gay and lesbian rights”? Well.. glad you asked, because there is a big difference between them and transgenderism.

But before we go there, let us be clear about something- I have always believed that no person or institution has any right to tell or enforce how another person should live their life or who they should have sex with- as long as it does not involve animals or children. In other words, society should not discriminate between people irrespective of their sexual preferences and lifestyle. But isn’t this belief at odds with my strong support for gay and lesbian rights versus my expressed thoughts about the ideology of transgenderism? Well.. no, because gay and lesbian rights are not in the same category as transgenderism. Confused? Here is the long-form explanation which starts by looking at how the gay and lesbian rights movement came into being.

The modern movement for gay and lesbian rights in west started sometime during late-1960s. While there are many reasons for why it started at that time- it is best understood as being an extension of the sexual revolution and various civil rights movements. So.. ya, the movement for gay and lesbian rights started and grew as a movement for equal legal rights and legal protection from discrimination. And yes, there is a very good reason that I am emphasizing the part about legal equality. You might have noticed that this movement, over the next few decades, was primarily focused on achieving legal equality rather than social acceptance. But why? Why focus on the legal part and not the social part. The simple answer to that question is that legal equality is readily attainable while social acceptance cannot be forced.

A more complex answer requires us to understand its philosophical underpinnings. Specifically, the gay and lesbian rights movement was and is largely based in progressive principles. But isn’t the movement of transgender ideology based in progressive principles too? Well no, it is not and the way I described it provides a partial clue. See, the gay and lesbian rights movements are not independent and free-standing ideologies. Instead they are part of progressive humanism, which is why they were successful and are so uncontroversial today. They demanded equal legal rights because they were also human, rather than somehow special or different. Nor did they try to impose their belief system on other people or make constant demands from others to recognize and celebrate their “specialness”. They just wanted to treated like everyone else.

Now compare this to the ideology of contemporary transgenderism, more precisely how it works in real life. For starters, everyone else is supposed to just shut up and accept any new brainfart emanating from the vocal self-anointed leaders of that movement. Anybody who does not do so immediately is labelled as a denier or heretic. And don’t forget that they are all “extra-special” people with a unique connection to something that nobody else can understand. Accepting this ideology by mutilating your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics is supposed to provide you with a magic cure for all your mental issues and help you get into the inner circle. Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the reactionary bullshit you usually see in religions and cults?

But it gets worse. Have you noticed that those who change their gender (especially from male to female) go for conventionally hyper-feminine look, dress and behavior? But why is that so? Why do they crave socially sanctioned feminine and masculine looks, dress and mannerisms? Let me contrast that with gay men and lesbian women. Have you noticed that both come in a very wide range of looks, dress and mannerisms? While the media, sadly, often still portrays gay men as effeminate queens, most people who have interacted in real life know that they cover the full range of masculinity. In other words, most gay guys are like straight guys. The same is true for lesbian women. Most are not the ultra-masculine “dykes” still sadly portrayed in media. Most of them are like straight women and it is even harder to tell them apart than gay and straight men.

And this brings us to why I said that the ideology of transgenderism is based in a regressive form of CONservatism. One major difference between CONservatism and progressive humanism is that the former requires people to conform and fit into narrow definitions of what they are “meant” to be. That is why, for example, CONservatives were historically against women wearing pants or not dressing in allegedly “approved” ways. This is, also, why women who appear on CONservative news outlets dress and style themselves in a particular hyper-feminine manner. To make a long story short, any ideology which directly or indirectly pushes its followers to conform to narrow “traditional” choices in style, dress and behavior is by definition CONservative. Now combine this insight with the previously mentioned bit about its highly cultish nature and you will why it is fundamentally different from the movement for gay and lesbian rights.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. February 4, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    I don’t know how a hindu muffin the likes of you came up with such a good article, methinks you paid someone higher on the hbd scale **cough cough** a white guy to write this…

    Yeah, those trannies are grody, been tricked by ’em more times than I like to admit and in fact that’s how I met Roosh V, wasn’t too convincing in that dress. But he does have a nice hairy mangina with the

    Read my quotes:


    In fact me and my buddy Milo Y would’ve to get to beat down some trannies but we don’t wanna get thrown in the big house. Better we stick to beating down you hindu muffins and when you punch back cry “hate crime” because of our orientation. In fact just because someone made one or two mean comments back in the time of Stonewall means that I am more oppressed than you so there is that !!!

    Seig Hail !!!

    14 8 (n0t)Str8 !!!

  2. February 4, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    y’know my man, er hindu muffin…

    since you are a connoisseur of the sewer, I bet you got with at least a few trannies in your day…

    Yeah, it doesn’t just happen to crocodile dundee, that’s how we recruit dude broes from ROOSH V forum…

    they get their tranny experience, and uh, well we get ’em liquored up at the wolves of vineland and tap that mangina !!!

  3. mind waves
    February 5, 2019 at 7:56 am

    Lesbians contributed jacks shit to the struggle for equal rights. Gay men marched and protested and once it was save, lesbians hijacked the movement.

    Agree.. but they were nowhere as delusional as trans SJWs.

    • P Ray
      February 5, 2019 at 8:50 am

      That’s what a lot of women actually mean when they talk about equal rights … they have the same rights as you, except they didn’t really fight for it … but of course, they want men to give them lots of chances and lower the qualification thresholds.

      Also lesbians have higher rates of domestic violence. Plus it must be really hard for them to find a man to blame the violence on.

    • P Ray
      February 5, 2019 at 9:14 am

      And speaking of lesbians …
      Lesbian ‘gang-rapes female victim along with two men’ in first-of-its-kind sex attack case in India
      The victim claims she was subjected to repeated sexual and physical assaults in New Delhi, India, from March 2018.

      Just waiting to see whether a man will be blamed for “provoking the lesbian to rape” … hey, it’s called the legal system, not the justice system …

  4. February 6, 2019 at 3:23 pm

    Some people are very narrow minded and I have difficulty even conversing with them. I’m saying this because even recently, I had a debate with some guy who idiotically said that black people are naturally CONservative. After calling out how stupid that was and that humans are not herd/sheep/drones, he could say no more to me after I said that anytime some people hear the word “liberal”, the first thing that pops up in their mind is single motherhood, LGBT, trans and the likes. I had to spell out that CONservatism is all about keeping in style worthless traditions and regimen, whereas liberalism is about innovation, creativity and trying new things.

    This particular guy travels abroad just like I do. However, I added that the idea of traveling overseas for whatever reason (even if you are travelling to countries that are mildly or fairly CONservative) is in fact a thing of liberalism; rather than regurgitating CONservative memes about “staying in one’s place” in order to keep society intact. Fuck society.

    P.S. I am not against gays and I’m not in the business of telling people who they should and should not have sex with. But some of this LGBT shit is out of control and it makes me sick personally to see how they are going into elementary schools promoting that shit – and all this “drag queen story hour” bullshit.

    • February 6, 2019 at 8:31 pm

      “P.S. I am not against gays and I’m not in the business of telling people who they should and should not have sex with. But some of this LGBT shit is out of control and it makes me sick personally to see how they are going into elementary schools promoting that shit – and all this “drag queen story hour” bullshit.”


      My wife (for 39 years) and I are longtime mutually sexually non-exclusivists and nudists. Following the LGBT promotion scheme logic — shouldn’t we be given time in public elementary schools to promote open marriage, extramarital lovers, partner-swapping, and “Lifestyler-friendly” Nudism?

      • February 6, 2019 at 8:35 pm

        I don’t think children should be exposed to human sexuality if any kind. Not until they become teens starting at 14 or 15 when they reach puberty. But the reality and biological fact is that young girls can get pregnant at 11-13 and young boys can feel certain urges at that age naturally also. I do believe in sex education and that parents need to give their kids the 411 and stop listening to society and the opinions and wishes of others who don’t mean shit.

        I knew how to use condom when I was 11 and 12, but didn’t break my virginity until I was 20. And I’m happy about that, personally.

  5. Sid
    March 17, 2019 at 6:16 pm

    You are over-analyzing this, without including the central pivot of all politics, and therefore have come to a wrong conclusion.

    Right Wing politics / traditional conservatism, or Leftism for that matter, are not defined by a type of behavior but a social goal: either construction (conservatism) or deconstruction (liberalism) of group political power. This is the case, has always been the case, and always will be the case.

    That conservatism is some type of social-interest free code of behavior, rather than a social goal, is Neo-con propaganda meant to supplant a correct concept of politics just like the same group attempted with communism (who supplanted real and politically effective cultural bonds with false and politically ineffective economic bonds). In both instances, the Trotskyists did their job for a large portion of the population.

    Conservatism does not pivot around a narrow set of behaviors, though those behaviors tend to manifest like they will always do in any group whatsoever. Because repeated behaviors lead to predictable sociopolitical outcomes. All politics will prescribe a narrow set of behaviors once they determine which behaviors best forward their social goals. Conservatism pivots around group political power interest. Leftism pivots around group political power deconstruction, because its nature it to attack family and community rules that otherwise keep them together and enable them to cooperate closely over generations for the purpose of building political power.

    This is where you stumble and incorrectly prescribe narrow behavior to conservatism. All that you are doing is observing traditional values and relative social anarchy and drawing an incorrect conclusion that either is definitive of the Left or the Right.

    In reality, relative anarchy is used to deconstruct the social and other politics of an enemy. Its only a temporary tool, usually wielded by a truly conservative group acting to attack another groups moral and government systems. Liberalism can never build true intergenerational political power on its own without the continued support of a powerful socially conservative group acting behind it.

    Behavioral narrowness is used to preserve whatever political behavior (or sociopolitically deconstrctive weapon -as is the case with trannies) is used to build a group up or tear another group down.

    In sum, the pivot of all politics is social behavior. Traditional social behavior builds the family unit, which builds the community unit and culture, which in turn builds political power when those people closely cooperate over generations. Narrow moral behavior is a prerequisite for this accomplishment. The core of conservatism is behavior that meets this goal of family and community unit preservation toward political power. It most certainly is not any and all narrow behavior.

    Social behavior that deconstructs the family and community, however narrow, is social-communist or even liberal in nature.

    Anarchy is used to deconstruct what exists. It is used as a tool by conservative groups against other conservative groups. No independent liberal group would ever have enough innate long term organization or power to go up against a conservative group over time. There would not be enough inter-generational cooperation in comparison.

    Mandated behavioral narrowness is implemented in any enemy group once controls are down to cement the deconstructive behavior and political powerlessness in place. This is a mechanism of the communist mandate for eternal war. Its a war against human nature and spirit that always looks to build political power, which can only be accomplished through the family unit>community>culture process. This is why true peace for the human spirit can only be of peaceful yet separate nations.

    Read the goals of the communists. They don’t harp on individual behavior codes for their own sake. They harp on social goals. They are not lying to you.

  6. TerryThePirate
    April 25, 2019 at 1:10 am

    You’re absolutely right.

  7. P Ray
    June 8, 2019 at 2:42 am

    Don’t forget this lovely bit of doublethink:

    Remember … kids can’t consent BUT their consent is fine for changing their gender.

  1. June 10, 2019 at 8:53 am
  2. August 5, 2019 at 8:16 pm
  3. September 20, 2019 at 5:31 pm
  4. March 17, 2021 at 2:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: