Suicidal Tendencies

by Jack Donovan on December 1, 2009

On November 29, 2009 Los Angeles Times sportswriter Mike Penner died of an apparent suicide. In 2007 he announced that he was a transsexual and began writing as Christine Daniels. In October 2008 he returned to work dressed in male clothing and began writing as Mike Penner again.

The point of this essay is not to speak ill of the dead.

It is to draw attention to yet another way that feminism and cultural Marxism are doing harm to men.

The incident seemed particularly timely to me because this past weekend I helped some young men move out of a crazy transsexual’s home where they were renting rooms. This former construction worker was open about the fact that he was taking black market hormones, and his behavior was extremely erratic. He had a history of suicide attempts. He owned several guns, and had made a plea to someone in the house to hold his ammunition—because “he couldn’t trust himself.” That’s about the time when my pals decided that discretion was the better part of tolerance.

This was no surprise to me. I associated with a wide range of pre and post-op transsexuals when I worked in New York City and San Francisco nightclubs in the 1990s. As with all things there were exceptions, but generally drag queens, trannies and transsexuals in all stages of transition were not well. They were often addicted to drugs, had been diagnosed with mental disorders or chemical imbalances, and many had at one point routinely engaged in prostitution. The erratic, emotionally unstable, borderline schizophrenic behavior my friends described to me was almost exactly what I had experienced myself in the past. A guy I knew a year ago was dating a pageant-winning local drag queen who had to be committed. Even in liberal communities where transsexuality is relatively accepted, suicidal behavior among known transsexuals is over or around 20%.

To be clear, I am not discussing female-to-male(FTM) transsexuals, but only male-to-female(MTF) transsexuals. Female transsexuality is a different ballgame; it seems to be almost entirely a feminist tom-boy fantasy and it is difficult to separate from feminist politics. At some point I will write something titled “Chaz Bono is Still a Fat Chick,” but today is not that day.

I have met a few convincing post-op transsexuals. Some of them were Pilipino ladyboys who started hormones early; some were simply “pretty” boys who were naturally delicate and soft-featured. They lived as women and bedded straight men (watch out fellas). As passable women they were also highly promiscuous. I knew of at least one who married a guy who paid for the expensive transition, and then dumped him later. It is worth noting, too, that many of these individuals occasionally engage in deceptive behavior, “hiding” their birth sex from potential sexual partners. It’s not just a comedy cliché. It happens, and it’s ethically reprehensible.

The majority of MTFs, however, are not even remotely convincing as women. Like Penner (as far as I can tell from this photo), many of the trannies I’ve known and seen have been rather tall men. At 6 foot 6, my pal’s landlord was only ever going to pass while sitting down in the corner of a very dark bar. A lot of them you can easily pick out a block away.

So what’s the point of this? Why are therapists encouraging these troubled men to attempt to become something they can never truly be? To what end?

While I’ll assume that some FTMs end up passing as women and live long, happy lives, I have a hard time believing they represent a majority of the males who identify as transsexual and undergo some sort of gender transformation. Why do professionals encourage this? Why does our federal government now recognize it by giving these men special protected status with the new “hate crimes” law? Why, in some communities, are very confused young boys being encouraged to identify as girls—virtually ensuring that they’ll spend the rest of their lives in therapy, that they’ll never feel normal or comfortable in their own skins? Why isn’t this considered child abuse? How long will it be before even asking these questions will be considered illegal “hate speech?”

The only thing that “proves” any theory of transsexuality is a feeling expressed by transsexuals that they were born “the wrong sex.” The available physical evidence strongly suggests that they were born male, and that they only thing wrong with them is in their heads. The idea that they were born “the wrong sex” is impossible to even contemplate without wandering into metaphysical territory. There’s a built-in notion of intent there. Who wanted them to be born a different sex, and why did they screw it up?

If a man takes hormones to look more like a woman, or a woman takes hormones to look more like a man, we accept it and legally recognize the switch.

If a man takes hormones to enhance his own natural masculinity, we call it immoral and we’ve made it illegal. We call him a cheater and threaten to put an asterisk beside his name. Why is it so much more acceptable to use drugs to alter your sex than it is to embrace and enhance what you were born with? From the perspective of mental health, isn’t that counterintuitive?

If an apotemnophiliac wants to have his leg amputated, our doctors call him insane and he ends up in dying of gangrene in Mexico. If a man wants to cut off his own penis, why do we officially applaud, fund it, and call it courageous?

It all fits too easily into the feminist/Marxist desire to subvert the patriarchy, to craft a society where sex is meaningless and distinct roles of men and women are a thing of the past. This sort of encouragement of those who, despite questionable mental health and the lack of a real understanding of the problem of transsexuality itself, want to change genders muddies the waters of public perception. Among transsexual writers—these people who are so obsessed with gender and being something different—the questioning of gender and the attack of traditional gender roles, especially traditional patriarchal roles for men, reaches a fevered pitch. The transgendered are most often on the far left of the radical left. In their world, only when gender is meaningless and every variant on a continuum between male and female are accepted wholeheartedly and without reservation—only when being a man means absolutely nothing—can men and women truly be equal.

The thing is…equality is a lie. We’re not born equal. We’re all born different.

You get dealt a set of cards, and you make the best of it. There are some things you can change, some things you can’t, and some things you should probably just accept. Little fixes are easy, but something as significant as a sex change…that’s a tall order. Being born male colors the way you see the world through your entire development. Maleness and femaleness are total experiences. They can’t be perceived—they have to be experienced. A man can never really know what it is to be a woman, to grow up female, to relate to the world that way. A male can only know a caricature of what it is to be a female, and vice versa.

I’m slightly above average across the board, but sure, I’d like a little more of this or that. I wish I could grow a decent beard. I’d take an extra ten I.Q. points and better math aptitude. I have a slight lag in certain areas of visual spatial perception that gets me all sorts of harassment. I’d gladly upgrade my metabolism so that I could have beer and bacon cheeseburgers with a side of pizza every night for dinner and never have to go to the gym.

Some guys are born short and it really bugs them and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it. Some guys will always fight weight. Some dudes are fucking DUMB. Some will always be Omegas. Some people have congenital illnesses, bad eyesight, handicaps—all sorts of physical and mental limitations. Some people are just real, real ugly.

But that’s part of being human, and sometimes being human sucks.

Mike Penner was apparently a very talented writer. He also had this “problem.” I believe that for others like Penner, the best way—the most humane way—would be to advise them to make the best of what they’ve got.  He was never really going to be a woman. To hold that hope out for him seems like the real cruelty in all of this: to have him triumphantly “come out” and then painfully realize he could never truly “go back in.” He never could have known what it was like to really, truly be a woman. How could he? He would have always been an imposter, a poseur, a freak.

In our downward slide to matriarchy, empathy is set at an uncontrollable gush. Our master-nannies live in constant fear of passing judgement on anyone they see as weak or threatened or “oppressed.” They want to rock every runaway to sleep, to say “yes” to everything, to coddle and encourage every childish fantasy, to indulge every impulse, no matter how misguided it seems.

Sometimes the best answer, the sanest answer, the answer we really need…is a firm, paternal, “NO.”


Jack Donovan is the author of Androphilia and the co-author of Blood-Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Alliance. He lives in Portland, Oregon and works in the fitness industry.

{ 133 comments… read them below or add one }

Angry Harry December 1, 2009 at 03:43

Wow!

Gobsmacking piece Jack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Krauser December 1, 2009 at 04:13

Great. It’s always a pleasure to read a tightly reasoned polemic without the usual prevaricating and solipsism that infests social commentary.

Agreed on all points.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Amateur Strategist December 1, 2009 at 04:19

Now the real question is, is it psychological, or biological?

I myself believe it’s more likely psychological, it’s not popular to be Male in this society in ranging degrees, the most extreme of which can really make an innocent Boy feel sorry he were every born. Are there any case studies on transexuals or wish-they-were-transexuals about how they were raised? Not necessarily do the parents have to abuse him or favor his sisters, but you’d also have to look at overall societal influence to get best results.

Unfortunately, the above would mean directly questioning the transexuals themselves, most often. I don’t want to PREJUDGE, per se, but if one becomes a protected class through birth, meaning you can’t be changed (rather than psychological, meaning you’re “crazy”) they’d have a personal stake in insuring that the results favor the continued protection, I.E. biological, thus, there’s a chance they’d prefer to lie about any anti-Male experiences they had.

What do you think, Jack Donovan?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Days of Broken Arrows December 1, 2009 at 05:24

Nice piece. I’d never thought of it like this, but you have a point. Why would we encourage this? It could be compared, also, to skin bleaching amongst darker skinned people.

However, regarding short gusy, your assertion that “there’s not a damn thing they can do about it” is incorrect. Limb lengthening works and there are several very reputable doctors who specialize in it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 1, 2009 at 06:00

Michael Bailey has done a large amount of research on this topic, and the trans community basically ran him out of dodge for his truth telling on the issue.

Bailey’s view? There are two kinds of MTF trans people: (1) homosexual transsexuals and (2) autogynephilic transsexuals. The former, per Bailey, are mostly rather fem guys who are gay but are not comfortable in their male skin because they are kind of fem. Often these are the more slight and short kinds of guys who can actually pull off looking like a woman with effort. Bailey believes that these people would be better off living as gay men rather than undergoing the kind of dangerous “gender transition” (which runs a lot of mental health risks as Jack points out here) that is typical for transsexuals, in terms of mental health and lifestyle choices. Bailey recommends that fem boys and young men be encouraged to be themselves as fem gay men, and that tendencies they may have to want to ditch their sexual presentation should be discouraged, not encouraged, due to the correlation between trans-ism and dangerous outcomes.

The second type are guys who are basically attracted to themselves as women. These tend to be guys who are not really fem when they present as men — they are tall or large or rather masculine looking in other obvious ways. But they have a mental condition that is a dysfunctional version of female sexual arousal — in other words, while biological females are aroused by their own attractiveness, as reflected in the arousal of a man whom they wish to be aroused by them, for an autogynephilic transsexual they become both ends of that loop — both the object of desire and the desirer, in themselves reflected as a female looking object of their own male desire. This is a highly dysfunctional sexuality, and Bailey again recommends that these people not be encouraged to present as females, but rather get therapy to sort out their sexual issues.

Of course the trans community basically wailed on Bailey when he published his conclusions — which have not, however, been refuted. Basically what we have is a group of people who are mentally ill and are asking for special treatment under the law and public acceptance of their mental illness.

There are some cultures around the world where there are quite a few “transsexuals”, in much greater numbers than generally appear elsewhere — Thailand, Brazil and so on. Obviously, it can’t be the case that there are more people in Thailand and Brazil who are “born that way”. LOL. The reason for this is that the cultures in question tend to steer fem acting men towards presenting as women — in other words, there is an “acceptance” of fem homosexual men provided that they do not present or act like men. As a result, you have more than average amounts of what Bailey would describe as “homosexual transsexuals” in places like Brazil and Thailand than you do in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
JFA December 1, 2009 at 06:01

Excellent piece!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Paul December 1, 2009 at 07:00

Jack has said a great deal in this piece. One phrase particularly hit me -

feeling expressed by transsexuals that they were born “the wrong sex.”

Because within that phrase so much else is en-captured. The test of reality is now not so much to be found in what can be done, seen or demonstrated but in what is felt. You could think of this as emotion replacing reason. So a person is not a murderer if they don’t feel they are a murderer. If you parse down the trials of some women murderers you will see that it almost boils down to this. A Women does not have to be threatened they must just feel that they are threatened.

Similarly belief is put forwards as argument and to passionately believe is unanswerable. This is why I partly feel that those MRAs who think they can win by argument may be mistaken as feeling and believe trump evidence and argument.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Professor Hale December 1, 2009 at 07:04

Very good. I recall writing something similar when the stories broke about a doctor in Britain who would amputate healthy limbs to “cure” dismorphia. One of his patients later got competent psych help and legglessly remarked, “what was I thinking”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Neil from Brazil December 1, 2009 at 07:16

Any of you guys ever noticed that, to fembots,:

a) Masculinity é “socially constructed”;

b) “Alternative Gender Identities” are biologically rooted (therefore nothing can be done but accept).

Talk me of double standards. Masculinity can be attacked, because since it is “socially constructed” (and not naturally conceived), it can be “desconstructed” the way you would rip off Frankensten.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Neil from Brazil December 1, 2009 at 07:18

To remorselly attack human beings, it is imperative to remove them from the category of “natural ocurrences”, and place them in the category of “Monsters”.

That is what feminists did to us, masculine men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Neil from Brazil December 1, 2009 at 07:18

Errata:

Read “remorseLESSly”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 1, 2009 at 07:27

Neil from Brazil –

Yeah, that is a major contradiction in arguments from feminism and its gay/transgender branches. They refuse to acknowledge any inborn masculinity–believing that if they give children the right toys and control social messages, men and women will more or less be the same. And yet the gays/trannies, who for the most part also believe that masculinity is socially constructed, reject any attempts to question that their own “issues” are also psychological in nature. It amounts “the things that suit our agendas are inborn, the things that threaten our agendas are changeable.”

Big logical FAIL.

Novaseeker December 1, 2009 at 08:04

Yeah. Feminism actually got off on the wrong foot with transsexuals. Janice Raymond, a fembot at UMASS, wrote several years ago that: “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves …. Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.”

It was only later on that the feminists, probably under some influence from lesbians and gay men, morphed feminism into “gender studies” and began to deconstruct gender in total — allowing them to form alliances with transsexuals on pragmatic level.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Neil from Brazil December 1, 2009 at 08:05

Jack,

Its not exactly a logical fail.

They are not starting form a scientifc logic, but from a political logic. Its politically logical to invalidate your “adversaries” neutering theyr discourse, while advancing your own.

Its rather an Ethical Fail.

Btw: I’m sure your a busy man, but your posts are among my favorites. Take it as a kind request for more and more insightful posts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist December 1, 2009 at 08:06

Novaseeker: I have a theory of why there might be more transexuals in Thailand, it came to me in one of those silly chain emails about “guess which of these 2 is a woman, and which is a man”, about 10 rows of them, and each looked kinda convincing. I’ve seen real women look less womanish in any case.

Well, the answer was that it was all of them men (dressing as women, if I didn’t point that out).

I began to think about the “sex tourism” blog posts others had posted, mostly of Thailand. Apparently it’s kinda a lucrative business to be a sex tourist server, for young Women. But where does this leave the young Thailandese Men? Sure there’s always labor to do, but that can’t be the end-all be all, and if the rest of the family is in on this, dependent on the income no matter how its produced, this could only coerce transexuality.

My theory anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower December 1, 2009 at 09:25

Holy Christ.
Stop the presses.

Penner was merely manipulating his hormones to “get the scoop” on Serena Williams. To satisfy my curiosity that Serena is actually a male with a very large ass.

Poor Penner
he takes estrogen
God’s Natural Crazy Pill
and then offs himself – amazing

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Thursday December 1, 2009 at 09:37

Nova:

Good summary. Except that Bailey doesn’t oppose sex change surgery. He’s kind of lukewarm about it, but thinks that sometimes it is the best of a bad situation.

(BTW Bailey’s book The Man Who Would Be Queen is the best book on homosexual men ever written, though he overestimates the extent of homosexual promiscuity. Large portions of the gay community are wildly promiscuous, but there are also large portions that are not promiscuous at all. IIRC, the average lifetime # of partners for gay white men was only around 30, about double that of white straight men.)

Colby Cosh has some good thoughts on transexuals here:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/17/colby-cosh-mutilating-the-body-to-correct-a-delusion.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 1, 2009 at 10:22

Human beings that take a crapload of hormone drugs end up fucked up in the head and commit suicide. This is really a brain-washed, stupid society if we can’t see something as predictable as that. As a male I know that anybody that glorify castration or mutilation of penises is really a sickfuck.

On other hand, a lot of brainwashed, androgynous slaves are perfect for the old Commie dream.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Do what thou wilt December 1, 2009 at 10:53

This is authoritarian garbage. If the men’s movement is going to start legislating what consenting adults can and can’t do with their own bodies, count me out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary December 1, 2009 at 11:25

DWTW, the question isn’t whether or not people should be *allowed* to do these things, it’s whether the government should *encourage* people to do them. There is a world of difference between the former and the latter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 1, 2009 at 11:40

It’s not about legislation, it’s about whether to encourage this sort of self-mutilation. These people are clearly disturbed.

Excellent, except for this point:
We’re not born equal. We’re all born different.
Equality isn’t a lie. The sum of our parts is equal to the sum of everyone else’s parts. But the parts are always different. I’d agree if you changed it to: We’re not born the same. We’re all born different.

It could be compared, also, to skin bleaching amongst darker skinned people.
That’s the same thought I had. Gave me a shudder to read this. Reminds me of what MJ did to himself.

Or women who slice and dice themselves so that they can look like Britney Spears (or whomever). Although, I’m sure some of you guys would think that was just peachy.

To me, it’s just an outward sign that they are messed up in the head and in need of the love of Jesus.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 1, 2009 at 12:13

One of the most interesting things I’ve read in a long while.

Excellent observations and commentary Jack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ninja Duck December 1, 2009 at 12:37

Canadian writer Kathy Shaidle said it best when she pointed out that some people think they’re Napoleon but that doesn’t mean we have to give them two battalions of French infantry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 1, 2009 at 12:43

Sorry to thread jack, but one of our best and brightest ninjas, Puma, unearthed and article saying:

“”””Discrimination against men has, understandably perhaps, never occupied a prominent position on the feminist agenda. Recently, however, the rise of the men’s rights movement has led men’s rights groups and feminists alike to call issues specific to male identity into question. A recent article on Slate’s women-oriented webzine DoubleX entitled “Men’s Rights Groups are Becoming Frighteningly Effective” has spurred contentious debate extending beyond the feminist blogosphere as to whether feminism should encompass issues of men’s rights. “””

Now, who says we aren’t making progress? Who now claims we are impotent political activists? We are approaching a tipping point, and when we do, I will say to all the doubters, “Nah, nah, na, nah nah” Told you so!”

Good work Puma.

Jabberwocky out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 1, 2009 at 12:44

That is an excellent quote. I have to remember that one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 1, 2009 at 12:47

Of course they will spin it all to make us look bad, or to put a PC slant on it, as apparent in the first paragraph alone, not just the rest of the following article, but bad publicity is what we are going to get before good publicity, and probably for a good long while. Time to batton the hatches and man the torpedoes. This shit is coming to a head. I can’t wait. I might be jumping the gun, but excuse me for my optimistic excuberence. I’ve been wanting a fight, and I may finally get a real one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 1, 2009 at 12:48

Sorry again for the thread jack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 1, 2009 at 12:54

The below quote from the afor mentioned article makes me want to kill myself. (Trying to stay on topic.)

“Though issues of men’s rights and injustice towards men deserve attention, the anti-feminist approach employed by RADAR and many other men’s rights groups in battling these issues is counterproductive and alarmingly reactionary. RADAR’s attempt to take funding away from “discriminatory” women’s-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment, epitomizes this ineffectual methodology.

While it’s true that all human rights are men’s rights and that history is essentially a men’s rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined. Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women. Following this line of reasoning, many feminists fight for fathers’ rights as a means of countering the socially sanctioned notion that nurturer or caregiver must be a female-occupied role. A central objective of the feminist movement is debunking gender stereotypes, even when they apply only to men.”

Okay, so the very last line makes me want to kill a feminist, then kill myself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist December 1, 2009 at 13:29

Further proof that either they don’t have any idea what most of us are about, or they’re trying to “settle” to keep this from going any further.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jean December 1, 2009 at 14:15

I think some of this is way off-base. For instance, I had believed Bailey was discredited.
However, I can offer some insight, I think.
First off, I AM one of the screatures in question. 220#, 5’9″, mostly muscle, not someone you want to meet in a well-lit street during the day, forget dark alley at night. Needless to say – NOT going to make a successful transition. (It’s tolerable to me because I like women. I also DISlike men in that sense, so – works to my advantage.)
I think there is a split similar to what Bailey states, I think it’s based on different divisions, however. I can go along with the misplaced sexual desire, IE autogynephiliac; I definitely love the female form – who doesn’t, right? ;-) But there is another division point, if you will: those who are being “fashionable”, and those who truly ARE this sort of animal.
I DO believe there have always been transsexuals in this world. I think the society has f*cked up a lot, and those who ARE are now treated like trash. I also believe a lot of people who are NOT want to do this transition for various reasons; since it’s primarily inborn, they won’t be happy with the result. The earlier someone with the condition starts transition, the better – the closer they can become to being fully female. (Caveat: Cloning would be necessary to produce the missing organs.) But the information is out there, for those who are even remotely curious; the hormones can be purchased, and it’s “public knowledge” that once you’ve started they can’t just take you off them; the hormones are ADDICTIVE, too, even on the “grey market” (IE, legit drugs purchased from offshore locations).
So, you can easily jump through the hoops if you WANT to, or take a few shortcuts. Me, I value conflicting goals: IE, Grace and Beauty, but also Strength. Strength = mass, which makes grace (refined muscle control) more and more difficult: you can lift 500 in a squat, but can’t use that for TKD-style high kicks to use a person’s head as a pinata. You can lift the girl one-handed over your head, but you can’t dance like Michael Jackson, forget Fred Astaire… And for me, where the skin gets shredded with stretch marks – Beauty is not a possibility.
Now, on making a choice to live as a pseudo-woman, who can never experience the whole range of female experiences – that is correct, and one of the biggest regrets of those transitioning for the correct reasons. Most would LOVE to be able to go that way. Some of those who wish to transition will go to extremes, too – self-mutilation of genitals. To simply say it’s a psychological issue that can be talked out is an over-simplification.

Now, some probably learn to parrot others; some are born with this to a lesser degree, and then learn to ape those who are full-blown; some want so badly to “belong” somewhere, they see this as a place to fit in (QV Hackers, Crackers, Geeks of all stripes forming elitist groups, not unlike the football team in form); some are truly just confused or lost souls; some are Omegas (QV Roissy et al) who want to improve their status, and see this as a shortcut; some are undoubtedly gay men who can give up on looking masculine to attract more partners (QV Dosug girls); some pobably HATE being male for any of a million reasons, whether hating self (“Silence of the Lambs”) or hating genitals or being indoctrinated as is suggested here or being so feminine from chemical issues (exogenous estrogens or similar) they almost don’t have a choice (IE, body is feminized, mind has been feminized via chemcials, too – might as well cross over, you don’t fit in the Man camp anyway.)

However, here’s the real “meat” of the issue: you’re writing about Brazil and Thailand WRT the USA.
1. Men here have been pigeon-holed into teh roles of provider and protector.
2. Women are free to be whatever the F they want – strong, confident, assertive, aggressive, confident, timid, shy, flirty, demanding, kind, nurturing, arrogant, submissive – whatever! And no one really thinks about it. Lots of men want to have access to that same range of life, and are denied it. If you flirt, you only want one thing; if you don’t flirt, you’re gay. Well, there are a lot of men who will go part-way to get some of that feminine appearrance and then stop, still looking like men, but being “sissies”. Sort of a “best of both worlds”, except for being a bit of a freak…
3. This sort of conflict is held internally until it reaches critical mass. Some have put things off for 40+ years and have no PRAYER of transitioning. Skeleton is masculinized, hair is gone from the ehad, but they’ve got fur everywhere else… Stress and hyper-masculine activities have destroyed joints, or become careers that will then go down the toilet; some will be unattractive no matter what, they can only choose between masculine troll and feminine troll… You get the idea. Some of those will commit suicide because they cannot achieve the dream, and can’t live with the ongoing pain.
Now, in other places, those who are desirious of transitioning are shown more respect and acceptance. For example, Katooey (ladyboys in Thailand) are generally prostitutes, but are afforded more respect than similar people in the US. Why? They transition for the same F’ed up reasons some do here. I don’t know, but I’d guess comparable suicide rates, especially amongst those who do it for the purpose of surviving (IE, incredibly poor – go work for a madame and get money and respect, and oh, food to eat…) but aren’t really female-minded. It is after all permanent. And not all transitions are successful, some going even farther than the example, Mike Penner / Christine Daniels. Some far more passable – IE, as a man, one made it to 180 # or so, after years of trying; had transitioned part-way, looked good in a bikini, and now was transitioned BACK to being a man, and lived as a biker-type. This person DID have problems, and was happier and better-adjusted as a woman. But also a druggie before, then got clean, then fell off that wagon, transitioned back, and lost a job – so had to stop. Hair alone was $300/month. Almost looks female in male dress with a shaved head and moustache, because the hips are flared like a woman’s.

How do you decide if someone whould be male or female? Genetic testing? What about Klinefelter’s, which is extra X or Y chromosomes? Or Mosaic/Chimerism? Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, where a male-chormosomal individual develops like a woman because their body does not respond to androgens? Do we tell these people “Tough luck” and move on? Seems inhumane.

Most people in this situation end up with drug and alcohol problems – it’s a method of coping with a world you despise, and I can’t say I blame them. If I had the build to transition now, I’d walk away from a $100K/year job, lose tons of respect of others, lose a family, lose my parents, lose my friends, and spend about $250K or more in medical expenses, NOT covered under insurance. And I would STILL consider it worthwhile, even living as a lesbian. You seriously think someone would CHOOSE this life? At least gays can live undetected for the most part. As noted, most of the TSs you know of, are NOT passable, even in a dark bar, sitting down, even after voice therapy. Movements, ideas, thought patterns, bone structure, muscle mass – all make it impossible to even hide one’s original sex. (Not gender, BTW – FTM or MTF refers to making the body look like the opposite sex. Gender is better conceived of as coming from the mind, and termed masculine or feminine; hence, terms like “swish” for effeminate homosexual male, or “tomboy” for a masculine girl.)

I believe the situation blows chunks… But “if wishes were horses, the beggars would ride” as the old saying goes. We need to make the best of what we have, do the best we can. We can be understanding to our neighbors, Christian if you will, and simply avoid those we don’t like – same as we do now, I’d guess.

I also agree it is stupid to block the sale of enhancing items, such as steroids (Anabolics – Estrogen IS a steroid, since “steroids” are merely sex hormones.) We as a society have decided that, rather than reach for the stars, or push everyone to achieve the best they can, we can allow the lowest common denominator to rule – so we pull everyone DOWN to the same level. To a FEMALE level, where everyone is nice (so long as they are within earshot), everyone is “equal”, and no one really matters in any way, shape, or form.

Transgenderism is not the real issue; rather, the problem is one of feeling, and often BEING, completely USELESS as a person, seeing no point to your life, seeing no struggle worth undertaking, or being too overcome by sheer inertia to correct those problems we can. Male or female, masculine or feminine, “cosmic ennui” is a major problem, and is manifesting itself on our bodies: eating disorders, neurosis, hoarding, paranoia, schizophrenia, “cutting”, binge drinking, drugs, anonymous sex, excessive piercings, tattoos, scarification… You get the idea. Mankind needs something to strive for, examples of excellence. Not an atheistic, socialistic, Nanny State. No sane person could want that – so we create insanity, and then…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Andy December 1, 2009 at 14:51

Novaseeker said:

“It was only later on that the feminists, probably under some influence from lesbians and gay men, morphed feminism into “gender studies” and began to deconstruct gender in total — allowing them to form alliances with transsexuals on pragmatic level.”

Bingo.

Having been *caught* with a pal in my early teens, I ended up being enrolled in The Harvey Milk School in NYC. It is the first (and to my knowledge … the only) High School for “LGBT” kids.

http://www.hmi.org/Page.aspx?pid=214

This was in the mid ’80′s when I attended, and most of the men of “the community” had just dropped dead of AIDS. At the time, the school was predominately run by Radical Feminist Lesbians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Northrop

http://www.hivcenternyc.org/people/joycehunter.html

The student body was almost exclusively Pre-op Transexual MTF’s. Mostly Puerto Rican, who had largely been pushed into prostitution by their families … much like it occurs in Thailand and Brazil.

The Dykes who ran the place HATED the trannie kids for their “misogynistic” portrayals of femininity, and would constantly lecture and berate them. But the kids needed a place to go, and the dykes needed to play ‘Mother Theresa’ … and so it continued to grow.

Peer-pressure exists within every group, and I credit my own instinct for self-preservation for not accepting the offers of black-market hormones from my fellow students.

Sometime in the early 90′s, the dykes realized they could harness the MTF phenomenon to serve their own agenda. The very same shallow and shrill effeminacy they once denounced is now being encouraged, if not ENFORCED within the school and “the community” at large.

Those people are lauded as being saviors and role models.

Now … as an adult who is still working through that (often confusing and traumatic) experience … I think those dykes should be arrested on charges of Child Exploitation and Abuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
G December 1, 2009 at 14:57

Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women.

First bold. I think this is where lies the feminism core problem, the blinkers.

Second bold. I always like to ask if people think a societiy full of sensible, sweet and passive males could have given us the Egyptian Pyramids. Or the Roman Empire. Or the Moon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Thursday December 1, 2009 at 14:57

Bailey’s integrity has been upheld and no one has disproved his science:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 1, 2009 at 15:24

Neil from Brazil,

Its not exactly a logical fail.

They are not starting form a scientifc logic, but from a political logic. Its politically logical to invalidate your “adversaries” neutering theyr discourse, while advancing your own.

Its rather an Ethical Fail.

Well…I see what you’re saying and maybe that’s true at the craftiest, most cynical level…

But in my experience, feminists and gays and the transgendered do for the most part believe what they are saying, and they argue it as if it makes sense logically, so it is a logical fail in that respect.

Btw: I’m sure your a busy man, but your posts are among my favorites. Take it as a kind request for more and more insightful posts.

Thank you, sir.

Black&German December 1, 2009 at 15:32

Codswallop. Patriarchal society, with patrilineage as its base, is the bedrock of civilization. Some people chafe under it but should the majority have to devolve to anarchy to cater to those few? What a bunch of liberal, feminist nonsense.

What’s next? Shall we kill our children and elderly on a whim? Shall we desert our families? Shall we lie, cheat, and steal as it suits us? Shall we give up moral, creative, and intellectual endeavors and resort to rutting around like rabid animals? Shall we allow our emotions to dictate our actions instead of resorting to logic and common sense?

Oh, wait. We’re already doing that. Feminism is just great, isn’t it? Thank goodness we’re not being oppressed by the patriarchy, we’re being oppressed by the matriarchy instead. Now instead of the few suffering for the profit of the majority, the majority suffers for the profit of the few.

Lord be praised, we’ve been rescued from civilization and the further ascent of man. Certainly, a fate worse than death. It certainly was time to run evolution on rewind.

Excuse me while I go vomit…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Gx1080 December 1, 2009 at 15:33

Sometimes I wonder what is the difficulty of using paragraphs. But just a point, besides those already explained:

Women are free to be whatever the F they want – strong, confident, assertive, aggressive, confident, timid, shy, flirty, demanding, kind, nurturing, arrogant, submissive – whatever!

You see, there’s lies our problem. It’s not fair that women can do whatever they want and they expect us to put with that. It’s not fair to have to marry an used-up whore at her 30s. It’s not fair that said whore can take our childs and most of our wallet in the male ass-raping industry called Divorce Courts and put us in jail if we don’t comply.

It’s not fair that we go to jail when we kill, commit perjury or rape but women go to “consueling” because “they need help”. It’s not fair that rape is whatever women feel at the moment. It’s not fair that every single form of entretaiment is treated like a plague if they dare to not be oriented to women.

And it’s absolutely not fair that with all that, all that, women and every attempt of Communism that we have as Goverments expect us to be working and be productive to society, that they lie to us so we have to happily sustain a society that hate males.

We want to change all that. We want to be able to live as males and be PROUD of our masculinity (why I bother explaining this to a wanna-be tranny) and to live in a society that doesn’t try to fuck us in the ass.

And you, just want to run to be a woman for not being in the bad side of this society and because you have a hard-on when you dress like one? With all the intention to offend, you are a pathetical coward.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 1, 2009 at 15:38

Arbitrary,

DWTW, the question isn’t whether or not people should be *allowed* to do these things, it’s whether the government should *encourage* people to do them. There is a world of difference between the former and the latter.

Exactly. People should be able to do what they want with their own bodies at their own expense, and they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. One of my best pals has Teflon implants in his forehead. It makes sense in his world, and he’s self-sufficient. He’s not asking anyone to accommodate him or indulge him or pay for his unusual choices.

The line here is about what society is encouraging and asking us to accept with very little understanding of the phenomenon they’re encouraging and protecting.

If grown men want to make themselves look ridiculous and and become poster children for the rest of their lives, whatever.

But what really gets my blood high about this whole thing is that kids are being diagnosed with this thing that no one understands at a very young age, they’re being told they were “born different” and they’re being sent to school as the opposite gender. Everyone is supposed to shrug their shoulders as if everything a little kid says or does is the same as what an adult says or does. Some little boy somewhere is going through some nutty phase where he thinks he’s a girl and wants to wear dresses, and someone is telling him he is really a girl because of it, instead of compassionately working with him and correcting him. Jesus, kids have imaginary friends–what could they possibly know about the impact of the road they’re choosing?

The parents and administrators and therapists are treating these healthy little boys like guinea pigs to serve their own political agendas. There is no punishment too severe for that. As far as I’m concerned they’re doing as much harm to the kid’s head as any child molester ever could.

Jack Donovan December 1, 2009 at 15:40

Black and German -

Patriarchal society, with patrilineage as its base, is the bedrock of civilization. Some people chafe under it but should the majority have to devolve to anarchy to cater to those few? What a bunch of liberal, feminist nonsense.

EXACTLY. Well said.

Black&German December 1, 2009 at 15:42

Women are not free to be whatever they want. They are ALLOWED to be whatever they want because a majority of men support them in that. Just as they are allowed to vote because a majority of men gave them that right, and they are allowed to be educated because a majority of men gave them that right. If a majority of men ever decides they’ve had enough of this crap, they’ll take that freedom and bang us over the head with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 1, 2009 at 15:52

Feminism has always been dependent on the benevolence of men. It’s genius has been setting men against each other and exploiting the weaknesses of men.

Black&German December 1, 2009 at 16:14

Yes, Jack. And that is why feminism is still going strong. Men profit enough — through the indulgence of women they love, or through the promiscuous environment that feminism feeds — that most men are enjoying it and don’t want it to change.

Even while they watch feminism, and its cousin socialism, bring down the civilization that the patriarchy built, they are content to fiddle while it burns. It’s burning so slowly, and the heat is so comfortable. At some point, they’re going to wake up and try to put out the fire in a panic, but it might be too late by then. Some, such as on these boards, have already woken up and smelled the smoke, but their compatriots are standing around, staring blankly, and mumbling, “Where’s the fire?”

And then somebody else will move into Rome. It’s not as if the world hasn’t seen this before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 1, 2009 at 16:48

Yup. It’s a train wreck running in very slow motion, I think. It’s also important to note that the speed is, in fact, relatively slow — even though the pace of change has accelerated dramatically, the unwinding of the culture in a more complete way only takes place over the course of generations, generally speaking, unless there is a cultural revolution of the type we underwent in the 60s-70s period –> and even there, it took a few decades for the real impact to filter all the way through the culture. I expect that the decline will be more like the decline of Britain following WWII rather than the fall of Rome. The really interesting thing is: what comes next? A global Caliphate?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 1, 2009 at 17:00

Terrific post :D

You said alot of things that I never considered before. Here some thoughts of mine.

Some guys are born short and it really bugs them and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it. Some guys will always fight weight. Some dudes are fucking DUMB. Some will always be Omegas. Some people have congenital illnesses, bad eyesight, handicaps—all sorts of physical and mental limitations. Some people are just real, real ugly.

But that’s part of being human, and sometimes being human sucks.

I don’t think it’s that simple though.

To me, the idea of being born the wrong sex seems like a condition that some people are just born with, whether it be hormonal or psychological.

Maybe some of the tormoil that these men face simply comes from the fact that many aren’t acceptable to their beliefs about being the wrong sex or their decision to change their identity.

Besides, have you noticed that it seems like it’s somewhat ok if a woman wants to become a man, but it’s not as tolerated when a man wants to become a woman. I think to put it simply, it’s because the latter is seen as a “downgrade”. I mean, a girl and go to school dressed as a tomboy but if a boy goes to school dressed in clothes leaning towards the feminine side, then he’s punished for it.

If a man takes hormones to enhance his own natural masculinity, we call it immoral and we’ve made it illegal. We call him a cheater and threaten to put an asterisk beside his name. Why is it so much more acceptable to use drugs to alter your sex than it is to embrace and enhance what you were born with? From the perspective of mental health, isn’t that counterintuitive?

I guess it’s considered immoral when you do it to enhance your athletic performace. If you take hormones to improve your athletic ability in competitions against others who don’t use any, then that is cheating. I don’t think it’s fair when you have someone who uses their natural ability that they developed and enhanced using their own strength and will, while you have another person who does that AND uses hormones to help in that enhancement.

If an apotemnophiliac wants to have his leg amputated, our doctors call him insane and he ends up in dying of gangrene in Mexico. If a man wants to cut off his own penis, why do we officially applaud, fund it, and call it courageous?

Good point. Is it because changing your sex isn’t really seen as a form of self-harm to the extent of cutting off an ampendage? Who knows…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 1, 2009 at 17:34

Why do professionals encourage this?

Is it really encouragement, or just acceptance that those men will be happy as a woman?

Why does our federal government now recognize it by giving these men special protected status with the new “hate crimes” law?

Well I’m not surprised considering how crimes, some of them being murder, are committed towards these people simply because of their desire and/or decision to change their sex. Just intolerance manifested in the worst forms. That’s the main issue in that particular case.

Why, in some communities, are very confused young boys being encouraged to identify as girls—virtually ensuring that they’ll spend the rest of their lives in therapy, that they’ll never feel normal or comfortable in their own skins? Why isn’t this considered child abuse?

I’ve heard of cases in which boys in these situations became depressed and suicidal because they truely believe that they meant to be female, while their families were telling them that they were males and to act like it . These boys have never felt normal as males to begin with, or normal period. I honestly believe that it’s a condition you’re born with.

You had a point in that some of these male to female transformations don’t result in men truely looking like women, and I can’t help but think that they know that themselves. But I think to them, the fact that they’re living as women is the main thing that matters. They’re already depressed (and maybe even suicidal) as it is as men, they might as well go for it.

However, how statisfied will they ultimately be if, in some cases, others can still tell that they were born men? It’s a mess.

I have to admit though, Chaz Bono looks much better as a guy than as a chick lol.

Perhaps to much empathy is part of the problem. But do you really think that in this case telling them a firm, paternal NO is the answer? What makes you think it hasn’t been tried already?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
whiskey December 1, 2009 at 17:35

I wrote a piece on this touching a few of these issues.

I enjoyed Penner’s sportswriting in the Times. If he wanted to become a trans-sexual, that was his business, not mine, but I did not want a three-ring PC/Diversity/Multicultural circus on the Sports pages. The LAT management made him into their Gay/Trans PC pet, and trumpeted every detail on the Sports Pages, which are supposed to be a refuge from the culture wars.

The LAT wanted to (and got) the ability to shout “in your FACE! Middle Class White Guy! Here’s your Sportswriter, and he’s not only GAY! He’s TRANS-SEXUAL! HOORAY! You cannot escape PC!”

They got it, and I suspect kicked a lot of subscribers out. But hey, the Times is not in the business of selling news to people, it’s a PC lecturing factory.

This is un-PC, but I find the fate of gay/trans, whatever, to be totally irrelevant and unimportant to my own concerns as a Straight White guy. First, there are not many gays and even less trans-sexuals. Second, gays will always side with women who wish all non-Alpha men were gay, for the most part (90% of them I would say). Third, if you do the math, about .10 * 0.05 = 0.5% of men are gay and willing to side with Straight Guys. You’ll find more Black Republicans.

IMHO, Penner (I want to stress that his suicide saddens me, not the least of which is that I enjoyed his sports writing) committed suicide in part because his life was exploited by the LAT management to further their PC lecture.

What I find more appalling is Tiger Woods. Who DOES affect me, or men like him.

Tiger Woods has a perfectly good wife, off-limits to everyone but himself. Not only did he have Rachel Uchitel, but a 24 year old hottie in Florida and at least one other woman.

Now, by my count that is THREE women Tiger Woods has taken off the market, leaving straight men like me with fewer. If you want to bring gays into it, the “normalization” of gay sexual mores (promiscuity) into male-female sexual relationships feeds into that. Whoever is the Big Man can monopolize several women as we see with Woods. The over-representation of Gay Men in Hollywood, pushing an overt, “gay” sexual mores agenda as detailed by Stanley Kurz (this includes the gay couple behind “Big Love” and Marc Cherry of Desperate Housewives and Darren Starr of Sex and the City) in National Review IS certainly negative for me as a Straight Man. It normalizes to my detriment the ability to women to “share” one big shot man like Woods. Making every guy who is not a big shot scrap over the remaining few women.

The Gay norms of sex (seen in Zombietime’s pics of the Folsom Street Fair) are simply incompatible with the best interest of most men, who not being particularly Big Shot attractive, “win” under a monogamous system.

In fact, I’ll say flatly that Gay Men because of their desire to normalize and make standard Gay behaviors in sexuality, are the enemy, culturally and politically, of Straight Men. Even though numerically there are not many Gay men in the population. [Their over-representation in Hollywood, the Theater, Fashion, and other culture-shaping places makes them a toxic presence culturally.]

This is not anything personal. Nor should it be construed as such. But culturally and by my position, I “win” if culture moves towards Monogamy and few sex partners, and gays embrace promiscuity like well, the Folsom Street Fair. To quote the great Paul Anka, “that’s just the way it is.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 1, 2009 at 17:36

I think that many of these people are mentally ill, and need to be cared for in the context of that paradigm. The suicide rate is high for transitioners, too, so it’s not really clear that this is a helpful therapy for the mental condition they seem to suffer from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 1, 2009 at 17:46

What I find more appalling is Tiger Woods. Who DOES affect me, or men like him.

Tiger Woods has a perfectly good wife, off-limits to everyone but himself. Not only did he have Rachel Uchitel, but a 24 year old hottie in Florida and at least one other woman.

Now, by my count that is THREE women Tiger Woods has taken off the market, leaving straight men like me with fewer.

Well, but celebrity alphas like Tiger Woods have *always* had access to more than one woman. That’s not new. It doesn’t have a huge impact, because there aren’t very many men like Tiger Woods. And if anything it seems like his behavior is less accepted than it was in the past — Elin came after him with a golf club, after all, regardless of the fact that he is deliberately covering this up (for his own benefit, I think). That’s not what used to happen with philandering alpha celebs.

I think overall the point you make is sound — a system of non-monogamy is detrimental to most men, and high profile gay men as cultural moderators is pushing an odd agenda in the culture. But guys like Tiger Woods have always existed and always will.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 1, 2009 at 17:52

Good points, Whiskey and Novaseeker.

Renee, sometimes sympathy is a cop-out for actually helping somebody.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Throbert McGee December 1, 2009 at 18:13

This discussion is really not complete without an acknowledgment of the South Park episode “Mr. Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina”, in which the ever-dysfunctional Mr. Garrison gets a “vaginoplasty,” inspiring Kyle to get a “Negroplasty” (because Jews can’t play basketball) from the same doctor, while Kyle’s dad Gerald gets a “dolphinoplasty.”

In the end, Mr. Garrison realizes that he’s not a real woman — “I’m just a dude with a mutilated dick.” And the only “concession” that South Park makes to the trannies is when Sheila Broflofski explains to her son Kyle that Mr. Garrison’s sex-change operation is just another type of cosmetic surgery, like when older women get a face-lift. (Note that by comparing sex-change surgery to nose jobs and tummy-tucks, they are on the one hand “normalizing” it, but on the other hand, they’re suggesting that it doesn’t need civil-rights protection, any more than we need anti-discrimination laws to protect Trekkies who get surgical forehead implants to make themselves look like Klingons.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Throbert McGee December 1, 2009 at 18:17

And that episode (along with all other South Park episodes) can be viewed for free at southparkstudios.com.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Expatriate December 1, 2009 at 18:34

Tiger Woods has a perfectly good wife, off-limits to everyone but himself. Not only did he have Rachel Uchitel, but a 24 year old hottie in Florida and at least one other woman.

Now, by my count that is THREE women Tiger Woods has taken off the market, leaving straight men like me with fewer. If you want to bring gays into it, the “normalization” of gay sexual mores (promiscuity) into male-female sexual relationships feeds into that. Whoever is the Big Man can monopolize several women as we see with Woods.

So?

That has always been true through out human history for powerful & rich men.

Pacquiao has two, Ranillo who he is banging & Jinkee his wife, before that he banged Ara Mina on the side while married to Jinkee. If he had 10 co-wives at once & had a 100 kids from them, it doesn’t bother me anymore than Bill Gates billions do. He came from selling donuts on the streets of Santos City to where he is now mosty due to his own hard work & if that means he gets 10 wives instead of one its okay with me as long as he is not forcing anyone to be his wife.

Some men will have c0-wives or sister wives as in polygynous Christian parlance.

Most Eastern societies were not monogamous for men at all, it was recognized that some men will get more than one wife at the same time & no disaster happened. Don’t tell me that it was some gay agenda at work in most of these societies lol.

Contrary to some westerners ideas, most men in Muslim societies don’t have more than one wife, only a few who can afford it do.

A man taking more than one wife (which is/was present in most human cultures through out history) is the least of the problems western culture has right now.

If anything I always hear from feminist cunts about how “polygyny” is “degrading” to women (also used by so called “conservative” Christians in the US) which I never believed for a minute. Most of these women willingly share the man, this is especially true in developing countries.

In the West its okay to have orgies, gangbangs, two men “marrying” each other, lesbos “marry” each other but if a man takes more than one wife even if everyone in the relationship is willing then its supposedly a “crime”.

Those men who don’t get women, well tough luck but not everyone is equal. To say every man “deserves” a woman is like saying every man “deserves” a kid or a cell phone or health care. If I don’t apply socialism in those cases then why in the hell would I apply socialist ideas when it comes to marriage or relationships. Either those men try to improve their lot in life to get themselves a woman or they go become monks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer December 1, 2009 at 18:40

Those men who don’t get women, well tough luck but not everyone is equal. To say every man “deserves” a woman is like saying every man “deserves” a kid or a cell phone or health care.

-Expatriate

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. However, if polygyny is acceptable, so is cuckoldry. If polygyny is legal, then it follows that men have no right to expect a wife. From that it follows that a man shouldn’t be held responsible for cuckolding another man because, hey, if you can’t handle your wives, tough luck! In fact, I would give a high-five to a guy who cuckolded a polygamist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Expatriate December 1, 2009 at 18:57

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. However, if polygyny is acceptable, so is cuckoldry. If polygyny is legal, then it follows that men have no right to expect a wife. From that it follows that a man shouldn’t be held responsible for cuckolding another man because, hey, if you can’t handle your wives, tough luck! In fact, I would give a high-five to a guy who cuckolded a polygamist.

No because through cuckoldry a wife is breaking the marriage contract buddy.

Unless you have a cuckold fetish & have consented beforehand your wife broke the marriage contract.

Comparing polygyny to cuckoldry is laughable because in voluntary polygyny the wives are WILLINGLY sharing the man.

The only difference between the East & the West in the East people recognized the reality that some powerful men will get many women, either as wives or mistresses whereas in the West people hypocritically talked up monogamy for ALL men whereas the reality was that powerful men in the West also had more then one woman, its just that they almost always had the other women as mistresses instead of co-wives.

Hell in modern US powerful men like most mob bosses almost always maintain a mistress, the only difference is that in many Eastern societies the boss would have been able to take her as a second wife through some cultural ceremony if he wanted, if the first wife disagreed she would get a divorce if not then she stays as the first wife. But the end result in both societies is the same, the mob boss has monopolized two or more women thus depriving some unknown man of a possible female companion.

So lets cut the monogamy charade which was never the reality for most powerful men of any culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer December 1, 2009 at 19:00

No because through cuckoldry a wife is breaking the marriage contract buddy.

-Expatriate

Sorry, but I don’t think of polygyny as “marriage.” Perhaps I’m a stuck in the mud, but to me it’s barbaric. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my words. If you were married to multiple women, I wouldn’t feel any moral qualms about sleeping with one of your “wives.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
chic noir December 1, 2009 at 19:01

If a man takes hormones to enhance his own natural masculinity, we call it immoral and we’ve made it illegal. We call him a cheater and threaten to put an asterisk beside his name. Why is it so much more acceptable to use drugs to alter your sex than it is to embrace and enhance what you were born with?<

this is really comment of the month worhty and has given me something to think about. I say this as a woman who is friends with many transexauls and drag queens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
chic noir December 1, 2009 at 19:04

If a man takes hormones to enhance his own natural masculinity, we call it immoral and we’ve made it illegal. We call him a cheater and threaten to put an asterisk beside his name. Why is it so much more acceptable to use drugs to alter your sex than it is to embrace and enhance what you were born with?

this is really comment of the month worhty and has given me something to think about. I say this as a woman who is friends with many transexauls and drag queens. transeuals who are good looking and very feminine are competition for natural women.

here’s an attractive transexual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ieLG2Wrqew

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Expatriate December 1, 2009 at 19:13

Sorry, but I don’t think of polygyny as “marriage.” Perhaps I’m a stuck in the mud, but to me it’s barbaric. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my words. If you were married to multiple women, I wouldn’t feel any moral qualms about sleeping with one of your “wives.”
Thanks for admitting that you just “think” its “barbaric”, people think a lot of stupid things but that doesn’t make them true.

Sure you can sleep with one of the wives (or mistresses) but because she broke the marriage contract by doing so her husband will divorce her most likely & in the case of the mistress, break off the relationship.

But as long as we can maintain the illusion of monogamy being the reality for all men I guess you are happy.

By the way there is even a term among Italian American mafiosi for a mistress, they call her a “goomah”. That’s the reality of powerful men & monogamy in modern US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 1, 2009 at 19:32

By the way there is even a term among Italian American mafiosi for a mistress, they call her a “goomah”. That’s the reality of powerful men & monogamy in modern US.

Even powerful men know that mistresses aren’t exclusive. They are simply kept whores, and they have other men on the side as well. It’s one of the perks of their job — I’ve known a few who had very wealthy patrons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 1, 2009 at 19:34

@Expatriate

Heh. Of course that few alpha males with all women are the state of nature. That’s why I can say: Fuck Nature. Civilization, the thing that Humanity builded, is a defiance against nature. How Nature doesn’t give a crap abut who lives and who dies, we as human beings stand against her.

For Civilization to work, the non-alpha males need a reason to invest in it instead of going in minimal work without a care. Answer: Give them a chance to get laid, to make sure that their genes survive. Many males, and I know that because I saw that path think: If I’m not going to get laid and reproduce anyway, Why bother? Why bother in inventing, in developing science, in do anything besides living in a straw house and hunting for our survival?

The Communist China was basically that, no wonder that it fell into a dictatorship until males decidet to get laid, no matter the cost. If China and India don’t leave that model beind, they will never be something else besides a bunch of sweatshops.

That is a crux, because it’s neccesary to choose between females following their natural instincts and Civilization. No way around it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
anonymous December 1, 2009 at 20:03

Superb. Why The Spearhead matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Space Pope, aka Master Dogen December 2, 2009 at 00:59

Hats off to you, Jack Donovan, for a very carefully argued, humane, and thought-provoking piece. I also happen to know — and am even, in a couple of cases, close to — transsexuals (both M2F and F2M). I’ve often had similar feelings, but it’s tough to air them in polite company, especially with a friend. Thanks for this good article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul December 2, 2009 at 01:31

I just want to add a technical note here about polygamy. It does not mean that some men will have no wives. It all depends on at what age a man marries and what are the ages of his wives.

That said I can only repeat here what I have said before and that is monogamous marriage is an abomination. It is the only true evil that a man has inflicted on him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 2, 2009 at 02:07

Third, if you do the math, about .10 * 0.05 = 0.5% of men are gay and willing to side with Straight Guys. You’ll find more Black Republicans.

-Whiskey

I don’t think the point is that homosexuals will ever be a dominant political force. Actually, I think the 5% figure may be a bit high. I think it’s more like 3% of the population that is homosexual (4% men, 2% women).

Most homos are not all that political, and don’t really care much about our issues. In fact, the homosexual men I know are almost totally apolitical. Lesbians, on the other hand, tend to be very politically involved for some reason.

The thing is that, for some reason or other, homosexuals have a disproportionate cultural impact, and always have. Their participation in the arts has always been out of proportion to their numbers. Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci come to mind.

As I see it, channeling male homosexual creativity into feminism/leftism has been a major coup for that movement, and I would argue that this has come at the expense of most straight AND homosexual men. What does feminism really have to offer homosexual men? They have become little more than court jesters and toy dogs for hordes of women watching television. Even the gay marriage movement is a huge joke, and won’t do them any good in the long run. The institution of marriage was based around the need to deal with the volatility of male/female sexual relations, and homosexuals should be relieved that they don’t have to have any part in it. If homosexual men do get sucked into the quagmire of family law, they’re going to regret it a whole lot. I can see a lot of older gay men taken for all they’re worth by mercenary younger men with lawyers.

What’s more glorious: painting the Sistine Chapel or doing Madonna’s hair? Does this even need to be asked? Did homosexual men have it better in androcentric Greece, where they could be philosophers, warriors and artists, or gynocentric contemporary America, where they dress in drag and coach adolescent sluts on how to strut up and down catwalks?

I think it is a damn shame that it has come to this. Today, can anyone imagine Michelangelo ever achieving any prominence? No chance in hell. He’d be snagged at a young age and pressed into service to do graphic design for PRIDE rallies or something like that, and would die in obscurity. However, if homosexual men can be men again, and not just “gay,” I can see some brilliant contributions to our civilization once again flowing in. But before that can happen, we have to win a fight, and I have a feeling that some of our best soldiers in the culture war will be homosexual. To turn them away would be foolish. However, to expect any less of them or give them any special breaks because they are “different” only leads to the crass mediocrity we’ve come to expect from your typical fag, so we ought to at least do them the favor of treating them like men instead of the pampered pets too many of them have become.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith December 2, 2009 at 02:20

contentious debate extending beyond the feminist blogosphere as to whether feminism should encompass issues of men’s rights

This is mere political defense, not true empathy for men. Feminists will encompass men’s rights only if they can deconstruct and destroy them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Andy December 2, 2009 at 02:25

That was awesome, Welmer.

Thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 2, 2009 at 02:32

I just want to add a technical note here about polygamy. It does not mean that some men will have no wives. It all depends on at what age a man marries and what are the ages of his wives.

-Paul

Polygamy almost always means a man marries more women as he ages, who are progressively younger than him. It is a system whereby older men deprive younger, less powerful men of access to women. It is destabilizing, and provokes rapine and warfare. Almost all mature religious societies (as opposed to immature, such as early LDS) that practice polygamy justify it only as a means to provide for widows or women who can’t marry due to warfare taking too many young male lives.

The abuse of boys by polygynous sects in America is well-known and no exaggeration. If we really want to encourage a just society for men, we can’t do to our sons what those scum do to theirs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 2, 2009 at 02:43

Another note on Polygamy :

It was always normal for 10-30% of men to die, or otherwise be crippled, on the battlefield or in occupational accidents. Thus, there were always more women than men in the 20-40 age group.

Even without legal polygamy, the time right after a major war where a substantial percentage of the male population was killed, maimed, or disfigured, the remaining in-tact men were in a sexual paradise. Like the US after the Civil War. Or France and Germany after WW2.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 2, 2009 at 05:51

As you say, polygamy is an offshoot of the general warlike and uncivilized state that a people is in. For polygamy to exist in a stable, generally peaceful population, large numbers of eligible young men either have to be incarcerated, neutered, killed outright (such as with fetal sex-selection), exiled, unable/forbidden to marry, or sent off to “do good works” such as a Mormon mission or a Crusade.
Polyandry will sometimes crop up in places like China, where men greatly outnumber women.

The state of the black family in America has entered a sort of soft polygamy as a result of the early death, incarceration, unemployment, or underemployment of large numbers of young black men. This leaves black women fighting over the remaining few. It is an atrocious situation that is leading to the decline of whole neighborhoods. There is a reason why Christianity forbids polygamy.

the boss would have been able to take her as a second wife through some cultural ceremony if he wanted, if the first wife disagreed she would get a divorce if not then she stays as the first wife
Then she is being coerced: either she agree to a situation she will suffer in and that is detrimental to her children, or she gets the boot. Some choice.

Welmer,

Excellent comment on gays and feminism. Feminists have simply broken men down into subgroups and cater to the desires of each in order to keep them from unifying against them. That is their genius.

Gays have been turned into a running gag. They don’t seem to notice or be bothered by this at all. Most of the homosexual men I’ve known in real life behaved like everybody else, spoke in a normal voice, and didn’t walk like Marilyn Monroe on crack. These caricatures are the homosexual equivalent of “blackface”. It is now expected that homosexuals be stupid, vapid, silly, and irrelevant. Oh my God. Talk to the hand.

I also wonder why they don’t speak out about feminist dismissal of the importance of fathers. Although, then they’d have to admit that mothers are important too, which they are loathe to do, for obvious reasons.

I find hate crime legislation fascinating as it is essentially the legal embodiment of the principle that “all people are equal but some people are more equal than others.”

If I am raped by a white man, it is a hate crime. If I am raped by a black man, it is irrelevant. Either way I have been violated and the State should demand justice. Or do they assume that I wasn’t hurt as bad because the man liked black people?

Basically, the person is not prosecuted for his actions but rather for his thoughts. What if a white supremacist has raped me and didn’t know I was black? It’s possible. Would his defense be: Sorry, I didn’t know she was a nigger.

Genocide is similar. Murdering scores of innocent civilians in a time of peace isn’t enough to be an outrage. But murdering them for genocidal purposes, is. It’s bizarre to see supposedly civilized countries hemming and hawing on this while children are slaughtered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul December 2, 2009 at 06:09

Since I only see monogamous marriage as the pinnacle of human unhappiness I don’t have a problem with polygamy. None being better than one.

As for social chaos. Well I am not so sure (even if the idea concerned me at all). What I had in mind is something like this. Men marry at forty and have two wives. One of twenty and the other forty. Assuming life expectancy was sixty for both men and women then every body get to have two wives. And indeed women get to have two husbands. This is a bit of an idealized example but it demonstrates the principle.

I don’t see this as the ideal its just one of the alternatives. My ideal would be no marriage at all of any kind. If a couple want to live together then that’s their free choice. But there should be no state apparatus what so ever surrounding the situation. Actually when I got married I don’t really think I knew there was any such apparatus.

I also like the idea of abundant commercial sex. It is good on two counts. The first I don’t have to explain. The second is that it put the relationship between men and women exactly where it should be. That is its a money transferring interaction.

The concept that a woman could posses anything resembling an emotion that favoured me is something that does not exist in my wildest imaginings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 2, 2009 at 06:54

Welmer –

However, to expect any less of them or give them any special breaks because they are “different” only leads to the crass mediocrity we’ve come to expect from your typical fag, so we ought to at least do them the favor of treating them like men instead of the pampered pets too many of them have become.

That’s basically the gist of my first book. Expect the worst and you’ll get it. Expect men to act like men without special breaks…and you get something better.

The Folsom Street Fair is disgusting, symbolic of degenerate culture, and should be denounced as such. If that kind of thing goes on, it should go on behind closed doors.

Even so, and I say this as a sworn enemy of mainstream gay culture, it is hardly representative of mainstream gay culture. It only happens outdoors in San Francisco, which is known for degenerate left wing stupidity at ALL levels. It’s at the very worst end of the spectrum, and works only as a “worst case scenario” example. It’s also off topic.

What is on topic is the mainstreaming of trans as a new norm, which is what this piece attacks, and I thought it was relevant here because A)It WAS being shoved down straight men’s throats by the cultural Marxists at the LA Times, and B) This is being mainstreamed at the primary school level, and could very well affect your sons. I’ve known some straight guys who have some embarrassing stories of wanting to be a girl for Halloween, etc. Do you really want them dragged into counseling as possible trans kids by giddy leftist educators?

Jack Donovan December 2, 2009 at 06:55

Black and German,

I also wonder why they don’t speak out about feminist dismissal of the importance of fathers. Although, then they’d have to admit that mothers are important too, which they are loathe to do, for obvious reasons.

Two words. “Daddy Issues.”

Jack Donovan December 2, 2009 at 06:58

And, as for being lumped in with “trans” nutjobs…I’ll quote a buddy of mine who reacted to this piece on Facebook.

“What do I, as a man who loves to be a man and who loves other men, have in common with a guy like the sportscaster who wants to cut his dick off and be a fat girl? Kinky I may be sometimes, but really, give me a break.”

Jean December 2, 2009 at 07:14

Gx1080 @ December 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm:
Two things:
1 – no hardon from cross-dressing (those are transvestites or fetishists – you’d need to research there, I won’t threadjack).
2 – The desire to achieve social status at some cost is repeated throughout history. Look to castrati singers; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, spread by the sword, then continued conversion to escape the forced taxing (jizzya) of the “infidels”. Judaic conversion involves disfigurement of the male.

Your points aren’t invalid, but incomplete.

Also, I have to yank your chain a little… How do you insult someone who has said they want to be a woman (ie, pussy) by calling them a coward? ;-)
(Not to mention – I’ve watched SRS videos. THAT is horrifying and disgusting, worse than frontline combat MASHs. SAW got nothing on real world, man…)

Also – there’s a REASON I’m here. Not just “acceptance” that I can’t transition, but the same seething rage at the dehumanization of half the species that you allude to. I was raised in the 80′s and 90′s, I absorbed LOTS of tripe, and Mom really wanted a girl. (Irony of ironies, my sister’s the biggest tom-boy bitch on the planet. Mom lost twice. Makes me SMILE… But I’m a SICK SOB. :-D )
Anyway – I disagree with Black and German that these things are grnated via men, anymore. True at first, but you know the analogy of the genie and the bottle. There’s so much ground-level support for a “kut” (in dutch) to BE, not even Do, whatever she wants, it’s not going away – until society collapses, or until men will use force. The second won’t happen, but the first is already happening. Self-solving problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean December 2, 2009 at 07:31

Renee @ December 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm:

Besides, have you noticed that it seems like it’s somewhat ok if a woman wants to become a man, but it’s not as tolerated when a man wants to become a woman. I think to put it simply, it’s because the latter is seen as a “downgrade”.

Actually, that’s generally perceived in the reverse: Trans Women are murdered far more often, whether they’ve been sexually involved with a man or not. Theory I get is, Women are the top of the heap, where beauty and CHILDREN are the objectives (IE, men can’t make babies on their own, no matter what.) So, the men feel they’ve been lied to (rightly so in some cases), and they become quite angry… Etc.
A MTF is both betraying men, AND lying about who “she” (quotes intentional, we’re talking genetics) is and what “she” offers. No womb = no children. Promise of a family is a lie at best.
Also, what do women do in their social competition? What do Men do in theirs? Men and women generally don’t compete in normal situations. Women shame, harass, undermine, etc. Men beat each other up, sometimes killing each other. Shit happens. (Might be Transgendered, I still like fighting… Talk about weird…)
So, the MTF is treated as a man by other men; the FTM is treated like a woman by other women. Different outcomes are inevitable. The FTM looks at them and sneers; the MTF gets beaten to death. Doesn’t have to be intentional, either – the frame becomes more delicate from the exogenous estrogens, so muscularity decreases, body redesigns itself to look alluring, breasts, different fat deposits, etc. The MTF becomes chemically female, and the body follows suit. So they become physically as feminine as possible, and we all know when a man lays into a woman full-force, she gets hurt. Rules of physics.

(Conversely, the opposite happens for the FTM, who builds masculine muscle size and tone, grows facial and body hair, develops thicker, heavier bones, etc. Pick a fight with some of them, you’ll get your @$$ handed to you – they’re chemically men, and as physically male as possible. You’re fighting a man.. Etc.)

The MTF is climbing the social ladder, and using a feminine sort of guile to get there. FTM is going DOWN into the trenches – and will be expected to pull HIS own weight. HE fails, he’s on his own. She fails, same as a genetic woman does – calls for help, cries of injustice, social circles are enlisted, etc, etc, etc, (puke)
Sorry…. I’m a realist. And I’ve become quite the misogynist these days, courtesy of the last girlfriend – I’ll never look at women as worthwhile again. (Over $250K gone; my life is in shambles; She has been unemployed and living off my paycheck for about three years. Justice my fat Irish ass… But that’s a rant for somewhere else.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Black&German December 2, 2009 at 07:36

Paul,

I admire your example for it’s statistical conclusiveness. But it forgets something very simple: most people don’t want two husbands or two wives.

Women will often leave their husband for a new man but they wouldn’t want to be stuck with both of them. Even most men who cheat on their wives don’t actually want a second wife. They want a wife and a mistress. The mistress is a passing fancy and a source of entertainment and will be discarded and replaced as it suits him. She is essentially a whore; a bit of “something on the side”. If she causes trouble or threatens to “confront his wife”, she has overstepped her bounds and will usually be immediately dismissed.

Even among polygamous marriages, the first wife is usually given a place of higher significance and respect and the later “wives” take a subordinate place. The men have basically married the first (often out of love and respect or for family alliance) and taken the later ones as concubines (for fun and procreation).

Two words. “Daddy Issues.”

But when the biological mother and her new lesbian lover decide to exclude him from parental rights, he will be stuck defending his own paternal significance before a court, just the same as a straight man will.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 2, 2009 at 07:45

There’s so much ground-level support for a “kut” (in dutch) to BE, not even Do, whatever she wants, it’s not going away – until society collapses, or until men will use force. The second won’t happen, but the first is already happening. Self-solving problem.

Agreed.

My husband is nonchalant about it all. He told me last night to just relax and not get so worked up about it. He’s just waiting for Islam to come and straighten everything out again. In the meantime, he’s just trying to do right and protect his own.

But the problem is that the collapse will be excruciatingly slow and painful and perhaps last for decades. Will we even see the end of it and manage to stay sane for so long?

You know it’s bad when the Christians are hoping to be saved by the Muslims. When they arrive, will we greet them at the airport with a petition? First: please reinstate recess in elementary schools and get our little boys off Ritalin. Second: please outlaw no-fault divorce and abortion…

I’m soooo cynical today. *sigh*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 07:50

“(Might be Transgendered, I still like fighting… Talk about weird…)”

I like you. Fighting is morally wrong, but ethically a necessity.

“”””The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty, even at the expense of setting him free possibly to murder again. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”””

Good that does not have the ability to disuade evil is more harmful than not. It becomes a weakness that only encourages evil over good. It literally gives evil a helping hand. All benevolent entities must maintain the capacity for violence, or their benevolence will only be counter productive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 2, 2009 at 07:55

GX1080,

You see, there’s lies our problem. It’s not fair that women can do whatever they want and they expect us to put with that.

Jean actually said that “Women are free to BE whatever the F they want…” not “<bDO whatever they want”. There’s a difference, at least grammar-wise.
————————————
Black&German,

Women are not free to be whatever they want. They are ALLOWED to be whatever they want because a majority of men support them in that.

So I’m allowed to be strong, confident, assertive (once in a while), timid, shy, kind, nurturing, submissive, etc., etc. because men support that? I guess that sort of makes sense. The “allowed” part is what throws me off, as well as comparing it to women voting and being educated. Seriously…I’m allowed to be kind and introverted because some men out there supports it? I’m the way I am because of my upbringing and…I don’t know….because I was born that way lol (this mainly applies to the shy and introverted part) .

Perhaps being flirty, arrogant, aggressive, etc. applies more to what you’re saying.

But allowed??? It’s something to think about…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 07:56

I believe it is a paradox of life that even Jesus probably understood but was wise enough to not bring up, because if you give people an inch, especially evil people, they’ll take a mile. Take the Koran. Mostly about peace, but just a handful of lines about killing and driving out the infidels, and all of a sudden you have a global holy war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean December 2, 2009 at 07:57

Jack Donovan @ December 1, 2009 at 3:38 pm

But what really gets my blood high about this whole thing is that kids are being diagnosed with this thing that no one understands at a very young age, they’re being told they were “born different” and they’re being sent to school as the opposite gender. Everyone is supposed to shrug their shoulders as if everything a little kid says or does is the same as what an adult says or does. Some little boy somewhere is going through some nutty phase where he thinks he’s a girl and wants to wear dresses, and someone is telling him he is really a girl because of it, instead of compassionately working with him and correcting him. Jesus, kids have imaginary friends–what could they possibly know about the impact of the road they’re choosing?

The parents and administrators and therapists are treating these healthy little boys like guinea pigs to serve their own political agendas. There is no punishment too severe for that. As far as I’m concerned they’re doing as much harm to the kid’s head as any child molester ever could.

I think this gets to the meat of the problem. Those who ARE TS shouldn’t be forced into the “MALE” or “FEMALE” pigeon-hole (Though as noted, the Male one is a bit more constrained. Work away your life to earn for OTHERS. I think it was Ferdinand Bardamu who posted about the hero comparison for Boys vs. Girls – IE, Batman vs. Miley Ray Cyrus. Good read, makes the point that the woman hero is adored for being her, while he man hero is often ignored and puts his life on the line for others. Women see as heroes celebrities; men see as heroes those who sacrifice.)

A child who IS TS will know fairly early on, things aren’t “right”. I mean, they ACT like girls (for MTF) for the first several years of their life, then start to notice the “Other boys” don’t act that way, and think there’s something wrong with them. Therapy and counselling, great – NOT on taxpayer dollars, though perhaps for early school-years teachers courses, something should be added. Maybe make it two psych courses instead of one? Child Psych and Abnormal Psych? After all, the Ted Bundies go through school too, and have some of the same characteristics – let’s see if we can keep them out of this little prison, too. [Yes we will put them in a bigger prison. Such is the reality of life.]

I also agree that what a child does and says is not the same as what an adult does or says. As I stated originally, some are not “wired” to be TS, but adopt it as an explanation for how they feel, what they perceive, and then work towards that goal. As I said, the information on how to game the system, and even cut it out completely, is all online. Comparable to cheating on a test by knowing the questions before you go in. Add in that most TSs I’ve read or emailed with are highly intelligent… Well, most come from engineering, military, science careers. (And lose those careers by transitioning.) Gaming the system is easy with those two parts, though.

I agree that schooling male children in a feminized environment is a bad thing. It’s an ongoing debate in the community, too – “Was I BORN this way? Was it [event] that made me think this way?” Iv’e often wondered if it’s a reverse of “Penis Envy”. Penis envy at the time was a valid theory – boys were treated better than girls, because Boys grew up to be Men who had to take care of the families and run the world. Women were home-makers at the upper crust, and though they would work on small-scale things, like home businesses, they were not the social equivalent of men, nor were they expected to be. They DID get to be WOMEN, though.
Note that you don’t have the same constraints on male sexuality, either – men wrote each other love letters (and yes, some were flamers, and the term love letters is really a poor term to use – more messages of male affection, a verbal slap on the back, than the love letter you’d write to a woman you’re hoping to get misty thinking of you.) At the same time that men could be tender, and there were male institutions where men could be men and talk freely, there was no viable option for changing one’s sex. Drag shows may have been prevalent in the 1800s somewhere, but there was no question that they were female impersonators – IE, still men. Probably gay, given how it’s become joined at the hip with gay culture, but I wasn’t there, and never felt the ened to research it… :-)

Maybe these things are now coming together? “Where wealth accumulates, Men decay.” We now have the technology to “adjust” the body; we have the environment where men are removed from the house for much of a day, and women rule the roost, as well as the schools; we have socialized males to be effeminate, while masculinizing girls; we have adjusted to a high material standard of living; we have industries in place which can ONLY exist when “patients” are “diagnosed” and started on “therapy”… Maybe it’s a conflation of events that is now causing this phenomon to grow so rapidly? And perhaps, with it as the cancer, the MRM is the Chemotherapy to keep the corpse alive?

The corpse, BTW, is the modern American (and by extension Western mayeb even world) civilization. One place I am NOT an optimist… :-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 08:00

“But allowed??? It’s something to think about…..”

Culturally santioned. Boys, even very young ones, are told “Boys don’t cry.”, “Man up.”, “Suck it up”, “Walk it off”, or are just out right laughed at for crying. This is mostly enforced by men, by tacitally approved of by women, as women choose the strong men who enforce this behaivor as Alphas. I could go on and on about this, but basically, women can be strong or weak, and even switch depending on the context they find themselves in. Men are pretty much expected to be strong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean December 2, 2009 at 08:06
If an apotemnophiliac wants to have his leg amputated, our doctors call him insane and he ends up in dying of gangrene in Mexico. If a man wants to cut off his own penis, why do we officially applaud, fund it, and call it courageous?

Good point. Is it because changing your sex isn’t really seen as a form of self-harm to the extent of cutting off an ampendage? Who knows…..

{We’ll see if double-block-quote works…}

There’s a simple reason for this…
The body is malleable, the mind far less so, especially in an adult.
The “easy” solution is to transform the body to match the mind. It is far harder to re-wire the brain.

I have an additional theory – the last few years of brutalization have flipped several switches in my mind, I’ve had to GROW UP in ways I never knew I could – didn’t even know they existed.
So maybe there’s something to the old “women as children” idea. And if we consider men being removed from manual labor, and from the home, and from a child’s formative years – well, an animal “imprints” on the first creature it sees – so a Duck can imprint on a Rabbit, IIRC, and will try to hop when it shuold be learning to fly or swim. Humans are somewhat more intelligent (though I think only marginally in most cases), so maybe – through those formative years – they are infantilised, effeminised (males only, as noted), and taught the WORST strategies for mating, dating, and being Men.. Because they LISTEN to adults at that age, and Mommy would NEVER lie… Right? Right…? Bueller…?

All building blocks… The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 2, 2009 at 08:12

B&G

What’s next? Shall we kill our children and elderly on a whim? Shall we desert our families? Shall we lie, cheat, and steal as it suits us? Shall we give up moral, creative, and intellectual endeavors and resort to rutting around like rabid animals? Shall we allow our emotions to dictate our actions instead of resorting to logic and common sense?

Oh, wait. We’re already doing that. Feminism is just great, isn’t it? Thank goodness we’re not being oppressed by the patriarchy, we’re being oppressed by the matriarchy instead.

This has me scratching my head. I’m not sure what feminism or a matriarchy has to do with lying, cheating, or stealing. Didn’t they take place in a patriarchy as well? And killing the elderly…are you talking about taking them off life support? As for everyone rutting around like rabbits, is it really the fault of feminism and a matriarchy?

The rest I understand.

I’m not advocating for a matriarchy or for feminism. I’m just trying to see how everything’s connected. Too many times it seems like people want to blame feminism for everything wrong in our society – almost like a cop-out. I probably should go to Female Masculinist’s blog and read up on her stuff again lol.

Is there somewhere I can go online to read an accurate, unbiased, objective analysis of feminism? Not saying that what any of you have said should be discounted ;) I just want to read something that I can use as an end-all-be-all to what feminism’s about.

Yeah, consider this partly OT :P .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 08:17

“I’m not advocating for a matriarchy or for feminism. I’m just trying to see how everything’s connected. ”

This is an oversimplification, but:

Pathriarchy=Laws and Justice. Honor and sacrifice.

Matriarchy=Moral relativism and victimology. Debasement and hedonsim.

I personally don’t want a pure patriarchal society. Empathy and moral relativism has a place, but should be suppordinate to justice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 2, 2009 at 08:17

Jabherwochie –

Culturally santioned. Boys, even very young ones, are told “Boys don’t cry.”, “Man up.”, “Suck it up”, “Walk it off”, or are just out right laughed at for crying. This is mostly enforced by men, by tacitally approved of by women, as women choose the strong men who enforce this behaivor as Alphas. I could go on and on about this, but basically, women can be strong or weak, and even switch depending on the context they find themselves in. Men are pretty much expected to be strong.

I would add here that this is the way it should be; this is the best way.

I find that men often make allowances for the less-than-ideal behavior of other men, so long as the ideal itself isn’t attacked.

Even moreso in male only spaces where the potential to publicly shame the group is absent. Part of the struggle in modern society for men is the loss of those spaces, because feminists wouldn’t tolerate them. I wish we still had segregated education–it forces atypical men to find their place within a society of men instead of running to the girls for sympathy. There’s no data to support it (how could you even study that?) but I frankly think that dynamic creates and enables fags and the far spectrum of effeminate males.

The ideal that men should be strong brings out the best in men. The constant empathy and coddling and encouragement-no-matter-what creates a spoiled brat teenager and a complete waste of a male adult.

Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 08:18

“Is there somewhere I can go online to read an accurate, unbiased, objective analysis of feminism? Not saying that what any of you have said should be discounted I just want to read something that I can use as an end-all-be-all to what feminism’s about.”

Feminism had a benevolent purpose long ago, but like many religions, has been corrupted for evil purposes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 08:20

“Is there somewhere I can go online to read an accurate, unbiased, objective analysis of feminism? ”

Not likely. You will have to study both sides and come to your own conclusion. Start with the SCUM manifesto. That should show you which side is more “right” than the other pretty quickly. You will not find an MRA equivalent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 08:21

“I find that men often make allowances for the less-than-ideal behavior of other men, so long as the ideal itself isn’t attacked. ”

I like this and agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 2, 2009 at 08:24

“The ideal that men should be strong brings out the best in men. The constant empathy and coddling and encouragement-no-matter-what creates a spoiled brat teenager and a complete waste of a male adult.”

The only reason I might currently support men being able to be coddled and spoiled is to balance the playing field with women. If women want to be equal, they either have to man up, which most haven’t, or they have to allow us to wimp out. Its more to make a point than something I think is beneficial for society. Sorta like I support “Game” because it will hurt society and bring about the collapse of the matriarchy, not because I think it is the moral thing to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 2, 2009 at 09:37

@Jean

One of the reason that you cited for desiring to be a woman is: “Women can be whatever the F they want”, i.e they have it easier.

So being a male is too tough for you? Running to the protection of the Feminism-LGBT Politically Correct ghetto is a form of Cowardice, for your information.

@Renee
Matriarchy is BAD because it allows a nanny-state acting as provider supported for a bunch of adult-teenagers and recreates the nature class system: women, alpha males and non-alpha males.

For women is all good and dandy until they realize that alpha males don’t want them anymore (at their 30s and up) and the non-alpha males will just fuck and dump them because they have proven themselves uncapable of having another kind of realtionship.

And said nanny-state, first is unsustainable, non-alpha males, the bulk of a productive work force will barely work if they can’t get women and second, it will become a focus point of power and whoever is in charge will be corrupted for it, human nature and all. Basically it will become a Communist Dictatoship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 2, 2009 at 10:27

Lots of what I have read above is certainly true. It has been said that boys are in a sense having the manliness wrung out of them. This is probably so but here in the UK one of the observable consequences is the rise of street gangs and the violent use of knives. Now I don’t pass any sort of judgement on this behaviour here but I would say that this does not indicate all boys becoming spoilt brats. That is if I understand the meaning of the word brat.

Of course there is probably no one thing that is universally true. So both the brat and the street fighter are both consequences of the feminization of society. Of the two I prefer the street fighter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean December 2, 2009 at 10:34

GX1080,
Never denied it. But it’s also tied up in all the other reasons, which I compared to converting religions, and being recognized as a woman doesn’t take away some issues: IE, still need to earn a living, pay your bills, etc. Think of it as winning a lottery – you go from an average schlep no one talks to, to a celebrity, in one moment – and suddenly everyone wants to know you (and get part of your money).
I’m not saying you’re wrong, though I did point out it’s futile to call someone a coward if they freely admit they were motivated by cowardice, to become more “safe” (Which really means, go to a lower-level of expectations -> be more of a coward).

You are correct in recognizing that government growth inevitably leads to communist dictatorship. Timeframes can vary, but anything more than the essentials becomes a monster that feeds on itself… Pity, but once you make full-time politicians especially, it is inevitable. IIRC, Plato noted that a few centuries back, and Franklin made note of it comparatively recently.

I believe a feminine mind relies on certain innocence. The only way for a child to mature is to see the world for what it is. Women may be able to keep those rose-colored glasses (Mom’s like 60 and still can’t see it – it’s not going to “mature” out of the breed), but men change when exposed to reality. Men grow, find ways to alter what is despicable, find ways to better themselves and others, build a society, theorize law and legal systems, civic systems, the “social contract”, etc. Woman’s social contract, especially from my readings of blogs from the contributors here, as well as Ghost Nation/MRA/MRM/MGTOW contributions all over, seems to be that she gives sex for luxuries, and if those luxuries dry up, so does that pussy, and she finds her next sucker, I mean supporter. BEEN THROUGH THE MEATGRINDER HERE… Had to adapt. I’ll agree it’s easier to change the body than the mind, per above; I led a sheltered life with an over-protective mother while Dad built a company and travelled the world (Mostly US, but some foreign jobs). Frist crack was around 14 or so, when he took me aside before a trip, showed me the finances and records I’d need in case he didn’t come back.
Last few cracks in the feminine mind were enforced via a GF who wanted all the luxuries – like a housekeeper for a 7-room Condo, while she was UNEMPLOYED – but wasn’t willing to supply anything back. Now I’m stuck with it for a while, but in June – her daughter is out of school, I can get her to find a job somewhere else, then WE can sell the house (has to be We, she talked me into putting her name on the deed. Damn I was naive), and I can get on with my life while she goes back to her shit. I mean life. Experience is a harsh teacher, but probably the best.

Good judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes mostly from poor judgement…

BTW, I’ll also add, I found one good woman, so they DO exist, they’re just rare. We’ll see how her marriage goes – I can only hope well. :-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Unnamed December 2, 2009 at 17:23

Key resource for original post: “Surgical Sex,” an essay by Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. He explains how gender ideology trashed young boys with deformed genitalia by encouraging them to be raised as girls.

McHugh also describes how he decided Johns Hopkins should not do “sex change” operations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 2, 2009 at 18:16

Jack Donovan,

I find that men often make allowances for the less-than-ideal behavior of other men, so long as the ideal itself isn’t attacked.

But what about boys or young men growing up? I mention this because

The ideal that men should be strong brings out the best in men. The constant empathy and coddling and encouragement-no-matter-what creates a spoiled brat teenager and a complete waste of a male adult.

Don’t you think that there’s a middle ground in which you can still be strong and sometimes cry? In which you can teach boys what it means to be a man and incorporate some empathy and encouragement?

Telling a boy or young man to “man up” or “suck it up” isn’t always that beneficial. I guess it depends on the meaning behind it, and that varies person to person.

And who said that crying is a sign of weakness all the time? I’m not saying that it’s ok for a guy to sob for no reasons or break down crying for the littlest of reasons, but nothing good comes from holding it in all the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 2, 2009 at 18:21

Crying for men should be only in extremis — death of a spouse or child (especially if sudden) and the like. Otherwise, there are better ways for men to process emotion. We do not need to be turning men into women in their modes of emotional expression (this displeases women, too, even though most women claim otherwise — when their husband bursts into tears the respect meter generally goes through the floor together with the sexual attraction), but rather we need to restore male ways of dealing with emotion — these are not dysfunctional, they are simply masculine ways and not feminine ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Renee December 2, 2009 at 18:32

I get you Novaseeker, and I agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 2, 2009 at 22:27

I second that.

And I will add that, yes, crying is now and always will be a sign of submission and/or weakness. I agree that it is acceptable under grave circumstances, and I would even go so far to say that it is acceptable to me for a man to get a little choked up here and there for this reason or that. But actual full on crying should only accompany SEVERE emotional distress.

I’ve seen at least half of the “tough” female bosses I’ve ever had break into tears at work. They can get away with it, but no one will ever look at a man the same way again after he’s done that. And very few men, even effeminate males, will even approach crossing that line.

I think you make allowances for boys, but steer them toward emotional control as they get older.

And the thing is…when males socialize each other, they toughen each other up and test each other in a variety of ways. The kid who always cries is going to start sliding to the bottom of the male hierarchical structure, and he’s going to start thinking of himself as belonging at the bottom. So by encouraging emotional display, you ain’t doin him any favors.

Jack Donovan December 2, 2009 at 22:42

I would add that Americans pretty much accept the same distinctions Novaseeker and I are making–just look at popular culture. We even let our action heroes cry a little. But only when it’s appropriate–most often from the shock of loss. There may have been pockets in history when heroes were always portrayed as being completely stoic, but the hero in emotional distress–which he overcomes to triumph– is an ancient theme.

Aria Blue December 2, 2009 at 22:50

I enjoy reading about generations and I came across the “Welmer” blog, and followed the link here to read more from him, because he usually has an interesting perspective even when I don’t totally get it. I’m going to make a comment here simply to clear up some misunderstandings, though I don’t expect most people will listen.

I’d like to give a short explanation of the whole “trans” thing, as someone who actually knows what’s going on and is not afraid to go against the PC police on this. It’s very simple really. Transgender is a political myth. It’s a lie.

99.9% of everyone you see held up in the media as a “transsexual” or “transgender” in the media (they have purposefully blurred the distinction and I’ll tell you why) is exactly who you think they are; unbalanced crossdressing men, whether straight or gay.

I see that someone has discovered Bailey’s “work”, and while I have little regard for his writing as science, he has outlined the two types of “transgender” males that exist, not that it takes a genius to point out the obvious. There are fetishistic transvestites who have decided its better to pretend and live “full time as women” rather than face their fetish, and there are somewhat smaller number of gay men who either can’t face being gay, or they play in the margins while they are young and can get away with it.

Notice I make a distinction between transsexual and transgender. I know that most people don’t see any difference or care, but this is important. As others here have pointed out, this is largely a political thing deriving from the GLBT construct, which itself devolves from a particular school of feminist thought, and so on. What the “TG” people, and certain gay political types by proxy, have done is to latch on to an extremely rare birth defect and exploit it for their political gain.

There is a vanishingly small number of people born with true transsexualism. They do exist, but in numbers so tiny that only a couple of serious practitioners studied them. Thought it was initially thought to be a psychological condition, the physical signs of the problem occurred in a large enough sample of the patients that it lead the early researcher to the conclusion that the origin is physical. Later science is starting to bear this out.

I’m not here to convince anyone that transsexual is a physical phenomenon, however. I’m content to let science answer that question- real science like neurology, using hard evidence. I point out the distinction because what the Gay political machine has done is a grave injustice. It has encouraged the “T” to play a giant game of let’s pretend, and blur the physical distinctions between people using outmoded new age thinking like “gender” in place of reality. And worse, the psychiatric profession has played right into this as well, with people like Bailey trying to erase the truth into a morass of sexual perversion.

In fact, it is unlikely anyone will ever meet a real “transsexual” man or women. There are probably fewer than 100,000 in the US, and if you did happen upon them you probably wouldn’t know. They don’t march in parades, they don’t show up on talk shows, and they don’t push for insane laws with for having transvestite men in the ladies room . That is what the phony “transgender” do, and that is how you know them, by their works so to speak.

I know these things because I was one of the people who have dealt with the problem and moved on with my life. While I tried to be a person with that proverbial open mind, what I experienced in dealing with that “community” convinced me that their erasure of distinctions and their attempt to bury the truth of my condition in a mountain of gender lies is selfish and damaging to people with real medical issues, as well as corrosive to our overall culture.

“Transsexual” is a rare physical condition that is best left to medicine to figure out and treat. “Transgender” is a destructive lie. Out with the garbage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 2, 2009 at 22:51

And I will add that, yes, crying is now and always will be a sign of submission and/or weakness. I agree that it is acceptable under grave circumstances, and I would even go so far to say that it is acceptable to me for a man to get a little choked up here and there for this reason or that. But actual full on crying should only accompany SEVERE emotional distress.

-Jack

After I had my children ripped away from me without any warning, I’d sit there alone with a bottle of whiskey and the tears would definitely flow — almost every day for a while. It does make you feel better. It’s kind of hard to explain how hard a sudden loss like that is to people who’ve never been through it before. If you don’t let it out somehow there’s a good chance something will break down in your head.

There’s a time for grief just like there’s a time for rage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zoe Brain December 3, 2009 at 04:40

OK, a few facts: Bailey interviewed half a dozen transgendered prostitutes in a gay bar in Chicago, then wrote his book based on what they told him, sometimes after sex. Even his supporters don’t claim it’s Science, especially since Bailey has admitted that he made up at least one of the anecdotes to fit his narrative.

McHugh’s “Surgical Sex” isn’t in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but a conservative catholic religious one. Johns Hopkins has not done surgery since their last surgeon left in the 70′s, but they have continued to refer patients to other surgeons, and do so today.

Some genuine science:

Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

See the recent seminar at the APA on the subject:
S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism
1. Brain Gender Identity Sidney W. Ecker, M.D.
2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Milton Diamond, Ph.D.
3. Novel Approaches to Endocrine Treatment of Transgender Adolescents and Adults Norman Spack, M.D.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Black&German December 3, 2009 at 05:29

Welmer,
I knew your wife had left you but I didn’t know that she had taken the kids. That’s broke. My cousin is going through the same thing right now. He’s in and out of psych treatment for depression and suicidal tendencies. The grief is real. Even if I left my husband, I couldn’t imagine taking the kids from him unless I thought he was a threat to them. That’s just cruel. Are they lacking empathy? I don’t understand it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 3, 2009 at 07:12

@Aria Blue-

Great post and thank you for you insights. I get what you are saying, agree, and appreciate your struggle.

“And the thing is…when males socialize each other, they toughen each other up and test each other in a variety of ways. The kid who always cries is going to start sliding to the bottom of the male hierarchical structure, and he’s going to start thinking of himself as belonging at the bottom. So by encouraging emotional display, you ain’t doin him any favors.”

Absolutely. I’m a sensitive artist type by nature, but my older brother and most of my friends were Alpha assholes, and we picked on each other constantly. It was the best thing in the world for me, because now I’m solid as a granite pillar. I allow myself more emotion than many men, like I allow myself to tear up at during sappy movies, but I can equally hold back crying during the worst of losses If I need to for whatever reason. I allow myself the indulgence of occasionally crying, nowhere near sobbing, because I’ve proven to myself time and time again that I am the master of my emotions in other circumstances, so have no guilt using tears as an emotional release. Plus, I’ll beat the shit of anyone who would try to mock me for crying when I choose to, so that helps. I remember once I picked the wrong fight with a shit talker, his crew rolled up, one of which was a notorious head breaker whose arms were as thick as my legs, anyways, they were lynching me, and I was doing a pretty good job of dodging the kicks and blows. When all you focus on is defense, its amazing what you can avoid. But then the notorious bruiser got on top of me and I couldn’t move, and the blows started raining down on my face. I remember thinking, okay, what now, what tactic can get me out of this. Keep in mind this guy was known for breaking a dudes jaw, and was just massive. The only thing I could think of to make the punches stop was to look him in the eyes and smile. It apparently confused him. He punched me maybe two or three more times, but then let me up. I don’t know how it worked, but I think he decided, what fun is it to pound on a guy just smiling at you. True story. I have lots of fight stories if anyone ever wants to trade some. Some shit happened after that, but I’ve been OT enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 3, 2009 at 07:17

Plus, thats why I don’t discourage the aggresive debating that sometimes goes on around here. We need to be “tough”, as PUAs, MRAs, or MGTOWs. None of these choices will create sympathy, but will rather have many people deride and shame us. Feminists and PC academics will mock us when ever they can, especially when they are loosing the debate. We need to practice now, standing up to that condescending mocking attitude, and the best way to do that is to practice on ourselves. I’m not saying we should flame war each other, but if you think someone is way off base, go after them, if they stand their ground and prove you wrong, accept your mistakes or the failibility of your argument, adjust for it, and move on. Don’t get thrown off your game by the insults, and equally use every tool you have to throw your opponent off their game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 6, 2009 at 08:39

Jack Donovan,

And I will add that, yes, crying is now and always will be a sign of submission and/or weakness.

I can understand crying being seen as a sign of submission, being overwhelmed, or being hurt. But do you think another reason crying is seen as a weakness (especially in men) is because it is, for the most part, a feminine trait?

And the thing is…when males socialize each other, they toughen each other up and test each other in a variety of ways. The kid who always cries is going to start sliding to the bottom of the male hierarchical structure, and he’s going to start thinking of himself as belonging at the bottom. So by encouraging emotional display, you ain’t doin him any favors.

I see what you mean, but one thing that keeps coming up is the issue of bullying. Do you think that’s an ok way for guys to toughen each other up? It that’s the case, what about bullying with girls?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 6, 2009 at 09:05

Renee -

I can understand crying being seen as a sign of submission, being overwhelmed, or being hurt. But do you think another reason crying is seen as a weakness (especially in men) is because it is, for the most part, a feminine trait?

Nope. You answered your own question in the first line. Crying IS a sign of submission, being overwhelmed or being hurt, which communicates weakness. It’s associated with powerlessness–specifically, babies.

The fact that women cry frivolously more often in public and private than men in adult life makes it more emasculating for a man when he cries frivolously in public, but the fact that it is considered weak is first and foremost about…weakness. I would say that men see women as weak in part because they cry more often.

I see what you mean, but one thing that keeps coming up is the issue of bullying. Do you think that’s an ok way for guys to toughen each other up?

What does bullying even mean? People are so whiny and parents are so protective now that basic, natural Tom Sawyer behavior is treated as if it were a form of psychosis.

There’s a level of torment that’s too much, but kids need to learn what’s what without so many safety nets. I got harassed and bullied a lot as a kid; it’s sucks and yes–I can see why kids freak out and take guns to school–but young men need to take their lumps. The alternative to letting them do that is creating a bunch of mamma’s boys who will cave at the first sign of conflict. Any society that promotes that is suicidal.

Welmer December 6, 2009 at 09:28

Female crying is often highly manipulative. Lots of women can cry on demand to get sympathy from men, and it really works very well. I’m relatively immune to it because I grew up with a little sister.

I actually don’t care for female crying very much either. Sometimes it’s understandable, but too often it’s because they aren’t getting their way. If my daughter cries frivolously (e.g. she wants to wear different pants), I tell her to go to her room until she’s done. I actually hold both my son and daughter to pretty similar standards when it comes to crying. If they’re really sad for a good reason such as pain or total exhaustion, I’ll comfort them, but if they just want candy I’m not moved at all. As a society, we are far too indulgent of female crying. I think it’s a bigger problem than boys acting like sissies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 6, 2009 at 09:42

Female crying is often highly manipulative. Lots of women can cry on demand to get sympathy from men, and it really works very well. I’m relatively immune to it because I grew up with a little sister.

So did I. The youngest one used to break into tears spontaneously, with a gleam in her eye, just to get me in trouble.

What did you do to her? Nothing, mom. She’s just being a brat. Then why is she crying?

That’s not sister-hate, I love both my sisters, but that is some textbook behavior that females learn early and use from the cradle to the grave. It’s pure manipulation. It’s crying wolf–a false distress signal. Men lose status for doing it, women get their way. Let the bitch cry.

Renee December 6, 2009 at 10:27

Jack,

There’s a level of torment that’s too much, but kids need to learn what’s what without so many safety nets. I got harassed and bullied a lot as a kid; it’s sucks and yes–I can see why kids freak out and take guns to school–but young men need to take their lumps. The alternative to letting them do that is creating a bunch of mamma’s boys who will cave at the first sign of conflict. Any society that promotes that is suicidal.

To what extent should young men take their lumps, and what about the young women? We leave it up to kids to handle and deal with bullying by themselves, but many times when they do, they get into fighting (although if it’s in self defense then that’s something different), bullying others, or they take guns to school….all because they don’t know how to deal with it. I don’t see how helping kids deal with bullies is creating so many safety nets or mama’s boys (and daddy’s girls?).

I guess I’m against the whole idea of bullying as being simply as right of passage that kids need to learn to deal with themselves. It’s something VERY serious, sometimes to the point of being criminal. Are you saying that parents need to just step back a allow their boys to be bullied to “toughen them up” and not step in AT ALL? Does that apply to girls as well?

Perhaps I can see parents giving their child a chance to deal with it and most of the time they don’t even know about it since kids are usually hesitant in telling them. But considering how kids have killed themselves due to bullying and bullying’s lasting negative effects, it’s not something to take lightly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 6, 2009 at 11:03

Jack, there’s a question that I want to ask you regarding this quote:

The fact that women cry frivolously more often in public and private than men in adult life makes it more emasculating for a man when he cries frivolously in public

…but I don’t want to deviate the discussion from the topic at hand anymore than it already has somewhat. I looked on your site for an email address but didn’t find one. Would you mind sending it to me or should I just go ahead and ask the question here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 6, 2009 at 11:06

Renee –

You can’t save every kid. A small percentage of kids have always freaked out or killed themselves or did something else rash because they were bullied.

This is a modern media-fed hysteria. Most kids who are bullied do fine, and most kids who bully grow out of it, too. Every time ONE kid freaks out, in a country of 300 million people, we hear about it as if it happened next door and is an epidemic. It’s not. Village-to-village this happens to an extreme minority of kids who are bullied.

Boys have ALWAYS bullied each other. If you try to mother all of them into never saying anything mean about anyone and never picking on anyone — and therefore never being able to stand up for themselves or handle themselves in adverse social situations, you’re hurting them. You’re making them weak. Anything kids today go through is bullshit compared to what their predecessors went through.

The summer evenings were long. It was not dark, yet. Presently Tom checked his whistle. A stranger was before him — a boy a shade larger than himself. A new-comer of any age or either sex was an impressive curiosity in the poor little shabby village of St. Petersburg. This boy was well dressed, too — well dressed on a week-day. This was simply astounding. His cap was a dainty thing, his closebuttoned blue cloth roundabout was new and natty, and so were his pantaloons. He had shoes on — and it was only Friday. He even wore a necktie, a bright bit of ribbon. He had a citified air about him that ate into Tom’s vitals. The more Tom stared at the splendid marvel, the higher he turned up his nose at his finery and the shabbier and shabbier his own outfit seemed to him to grow. Neither boy spoke. If one moved, the other moved — but only sidewise, in a circle; they kept face to face and eye to eye all the time. Finally Tom said:

“I can lick you!”

“I’d like to see you try it.”

“Well, I can do it.”

“No you can’t, either.”

“Yes I can.”

“No you can’t.”

“I can.”

“You can’t.”

“Can!”

“Can’t!”

An uncomfortable pause. Then Tom said:

“What’s your name?”

“‘Tisn’t any of your business, maybe.”

“Well I ‘low I’ll make it my business.”

“Well why don’t you?”

“If you say much, I will.”

“Much — much — much. There now.”

“Oh, you think you’re mighty smart, don’t you? I could lick you with one hand tied behind me, if I wanted to.”

“Well why don’t you do it? You say you can do it.”

“Well I will, if you fool with me.”

“Oh yes — I’ve seen whole families in the same fix.”

“Smarty! You think you’re some, now, don’t you? Oh, what a hat!”

“You can lump that hat if you don’t like it. I dare you to knock it off — and anybody that’ll take a dare will suck eggs.”

“You’re a liar!”

“You’re another.”

“You’re a fighting liar and dasn’t take it up.”

“Aw — take a walk!”

“Say — if you give me much more of your sass I’ll take and bounce a rock off’n your head.”

“Oh, of course you will.”

“Well I will.”

“Well why don’t you do it then? What do you keep saying you will for? Why don’t you do it? It’s because you’re afraid.”

“I ain’t afraid.”

“You are.”

“I ain’t.”

“You are.”

Another pause, and more eying and sidling around each other. Presently they were shoulder to shoulder. Tom said:

“Get away from here!”

“Go away yourself!”

“I won’t.”

“I won’t either.”

So they stood, each with a foot placed at an angle as a brace, and both shoving with might and main, and glowering at each other with hate. But neither could get an advantage. After struggling till both were hot and flushed, each relaxed his strain with watchful caution, and Tom said:

“You’re a coward and a pup. I’ll tell my big brother on you, and he can thrash you with his little finger, and I’ll make him do it, too.”

“What do I care for your big brother? I’ve got a brother that’s bigger than he is — and what’s more, he can throw him over that fence, too.” [Both brothers were imaginary.]

“That’s a lie.”

“Your saying so don’t make it so.”

Tom drew a line in the dust with his big toe, and said:

“I dare you to step over that, and I’ll lick you till you can’t stand up. Anybody that’ll take a dare will steal sheep.”

The new boy stepped over promptly, and said:

“Now you said you’d do it, now let’s see you do it.”

“Don’t you crowd me now; you better look out.”

“Well, you said you’d do it — why don’t you do it?”

“By jingo! for two cents I will do it.”

The new boy took two broad coppers out of his pocket and held them out with derision. Tom struck them to the ground. In an instant both boys were rolling and tumbling in the dirt, gripped together like cats; and for the space of a minute they tugged and tore at each other’s hair and clothes, punched and scratched each other’s nose, and covered themselves with dust and glory. Presently the confusion took form, and through the fog of battle Tom appeared, seated astride the new boy, and pounding him with his fists. “Holler ’nuff!” said he.

The boy only struggled to free himself. He was crying — mainly from rage.

“Holler ’nuff!” — and the pounding went on.

At last the stranger got out a smothered “‘Nuff!” and Tom let him up and said:

“Now that’ll learn you. Better look out who you’re fooling with next time.”

The new boy went off brushing the dust from his clothes, sobbing, snuffling, and occasionally looking back and shaking his head and threatening what he would do to Tom the “next time he caught him out.” To which Tom responded with jeers, and started off in high feather, and as soon as his back was turned the new boy snatched up a stone, threw it and hit him between the shoulders and then turned tail and ran like an antelope. Tom chased the traitor home, and thus found out where he lived. He then held a position at the gate for some time, daring the enemy to come outside, but the enemy only made faces at him through the window and declined. At last the enemy’s mother appeared, and called Tom a bad, vicious, vulgar child, and ordered him away. So he went away; but he said he “‘lowed” to “lay” for that boy.

Tom Sawyer, the bully.

Jack Donovan December 6, 2009 at 11:13

Basically, as I said, “what is bullying?” Where is the line? Simple harassment? Physical intimidation? Routine physical abuse?

You do know, BTW, that a boy who has his mommy come to school and get another boy reprimanded for bullying automatically loses social status at near omega-producing levels. Having your mom stand up for you against male peers is worse than not standing up for yourself. Tattlers are not trusted and are expelled from male hierarchies. As I wrote in my post on the hierarchy, it is better to most men to be in the club at the bottom than to be pushed out of the club and emasculated completely. Men who can’t function in male hierarchies are bitter and bitchy and will never be well-adjusted. They might be successful–in fact, out of spite they often are–but they’ll always be socially inept when it comes to other men.

Welmer December 6, 2009 at 11:26

I used to get smacked around by a huge kid named Erasto Jackson when I was in elementary school. Eventually, I learned to fight back pretty well, and pretty soon bullies left me alone. Erasto ended up as an offensive lineman (he’s on the left).

I’d say the only danger with allowing bullying is that it does teach kids that fighting is an effective way to solve problems. Don’t get me wrong — sometimes it is, but when you get to a certain age fighting gets a lot more serious than a schoolyard dustup.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 6, 2009 at 14:09

Jack,

Basically, as I said, “what is bullying?” Where is the line? Simple harassment? Physical intimidation? Routine physical abuse?

Do you think bullying is only physical?

I personally define bullying as routine harassment, physical abuse, relational aggression, etc. To me it’s something to take seriously.

Here’s a link that pretty much sums up what I think:
http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/HHS_PSA/pdfs/Fact_sheet_Myths_32.pdf

You do know, BTW, that a boy who has his mommy come to school and get another boy reprimanded for bullying automatically loses social status at near omega-producing levels. Having your mom stand up for you against male peers is worse than not standing up for yourself.

I’m aware of this. But sometimes it gets to a point when the parent has no choice but to get involved. Maybe this doesn’t happen often. And what about Dads? If they or both parents get involved, is it as bad?

Tattlers are not trusted and are expelled from male hierarchies. As I wrote in my post on the hierarchy, it is better to most men to be in the club at the bottom than to be pushed out of the club and emasculated completely. Men who can’t function in male hierarchies are bitter and bitchy and will never be well-adjusted. They might be successful–in fact, out of spite they often are–but they’ll always be socially inept when it comes to other men.

Well since I’m a chick, then I’ll take your word for it ;) And anyone, I don’t see a child seeking help and assistance in dealing with bullying (even if it is Mom) as a “tattler”, but that’s just me. Also I get the feeling that with some bully victims, they already are emasculated and pushed out of the hierarchy without being a “tattler”.

Boys have ALWAYS bullied each other. If you try to mother all of them into never saying anything mean about anyone and never picking on anyone — and therefore never being able to stand up for themselves or handle themselves in adverse social situations, you’re hurting them. You’re making them weak. Anything kids today go through is bullshit compared to what their predecessors went through.

Yeah I see your point. I guess the bullying I have in mind is more severe and chronic.

I don’t see parents stepping in as mothering or babying them. I see it as parenting, especially when it gets really serious. But hey, what do I know….

I’m still wondering what you think about bullying in cases of girls.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 6, 2009 at 14:13

About that question I want to ask is this:

The fact that women cry frivolously more often in public and private than men in adult life makes it more emasculating for a man when he cries frivolously in public

So something’s only emasculating if women do it? I’m sorry if this question is like “Gender Relations 101″ lol :P That’s why I wanted to ask you as a PM.

I think it involves women not preferring men who act like women, but I wanted to be sure and also see if it involves anything else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 6, 2009 at 15:00

Renee –

So something’s only emasculating if women do it? I’m sorry if this question is like “Gender Relations 101″

Man and woman are polar opposities…the whole yin/yang thing. They are in a sense defined by each other. The very feminine is at the other end of the spectrum from the very masculine.

Emasculation is, essentially, comparison to women. Literally, it’s castration and the removal of maleness and relegation to female status.

A gain in manliness is in some sense in contrast to women. It is a move closer to The Form, or the “ultimate masculine.”

Regarding bullying –

Kids making fun of each other to the level of harassment is a real life scenario that kids need to learn to deal with. An extreme minority snap. To protect the extreme minority from snapping, the majority–who can handle it–will end up weak and hyper-sensitive. Adolescence is a skin-thickening period. Especially for boys.

If we’re talking about something that’s getting to the point where a kid is in actual physical danger from repeated physical abuse–like, he’s getting his head flushed in the toilet every day–then maybe it is time for someone to step in. Still, it’s better to help the kid figure out a way to resolve it on his own. Mommy and daddy and teacher are not going to be there every time a grown man gets insulted or treated like shit. (Trust me, I work for a living.) He needs to learn how to handle it by himself. If he does, he’ll have more self-respect than he would if someone went to bat for him. It’s what they call a “growing experience.”

I say this not as a former bully, but as someone who made a target of himself in junior and senior high school, who mouthed off to bullies, and who was constantly harassed verbally and threatened physically (usually a bluff) on a regular basis. If you’re going to be different, you need to learn how to take your lumps, or change and act more like other kids. People conform because it is easier than being different.

Renee December 7, 2009 at 09:08

Jack,

Man and woman are polar opposities…the whole yin/yang thing. They are in a sense defined by each other. The very feminine is at the other end of the spectrum from the very masculine.

Emasculation is, essentially, comparison to women. Literally, it’s castration and the removal of maleness and relegation to female status.

A gain in manliness is in some sense in contrast to women. It is a move closer to The Form, or the “ultimate masculine.”

So is feminine characteristics a downgrade for men or a downgrade period? I kind of get what you’re saying but something bothers me about this comment and I’m really trying to put my finger on it…..

As for the bullying part, I get what you’re saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 8, 2009 at 13:58

Renee-

I know this is an old post, but I stepped away from it. Bullying of three fundamental types bother me. When an obviously physically larger/stronger kid simply fucks with a smaller one for no reason. When anyone fucks with learning disabled/speacial needs kids. When a group of kids singles out an individual.

The universal thread uniting these: A power differential so unbalanced that the outcome is guaranteed. To me, I see cowardice in this. Thats why, as someone picked on heavily for a minute in Elementary school (speech impediment) I was quite fond on beating up bullies, or making them look stupid, as my words and reputation were often enough. So, to rephrase, if the victim has a chance to stand up for himself, it is his responsibility to take that stand, even if the outcome is doubtful. Getting your ass kicked and showing that it doesn’t bother you is sometimes more powerful than anything else. See story above. Basically, stand up for the defenseless, but teach those capable to stand up for themselves. Its a fine line, with a lot of gray area. Judgement calls will have to be made. Non related males would be best at this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 8, 2009 at 19:42

Jabherwochie,

Great post :D I completely agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DB December 14, 2009 at 11:31

No , it should be called “Speaking Ill of the Live”. What utter BS ! What a disgusting fabrications ! Given the kind of person you are I have no doubt that all your friends rank in the “drugged out/suicide” slot and I’ll bet your life is no better Mr Jack . You hang around in drag sex clubs where ill people are drawn to easy drug scores and sexual opportunities and then say that represents the TG community. Like wacko Michael Bailey you live a self fulfilling fantasy that reeks dishonesty. I’ll bet most any sex club is filled with suicidal drug users .

I live in an apartment building in LA and in that building are three MTF’s , all passible , all professionals. All the ones I know are “passible ” and even though many are out. It’s like using wack job Glenn Beck as an example of straight peoples sanity .

“This former construction worker was open about the fact that he was taking black market hormones, and had a history of suicide attempts”

Now why would this person be taking black market hormones if they were not loony ? Not under a doctor or therapist or any of the legal paths outlined in the DSM . That’s like getting industrial silicone implants . They got black market hormones because they are crazy, not because they are transsexual. Oh and in case you hadn’t figured it out real suicides just do it. Like Christine Danials . Multiple attempts are just performance art. If someone wants to die you can’t stop them.

No one encourages boys to change gender. We are doing it chemically to them and your ignorance is like watching a cave man howling at the moon , hoping to contact their creator.

Look up The CBC documentary “The Disappearing Male” and then google “Plastics feminize Boys”. Did you know that we have a sea full of plastics ( The Plastic Continent or the Great Garbage Dump) spewing hormones that are feminizing not only us but our food chain. This is no ” fantasy ” you throwback ! Seeing this kind of low grade, un-researched trash on the web just sickens me. Your hit piece is filled with the same kid of moronic assumptions that racists made about black people because a few fit the stereotype bill. Pray they don’t do an editorial on hysterical homophobe/transphobes .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Christine Beatty December 14, 2009 at 12:39

Given the author’s apparently extensive experience with the kind of transwomen who hang out in nightclubs, he seems quite content to paint an entire demographic with that brush. Do us all and yourself a favor and stay out of clinical research, because that kind of anecdotal methodology won’t fly with serious clinicians. For this same reason J. Michael Bailey has been laughed out of the very organizations he’s most qualified to be in, including the American Psychological Assn. So anyone who supports Bailey’s fiction by citing bogus newspaper “controversy” pieces like that NYT article, is ignoring the fact that nearly all of Bailey’s peers shun his erroneous conclusions about transsexual women. Selah.

Secondly, if transsexualism truly were a psychological disorder (the same way homosexuality was regarded until 1973) then there would be thousands of transwomen like myself who’d have flocked to shrinks to be “cured” of it. Trust me, nobody would *choose* a life where they may be legally discriminated against, face the hatred and ridicule of total strangers, and have to read the kind ignorant crap I see on this page. As it is, psychotherapists cannot earn a living from us because the standards of care say we only need a year of monitoring and evaluation by a therapist to be cleared for the big surgery. If this were a mental disorder then shrinks could make a fat living off of ‘treating” us, but only the unscrupulous ones try to do that. The preponderance of scientific evidence, most recently out of UCLA, strongly suggests a neurological (as opposed to psychological) cause. And since we’re technologically nowhere near the point of performing microsurgery on the limbic brain to change gender feelings, the only options are to do genital surgery or allow transsexual people to live in misery.

Finally, stop to consider that the kind of hatred and ignorance and discrimination seen in the article and in many comments are the real cause of self-destructive behavior in transsexual people and not our general nature. When I first tried to transition in 1985 I faced so much hatred and ignorance I de-transitioned the same way Christine Daniels (“Mike Penner”) did and nearly killed myself because I was so unhappy. I went back to my woman’s life in late 1988 and have been full time Christine since December 1989. I am a senior software engineer for a major corporation, a published author and I probably earn more money that most of the Neanderthals who look down on people like me.

Have a nice day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Snark December 14, 2009 at 12:53

In short: Not All (Trans) Women Are Liek Dat

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 18, 2009 at 19:22

Actually, Christine, you’re not a woman. I can tell that from your “best” shot that opens your web page–the contents of which pretty much validates the anecdotal evidence you’re claiming isn’t true or fair. I’m well aware that there are trannies working in offices and holding down jobs. As you yourself prove, many of those same people have been a part of the very scene I described.

Finally, stop to consider that the kind of hatred and ignorance and discrimination seen in the article and in many comments are the real cause of self-destructive behavior in transsexual people and not our general nature.

That’s the same pathetic excuse that gay people hide behind.

“No one likes me, and that makes me not like myself. My problems are everyone else’s fault. Everyone else has to change so that my extreme minority can be happy.”

The world is hateful and discriminatory and unfair. Always has been, always will be. If you can’t make it without forcing the world to accommodate your self-indulgent identity crisis, then you can’t make it.

The preponderance of scientific evidence, most recently out of UCLA, strongly suggests a neurological (as opposed to psychological) cause.

Again, that’s pretty much exactly what I said. The best you can come up with is a “suggests.” The evidence ISN’T there. It isn’t even there for homosexuality, which is a more widespread phenomenon. There’s still a lot of debate about how the brain works and how malleable it is. This stuff is all still very much at the speculative stage and is certainly not substantial enough to warrant legal considerations or social re-organization. Generally speaking–and I am speaking generally–transsexuals fit the profile discussed in my post. The arguments in favor of accepting/encouraging/institutionalizing any sort of trans agenda at face value are heavy on emotion and light on evidence and logic.

The success of the trans movement is part feminist sideshow, part product of overly sympathetic liberal female psychologists, therapists and their more politically oriented leftist peers.

DB’s hysterical rant is what I’m used to and exactly what I’d expect from trannies.

Christine Beatty December 29, 2009 at 00:28

Actually, Jack, as a white, apparently educated male in America you haven’t experienced anywhere near enough discrimination to comment on it with anything other than your opinion, which isn’t worth the electrons required to store them on whatever server this database resides. Having never experienced true institutionalized discrimination, such as the socially and religiously sanctioned proscription against sexual and gender minorities, you haven’t got a clue about what it’s like to live with that kind of pressure.

With regard to your claim that the evidence “ISN’T there” regarding a neurological etiology, you’re so off base. There is growing body of evidence that jibes with over fifty years of psychiatrists trying to “cure” transsexual people with everything from hormone injections (for instance, testosterone injections for male-to-female transsexuals) to aversion therapy to psychoanalysis. None of these “cures” have worked, because if they had, we’d be lining up ten deep at every doctor’s office to get it. You have no idea the strength and courage it takes to live like we do, the pain we go through. Believe me, if there were another way — short of suffering or drug addiction, like I did for years, or suicide — we would go for it.

Yes, there is no conclusive *proof* of how it works in a way that would satisfy someone with as closed a mind as yours. But then, Electron Theory — in which electrical engineering and electronics is based — is still also a *theory* because nobody has ever seen an electron, much less one in motion. However, since the effects of electrons can be seen, the theory has borne out. The same holds true for gender identity and neurology. There is far more evidence and logic than you are willing to acknowledge. See the links below.

Finally, for you to couch this medical issue in liberal/feminist versus conservative terms is so overly simplistic and dogmatic, it makes me think that if you even bother to research these links at all, you’ll brush them off as more “liberal” propaganda. Of course Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were also branded as heretics, etc. back in their time. But even you “conservatives” accept them now, don’t you? I’d loved to have heard what you had to say about those enlightened thinkers five hundred years ago.

http://tinyurl.com/65fbdx – brain development
http://tinyurl.com/6awncv – hormones & gender
http://tinyurl.com/64t6gl – brain sex
http://tinyurl.com/transsexualgene – new genetic study

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Patriarchal in Portland January 10, 2010 at 16:13

At the risk of flogging a dead horse here, I’d like to request of Mr. Donovan the completion of a possible essay he had once proposed … regarding Chaz Bono still being a Fat Chick, and the recent explosion of FTM, in general.

I’ve encountered quite a few of these Boobless Bitches of late, and their harangue has grown tiresome. Their particular perspective and agenda seems to be dominating the dialogue within the various other gay camps nowadays, both Trans and “Binary”.

From what I can tell, these persons don’t really seem to want to be Men.

Many of them seem to me to be far more interested in being Bisexual Fags.

The Newspeak term which has been recently and contemptuously thrown at me the most by these persons happens to be “Gender Binary”, and I also had to google something called “Cisgendered Privilege” … which I’d never heard of.

Good thing I’ve been made aware of it, though. Because I’m apparently gifted with it now, and have been properly shamed for exploiting it. And I’ve been told I need to apologize to those less-privileged as I, post-haste. ;P

I look forward to any words you might have on this new Queer Identity Trend.

Strange days indeed, sir …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan January 10, 2010 at 16:38

“Chris” –

Actually, Jack, as a white, apparently educated male in America you haven’t experienced anywhere near enough discrimination to comment on it with anything other than your opinion, which isn’t worth the electrons required to store them on whatever server this database resides.

YOU have NO idea what it means to be a woman, and therefore can’t claim to be one. You don’t have the experience, and your “feeling” about being one isn’t worth the electrons required to store them on whatever server this database resides.

As far as I can tell, you are also a white educated male who has created a victimized minority status for himself.

Having never experienced true institutionalized discrimination, such as the socially and religiously sanctioned proscription against sexual and gender minorities, you haven’t got a clue about what it’s like to live with that kind of pressure.

Yeah, sorry to piss in your cornflakes, but Google “Jack Donovan, Androphilia.” Fuck your fake minority high horse. I’ve been as much a “victim of discrimination” as you have.

You have no idea the strength and courage it takes to live like we do, the pain we go through.

Courage is running into a burning building to save a child, not wrestling with your own inner demons. This Oprah-esque statement is the best proof that you really are part woman yet.

The scant scientific evidence, which you’ve over-dramatized (Galileo vs. gender studies!) because it remains…”a growing body of evidence which seems to suggest“… manages to suggest that…*drumroll please*…

Some males are less masculine than others, from birth.

NO. FUCKING. SHIT.

That in no way justifies restructuring society or the way we perceive men and women to accommodate males that are born with less masculine brain structures and more feminine brain structures. The norm is the norm, there is a wide range of variance within the norm, and the exceptions are the exceptions.

You’re a dude with a less masculine brain. This does not make you a woman, nor necessitate your dressing up or mutilating yourself.

Jack Donovan January 10, 2010 at 16:46

Patriarchal in Portland -

From what I can tell, these persons don’t really seem to want to be Men.

Many of them seem to me to be far more interested in being Bisexual Fags.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that, too. A lot of lesbians want to be fags, I’ve noticed. I guess the FTMs are pissed that they can’t be “bears” without ‘roids.

The FTM phenomenon, as far as I can tell, is way more of a political, ideological and fashionable thing than the MTF thing. MTFs are seriously fucked in the head, but sincere. FTMs seem a lot less sincere, and a lot more interested in making a feminist point, a la Norah Vincent (fake FTM), Pat Califia, Thomas Beatie.

I don’t hang out downtown in Portland a lot, so I don’t see a lot of that, and I try to keep my “homo”-related posts to a minimum on the Spearhead, but I’m sure a news item will catch me in a foul mood sooner or later. Maybe Chaz Bono will do something publicly gross that I will have to comment on…

Mike Martarano January 21, 2010 at 13:42

Personally I think all of this only traps us in the argument and keeps us in an offensive/defensive state. Really, honestly, I could give a rats ass about what Trannies and Gays do with their bodies. Let them nip, cut, shrink, expand and append what they want. Let them act like sissies and speak with affected voices that sound like they’re sucking helium. They’re not my people or our people.

Basically, it’s a sinking ship and our 30 something+ generation is seeing the last of this Twentieth Century Liberal Gender Culture.

Many people of younger generations, Men and Women, Homo, Hetero and Bisexual are moving away from this damned culture. Additionally, the ever growing acronym “GLBTIA” is losing it’s validity on it’s own. We don’t need to bicker, ponder or debate it. Lets be proactive and just abandon it for christ’s sake! After all, the only people who really give a damn are those who it concerns. If you’re not Gay or a part of this GLBTI mess then work towards your own goal. Don’t festishise the fight for Manhood by rebelling against Feminism. It’s counterproductive because rebellions are always intrinsically connected to the thing they are rebelling against!

Leave the fight, take your land and strengthen yourself!
We’ve rejected “Gay” now lets just walk away and let them sort their crap out on their own. Engaging in this just makes us seem like rebels within a Liberal framework.

A Transsexual committed suicide. People have problems, let them deal with it. Expecting to change “the system” or being upset with “the system” is blah…Marxist in it’s very notion. Hell, be a Homo or Bisexual and identify as Straight! Honestly, I’m all for that!

Change people’s notions and force people to see that Gay and Straight are modernist sociopolitical designs – NOT SEXUALITIES!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Mike Martarano January 21, 2010 at 14:06

Additionaly:
Men’s Rights? Can’t you all see that this is in fact motivated by the same social construction as Women’s Rights and Gay Rights?

Go for Human Rights blind to gender and sexuality and break away from these constructs which are really only inventions of the later half of the Modern Era. They have absolutely no Historical strength.

Just because it’s what you were raised with doesn’t mean that it has any tested strength. It was grandfathered into you life but it is not permanent. We as Humans are nurtured by the current world we live in which makes it hard to see the world according to the greater timeline of civilization prior to our birth. Fact is, all of these Gender and Sexuality Constructs are very new and untested by time. Let go of them.

The big picture Macro-Perspective is harder to fight for but philosophically more in tuned with our goals than this Micro-Perspective social ordering.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan January 21, 2010 at 21:13

Here’s what happens when you don’t have these discussions, and the trannies get their way. Decent people get screwed by thought police.

http://conservativeinthecloset.blogspot.com/2009/02/ontario-human-right-to-hang-in-womens.html

A guy, dressed as a chick walks into a health club to get a membership in the women’s-only part of the club. Just before signing the contract, he says to the owner, hey-I’m a dude! I’m planning to be a chick, but I still have my equipment. Club owner says-I think my female patrons would have a problem with that (YA THINK?), checks with police and OHRC but eventually gets sucked into black hole mind-numbing, expensive, process-is-the-punishment Orwellian vortex of OHRC hell.

Anonymouses Anonymous February 23, 2010 at 12:10

Check out Kimber James.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimber_James

kinda hard to tell he is a dude blowing you until she tells you it’s her turn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Rome February 24, 2010 at 11:18

“Did homosexual men have it better in androcentric Greece, where they could be philosophers, warriors and artists, or gynocentric contemporary America, where they dress in drag and coach adolescent sluts on how to strut up and down catwalks?”

Welmer, it may have been tangential to the topic but your comment regarding the cultural impact of homosexuals was epic in its insight, and very on-point. Your post was worth whole reams of paper and pixels of discussion on this topic.

That the masculinity movement should harness the creative energy of gay men (a creative energy that may result from the innate tension of being a homosexual male) is an inspiring idea.

I am a homosexual man and I give you great credit for voicing your insights on this subject to your fellow straight men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gabbygetsme May 26, 2012 at 08:45

I think you make generalisations about post op’s. I transitioned young, I pass reasonably well weighing 65kg and am 5ft 8 and quite attractive.

I don’t feel the need to sleep around with men. I am attracted to men but sex isn’t the be all and end all to men. I’m not in to deceiving but neither do I want to end up being abused or worse because I disclose my past.

As a post op who had never been out of work pre op, due to my passability, I had messy facial surgery since corrected but obviously damage was done to my career. I’m now long term unemployed and unable to get to work because my business is public knowledge. The social security system here sensitises my account and any one with a sensitive marker on their account is usually idenitified as a transexual. I know because I am trying to do something about it through legal channels. The reality is, I’m not severely mentally ill but I very much treated like it and so are most. But I am not like you or other transexuals and certainly not a homosexual man as I have never been gay and pass much better than most women so much so I can get changed in public changing rooms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: