A Boring Culture War Polemic

(by literally who#1853

A Boring Culture War Polemic: On the conceptual coherence of dilating and premenstrual syndrome

“Because the nice people on the internet assured me that male suicide is humorous.” – Pygmalion

This “Culture War”, as degenerates call it, is a trite manner. In fact, I would perhaps care little for it if it was not for the fact that this nonsense has to be spammed ad nauseum on most platforms. I have mostly stopped using 4chan as the average discourse there was getting so moronic that it is difficult to get an educated discussion started with a thread. Now, I am left relatively boardless as I am stranded in a sea of pettiness which is mostly uninteresting.

The current topic is on “transgenders”, or whatever kids these days call it. I pick it since it is remarkable how a discourse can not be merely riddled with factual inaccuracies, but be for the most part outright incoherent. The following might be integrated into a larger work, if I ever get to seriously write on it. For the time being, let’s have some fun shall we?

“Sex” versus “Gender”

For the sake of clarity, I will be recapitulating the terminology used by liberals on this topic. Strangely, there are some who would have grievances with this decision. This, of course, is fine, as quite frankly your concern is incoherent. They more or less can be summarized in the following objections: i) it goes against common usage of the word ii) the term “gender” is nonsense iii) one should not use the terminology of the “enemy”. As I have said, these are essentially non-reasons, and why I say this can be seen  in the points below.

i) This is only superficially salient. The terms “set”, “group” and “manifold” are largely synonyms in common parlance, but to confuse these terms in mathematics is only to write gibberish.

ii) One may believe that the term lacks a referent, and we will indeed get to this question later. However, if this is really one’s position there is still no reason to use the terms synonymously. If I were a reductive physicalist, and would frequently use “the bundle of subatomic particles” in place of “the table”, I would be a profound autist incapable of understanding not only human pragmatics, but animal as well. There is nothing refraining one from merely avoiding the use of the term “gender”, or to put it in scare quotes. Outright conflating the terms, however, is a sign that the speaker lacks sincerity or any serious interest in the topic.

iii) This is another ridiculous position, and often paired with conspiracy theories about the origins of these ideas. Of course, such sloppy genealogies should not constitute serious conceptual analysis. I do not agree with Daniel Dannett for instance, but his affiliations with Epstein have no intellectual concern to me. I do not care whether the progenitor of the ideas is a satanist or a pedophile. What matters is whether the ideas themselves hold up to scrutiny. To think otherwise is no different from so-called anarchists dismissing Marx for being racist. This is not to mention the fact that the people who make such a claim never substitute their own terminology or anything of the sort.

If you do not concede to these arguments, I could honestly not care less. You are a subhuman unworthy of serious rhetorical consideration. I would rather see your kind receive a lego enema so that you could never sit down and pollute the internet with your nonsense.

On “biological reality”

This topic is apparently a hot button issue. I quite frankly can not understand why. Whenever people move the argument to this question, it only elicits in me an unpreventable cringe response. The rhetoric is around the following thought-terminating cliche: “leftists ignore biological reality”. Multiple things are wrong about this statement.

i) In most cases, your opponents have made a distinction between “sex” and “gender” with the latter being purported social constructs. If they are making claims about these purported socially constructed terms, then ipso facto they are not making any exclusively biological claims.

ii) The rhetorical claim here relies on a rather sinister conflation. I have often seen conservatives make the straw man that leftists somehow believe that a male no longer has a penis as soon as they claim that they do not. This is largely abstracted from the actual “debates” whenever the “biological reality” discussion is brought up. Usually, it turns to trite concerns regarding sexual categorization. A penis, however, is a datum and in the context of debate is a differentia for constructing these categories. I have never met a leftist who has earnestly thought that non-sex-eunuch estrogen consuming males lack penile tissue. To pretend this is what the discussion is about is nonsensical.

iii) That we are talking instead about categories is so abstract that I hardly see the point. If we accept that the common vocabulary is subject to the manifest image, then biological consensus is a peripheral concern. As I am not an autist, I will not say that a person, using the name “table” to pick out some spatio-temporal boundary, is “denying physical reality”.

iv) I have seen some leftists, such as dear agent Kochinski, make the repeated claim that sex is a “bimodal distribution”. The idea that this somehow constitutes an interesting objection to sexual categorizations which preclude the estrogen munchers from being classified as “female” is preposterous.

v) Often when I see these sexual categorization “debates”, there is a remarkable lack of any sort of laid out standards beforehand. This often leads to largely incoherent arguments. Here is a fictional dialogue between leftist L and rightist R which illustrates the issue:

R: Sex is a biological fact! Females can give birth!

L: What about women who are inferile or simply have no wombs?

R: Well this is not relevant as these are really describing accidents.

The final point is incoherent, for it is never made clear by what standards we should determine what aspects are essential and which are properly understood as accidents. Perhaps an approach would be to look at whether a womb was ever developed during the female’s ontogeny. In this case, they could still be classified as female after surgery as this is a clear modification of their natural state. It is not clear why this should apply to cases where these females were born infertile. I have never seen anyone elaborate further on why their arbitrary distinctions in the midst of argument are systematically salient, we may never know.

vi) Another point related to the previous. One may respond that these rare instances are “exceptions that prove the rule”. This is an idiotic misuse of the phrase. If in a country, there are laws which prohibit killing other citizens, then a “you may murder whoever you like” zone is an exception which proves the rule. The exception here is an intentional one and is, more importantly, made over a case in which we would have an unambiguous manner of determining what behaviour is appropriate (viz. that one should not murder) provided that the exception was revoked. To apply it to a problem of categorization, which is essentially the process of devising which rules are appropriate, is nonsensical. There is little stopping this stupidity to be used to defend the scholastic’s slavish adherence to Aristotle, where any counter example to his posited physical laws would be treated as mere exceptions.

vii) But even still, it is a mystery why intersex people are at all relevant. One could easily produce a coherent categorization which puts intersex into their own class and precludes estrogen consumers from being counted as women either way.

So we see here that the discussion is thoroughly nonsensical, and if you ever thought otherwise in your entire life, I think less of you.

Cartesian Dualism?

It is strange that, more than once, I have seen people make the claim that whatever ideology, which believes that gender is a coherent construct, fundamentally predicates their beliefs on dualism. Of the times I have seen this claim made, it was hardly coherent. Indeed, they would claim that if their opponents just subscribed to mind-brain identity theory, they would no longer believe gender is real.

I will have to say that this pseudo-profound posturing is unquestionably abstracted from reality. Mind-brain identity theory does nothing to address gender ideological claims that some humans may have cross-sex neurological characteristics. In fact, it provides the condition of possibility for such exploits to be intelligible. Like “biological reality”, talk about brains is largely a rhetorical device one uses to make themselves seem rational and “on the side with science” as opposed to a useful tool for conceptual analysis. It is worse still when purported Marxists subscribe to this nonsense, for they are confusing a vulgar materialism with the dialectical variety. To the extent that “gender” is a construct which concerns the superstructure, making strategic decisions regarding it is obviously idealist. But this is idealist in the political sense that is contrasted with dialectical materialism. Talk of mind-brain identity theory is merely confusing one’s terms.

This isn’t the mention, that there are both spiritual beliefs that would both support gender ideology, and those which would not. At any rate, if our discussions require metaphysics, those of this variety are irrelevant.

On pronouns

In this “debate”, as opposed to genuine concern for the concrete material problems that transgenders face (e.g. employment, housing, etc), “people” instead revolve the argument around pronouns. Worse still, they treat it as a serious metaphysical question. Thus, they begin talking nonsense about dualism and “biological reality”.

If you have been following so far, you should know my position on this discussion. That’s right, nonsense. As I have already noted, the argument first of all rests on a conflation between the manifest and scientific image, as though one ought to speak with perfect scientific rigour all the time. However, there is a less deeper reason why pronoun debate is moronic for the dimwits out there. Here it is: gender qua pronoun categorization is a grammatical class. Its relation to sex or “gender” is contingent. We use “she” to refer to boats for Christ’s sake! 

A pathetic attempt at a sly retort would be that gender pronouns ought to be used differently for animate objects whose species have sexual dimorphism. This is still ignoring prevalent language use that I hope no one would claim is ideologically motivated. For instance, a bully may use “she” in referring to a male victim in order to emasculate them. Note that the person making the speech act is not necessarily a liberal nor a gynandromorphiliac. To claim that they are denying “biological reality” is only to expose the vermin that you are. This isn’t to mention that it is not unusual to refer to drag queens with feminine pronouns as well.

Now, for this reason, I obviously believe the talk about neopronouns misunderstand language use. However, at the same time, if I were asked to “respect the pronouns” of someone wanting me to use them, I would still oblige. The reason is simple. It is because I understand language, and know that this is a matter so extraneous to any of my serious metaphysical commitments that the question of truthful description is not even a salient one.

“Gender Studies”

It amazes me that so many anti-intellectuals feel it customary to dismiss this discipline as useless whilst simultaneously making so many lapses in conceptual clarity and coherence. One of the reasons I am hesitant to refer to any of the verbal exchanges regarding this topic as in any measure “debates” is because the discourse is populated by people who talk so much about a topic they intentionally refuse to read or even think critically about.

Beyond just this, there is a bizarre tendency to come up with blind dismissal of academic sources under charges of their results being compromised by conspiratorial sources. The problem with this posture is twofold. First, it fails to do any sort of serious analysis. It is ultimately an appeal to intuition with respect to statistical topics which have some objective basis. There is a rhetorical contradiction at play here, namely that they claim that they are on the side of “truth” but they can only bring to the table a cynical will to power analysis (where things are only explained in the light of petty political squabbles as opposed to any particular aim a truth) of institutions that have determinate standards of epistemic rigour. This is all the while failing to suggest new methodologies by which to better study the phenomena in an objective light. All they have to offer is their “intuition” as though they are at all special and anyone should give a damn about their pathetic subhuman musings. This takes us to the second issue with these movements. If we take their pseudo-foucauldian (Foucault being, mind you, a far more mature thinker about scientific practice than many of these airheads) power analysis seriously, then the question remains why they do not make contributions to independent institutions and publish what they believe are properly rigorous procedures.

A particularly insulting posture some of these pea brains bring to the table is that asking for sources to their unfounded claims is somehow indicative of a moral or intellectual defect. They genuinely believe that what they are doing is acute conceptual analysis or worthwhile philosophical speculation in which a usage of statistics would be largely a peripheral concern for the larger project. Sadly, this is not what they are doing, and they are also too ignorant to know what this even looks like.

Not only is there a hypocrisy in these rhetorical tricks, but there is an inherent laziness. In dressing up one’s opponents as “delusional” or having “fundamentally different axioms” (already a silly statement, not logically but rather existentially. For presumably we all reside in the same reality ergo dialectic should be possible as long as you do not hide away from any serious attempt at discourse). This is an image of the discussion that one can only describe as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If both factions dress the other as not merely spouting nonsense (which frankly, you all are), but even incapable of rational comprehension (which I am theoretically bordering on accepting, yet the writing of this document is a practical denial of such an assumption). Furthermore, even if one’s opponent is not interested in discussion, it does not entail that one need not address their positions with a serious attempt at comprehension before ultimately concluding is all nonsense. I will have to admit that I once had a concave scalp as the average culture warrior and thought that the discourse at hand contained at least some small element of worth. However, instead of presupposing it did not, I went through these different positions and have drawn out their incoherence.

How is “gender” a social construct?

As the stooges who participate in this debate are too busy concerned with putting up unintelligible airs, they never bother to make an attempt at understanding what is meant by the claim that gender is a social construct?

First we should ask, what is a social construct? I think this is important, as there are apparent Marxists who don’t even understand what is entailed by the term. I am not too interested in a thorough analysis of what exactly the term entails. A preliminary description is that social constructs refer to functional roles which are contingent on the existence of a human society. For instance, “money” is a socially constructed phenomenon, as if there were no humans, or even only one human left, then it would be largely unintelligible why currency would have any use. I have had the displeasure of arguing with leftists who would tell me that “class” is not a social construct, as though if the last man alive could be reasonably understood as either a proletariat or a bourgeoisie.

Social constructs can have physical implications. That poor people on average eat less and have more stress due to their position in the social hierarchy doesn’t suddenly make class a physical phenomenon. To pretend otherwise is to mince explanatory vocabularies. Once again, I am pointing this out, as there are imbeciles who genuinely reason this way. Furthermore, a social construct may be contingent on material reality. For instance, before the insanity of current capitalism, money was grounded on the gold standard. Another example, clearly race qua biological differentia of categorization is indeed a biological fact. However, there is a socially constructed aspect of race as well, viz. general expected behavior of different races, and institutional features designed to maintain racial hierarchies like those of apartheid.

A common mistake is that people confuse “social construct” with “fake”. This is a shallow egoist reduction. Another error is to suppose that since certain social constructs might not be pragmatically salient, they should somehow be considered unintelligible. Race is also a good example of a final mistake: to conflate the socially constructed sense of a term with the biological sense. No one who has ever claimed that race is a social construct earnestly believes that black people are light skinned, or that blacks and whites do not have different skull shapes. Furthermore, arguments pertaining to the idea that racial categorizations lack some clear cut basis of determination are poor objections to race realist projects. This is because their opponent is trying to explain a social phenomenon (namely, racial inequality with respect to socioeconomic status).

Now that we have gotten the relatively more trivial matters in the way, let us go on to the real analysis. Our first problem is that “gender” as it is used by leftists is by their own understanding a multifaceted term. To properly understand what is meant by gender being a social construct, we should thus analyze each aspect: i) gender roles ii) gender identity iii) gender attribution.

i) This is perhaps the least controversial term here, and I personally take little offence to this. I would note, that to the extent that gender roles mediate material relations, concern about them is not an idealist endeavour. As such, the term “Marxist feminist” is not an oxymoron. I should also comment that to the extent that everyone can understand that gender roles are socially constructed, it is confusing the hesitance to accept the claim that “gender” is a social construct.

ii) Perhaps the most controversial term of the three. I personally take offence to it as well, or particularly the language used about this term and the practices used to justify its intelligibility. To say that one “feels like a woman” borders on incoherence. The reason too is quite simple. Womanhood is a universal. Furthermore, since it is presumably an intentional state, it is less primitive than mere sense data. As such, one would need multiple particulars to properly make sense of it. If we are talking about a universal experience, then we should be capable of finding a similarity amongst the females of multiple women. Now, neither the claimant, nor any other participant for that matter, are capable of transcending their own mind and literally having the experiences of another person.

This is needless to say very problematic. One must give either a causal or functional account of what exactly this experience of womanhood consists in for it to not be completely nonsensical. A correspondent of mine has made the suggestion that it consists in regular positive or negative responses to certain stereotypical items. For instance, feeling warm on the prospect of wearing a dress. This explains why one may come to the eventual claim that one is somehow a “woman on the inside”, but the question of course is whether this makes sense? In a poetic manner, sure, but I would think something more substantial is desirable. One may ask why this is not enough. The reason is because it doesn’t preclude other etiological explanations such as autogynephilia. A common strategy used to try and defend gender identity as a construct is to look at brain scans and observe structural similarities between estrogen munchers and natal females. 

The issue first of all is that there are studies which demonstrate such similarities between natal females and homosexual males. Moreover, autogynephilia could easily be neurological and structural similarities with a female brain could be observed here as well. This however doesn’t necessarily point to them sharing some universal experience. This scratches with a broader issue with how autogynephilia is often treated in this discourse. A strange claim in response to discussion about this paraphilia is that women have AGP as well. It seems to make the mistake of conflating analogy with essence. For instance, a rubber ball might be red, but this does not immediately entail that it is an apple. In this case, even if women have autogynephilia it could easily just be a mere confounding variable for behaviour.

This approach for proponents of gender identity is also ideologically problematic as it gives legitimacy to neo-liberal attempts at justifying patriarchal structures e.g. evolutionary psychology. This may not be intentional, but the connection here is tenable enough that some caution should be raised in these discussions. A more important implication in this direction is that it is unclear, if we take the neurological sexed characteristic route, why gender here should be understood as a social construct. This is a broader issue in any attempt to give this purported feminine experience a definite (meta)physical essence.

At the very least, the dispositionalist approach at least provides some basic characterization for what gender “dysphoria” and “euphoria” might entail. Whether or not these are terms which should be taken seriously is a matter for another discussion.

Another way of understanding the “experience of womanhood” could pertain to the social experiences one faces because of one’s sexual characteristics. Whilst this is genuine, it easily subsumed into (i).

iii) I do not see this one discussed nearly as much nor is it interesting. The problems with them really come from a misunderstanding of how this term relates to the other two: i) particular gender attribution really feeds into (i) as it is a prerequisite for reinforcing gender/sex-based norms upon an individual ii) its relation to “validation”

i) Gender attribution when interfaced with gender roles function as the medium through which gender roles are enforced. This is done, based on a certain complex of signs which include a human organism, by an interpreter. A common claim brought up is that people would be more accepting of transgenders if they “passed” better or made more of an attempt to conform to gender norms. One of the problems with this is that some people who use it conflate how individual trans people are seen and the image of trans people in general. In particular, stereotypes, to have any intelligibility, should have fuzzy boundaries which include certain objects and exclude others. To reinforce a stereotype, an instance needs to conform to these boundaries. In the case of passing however, the individual by definition fits the stereotype of a natal female to an interpreter, thus no positive reinforcement should take place.

Moreover, if they were seriously trying to “pass”, they would not out their out themselves as transgender in order to solve the quandary. The suggestion then is on its face a shallow one. This is ignoring the practical question of whether people would really accept transgressors of folk boundaries merely because they are physically attractive.

ii) This one is even more interesting than the last since it involves interaction with the suspect concept of “gender identity”. My arguments against it should transfer to here. It is generally too easy to deflate the question into one of mere attribution to an arbitrary class if one isn’t careful.

How many genders?

In order to count from a set, you must be capable of counting singular entities. Thus we must first have proper criterion of individuation. What is basic for this is properties which differentiate particular entities from others. Moreover, it would be appropriate to have an equivalence criterion based on which we can count multiple entities as reasonably just one entity. Now this criterion need not be synchronic, but may be diachronic* as well. This is relevant when for instance determining the identity for an organism over time. 

From what we have said previously, it should be clear that if there is a coherent account of the concept of gender, it should mostly concern social roles and mediate material relations. It follows that these should be our basis for equivalence and differentiation should be based on these as well. Now, to the extent that these are contingent on culture, it is entirely conceivable that different cultures have organized their social roles in ways which are not binary. What however can we take from this? If you are not a cretin, the only logical conclusion is that to ask “how many genders there are” without qualification is just a category error. As such, please refrain from plaguing the thinking man with such mind numbing statements.

Now if we are of average intelligence, and thus apply the qualification in “western civilization” the number is obviously two. The trinary gender roles of some first nations cultures do not concern us. You are a white girl. You are not a witch doctor. “Non-binary” has designated gender roles so at best it is a shallow agreement between gender attribution and gender identity. However, since there are no determinate social roles involved, it simply lacks substance. I simply can’t get myself to take seriously a person’s claim to something which they do not even make the attempt to take an ontological stance on.

*Diachronicity in our analysis is implicitly necessary when counting the genders of a civilization that has gone through multiple modes of production. As it is not central to the discussion, I do not feel the need to elaborate on this point further.


Transmedicalism is the claim that in order for one to be transgender, one must either be transitioning or desire to be transitioning. In other words the transmedicalist is too lazy to use the terms “transexual” and “transexual aspirant”. If the question is about changing one’s sexual characteristic, then to use the term transgender is a brutish misnomer. Beyond this, the controversy is a shallow one. Transexuals face unique issues that non-transitioning transgenders do not have. If this is their focus, then I see nothing interesting. Keep in mind that it is not as though transmedicalists are providing a deflationary account of transgenderism as an attempt to explain all phenomena which would be categorized under usages of the word. As such, it is hardly a metaphysical position. This “debate” then is just another moronic argument about how a little word should be used because no one who takes this culture war travesty seriously seems to have even a modicum of critical thinking.


I don’t think there is much conceptual incoherence here. It is just that the femboy meme seriously grinds my gears. Particularly, the reason why the question of whether or not femboys are transgender is predicated on the asinine posture that femboys are “superior” because they are not delusional enough to expect you to use gendered pronouns like the transgenders. Why I pointed out pronoun discourse is moronic more or less covers why this premise is cringe inducing. It is more damning when we consider drag queens who are not even transgender but it is customary to refer to them with feminine pronouns anyways.

It is worse with the term “HRT femboys” which are not at all “trans” when they are at they are at the very least transexual by the act of actively taking cross sex hormones. One might think it appropriate that there are gender dysphoric femboys here too though I do not take the position that dysphoria automatically translates to being either transgender or transexual.

Another qualm I have with the meme is that they are often construed as “naturally feminine males” despite the fact that their cartoon depictions all have people with wider hips than my mother’s and generally more feminine than any woman I have ever met.

I’ve also seen people try to say that femboys are somehow radical because of their ostensible gender non-conforming behaviour. Some even behave as though this is the correct route towards gender abolition. I think, if it demonstrates anything, it only shows that the idea of politics held by many culture warriors is facile. It is a sad state of affairs that people confuse theatrical performances, which have little relation to everyday life, for genuine social change. To hell with all the subhumans that think their cultural pseudo-analysis is worth a damn.

Is “trap” a slur?

Another unintelligible topic of little worth to anyone capable of minimal thinking capacities. It is often claimed that trap is a slur. There are two ways one might attempt to defend this which are both unsatisfying: i) a slur must be customarily used in a disparaging manner ii) a slur must be used in the context of promoting harmful stereotypes.

i) This one is very clearly factually untrue. The vast majority of the people who have used this term come from anime communities which regard it as a semi-comedic one.

ii) Now this point is actually very deceptive and unfortunately the approach most people use to attack the term usage. The harmful stereotype located in question is that it plays to the notion that trans people are trying to trap men into have sex with them. To support this, they cite transphobic violent crime statistics, and the term usage by ostensible transphobes. The issue is that our connection here is merely vague and literary as opposed to having any real coherence. On the one hand, with violent crime statistics, we have to ask if those murdering trans people on the streets are using this term. The answer will most likely come out negative unless there is a murderous otaku current that I am ignorant of. It is remarkable that the communities where this violence does take place more often are poor black ones. Violent crime should not even be a worry to middle class white transgenders, and moreover if they actually cared about the experiences of poor black trans people they would be focusing on the actual circumstances in which they experience more violence. On the other hand, we have the use by white nationalists who probably appropriated the usage of the term from sites such as 4chan which have had a historic anime current. The question is whether when they say trap they mean it in a violent and demeaning way as opposed to an ironic one. This doesn’t strike me as true either. I am skeptical in particular that many people have used “trap” in the context of calls for genocide or that transgenders trapping men is central to rightist anti-trans rhetoric.

When most people want to use disparaging terms pertaining to trans people, more apt ones would be either “tr*nny” or the misappropriation of the term “troon” (which, by the way, originally only meant “trans goon”, but culture warriors are incapable of lurking. This is one of the many reasons their kind should be extinguished from any self-respecting virtual community).

I also have a tangent on the side of anti-transgender violence in black communities. I have observed certain transgender communities turn to outright racism after Dave Chappelle’s little skit (which, mind you, no respectable person should have bothered watching). They went back to this time old argument regarding black male on white transgender crime. Of course their argument was incoherent. They merely pushes race and crime statistics and interracial crime statistics as though these are somehow sufficient to demonstrate that poor black males commit violent crimes against middle class white transgenders as themselves. Truth be told, black transgenders are clearly the main recipients of this violence. We can infer this statistically and on the principle that people generally only target those they know. A common strategy they use when you point this out is to bring up the genuine issues which these white transgenders face. Of course, this is a non-sequitur. No one is claiming that these people do not face issues, but black men are not significantly one of them. The argument is not about “victim points”, but rather the purported white transgender victimization due to black men. All in all, it is just another case of idiots bringing to light issues which do not affect them despite the pretension that they somehow do.


This is another cringe term which stupid mouth breathers throw around with little comprehension of its implications. The existence of this paraphilia is often portrayed as this dark secret that liberals refuse to acknowledge. Even if we take it as a serious element in transitioning, does it really matter? There is this pretension that autogynephiles should, instead of taking cross-sex hormones, go see a therapist. The problem with this is multifaceted.

I will start with factual matters simply as I find them amusing. The first is that these people do not seem to understand what strategies are commonly used in the treatment of paraphilias. Cognitive behavioural therapy is used primarily to stop people from acting compulsively based on their interests. A prototypical example of this would be that a non-offending pedophile might have this done to try and reduce their child porn consumption. This doesn’t necessarily reduce arousal, or at the very least arousal reduction is not its usual concern. As such we are not annulling the desire itself. Another approach that comes with this might be to give the paraphiliac SSRIs. No, sorry, pimozide is an antipsychotic so this is an utterly inappropriate medication. If these don’t work or there has been extreme action (for instance child rape), then the paraphiliac is administered anti-androgens. Yes, you heard that right. Turing, after being administered chemical castration, eventually grew breasts before killing himself. Strangely, this sort of treatment even if it were efficacious has never been advocated by a culture warrior.

Secondly, it ignores that autogynephilia may develop into serious gender dysphoria (both social and anatomical), and this is a phenomenon that has been recorded by professors such as Blanchard before transgenderism was a popular topic in the media. It is unclear whether or not the mild non-hormone-altering treatment for paraphilias would not only treat autogynephilia but also its resultant gender dysphoria.

Speaking of Blanchard, we have a third point. He himself, the person who devised this supposed dark typology in the first place, thinks that hormone replacement therapy is indeed an appropriate treatment for autogynephiles. So prima facie, the mere fact that it’s a paraphilia doesn’t immediately transfer to the idea that HRT as a treatment is somehow inappropriate. Moreover, one of the reasons why anti-androgens is not the immediate treatment has more to do with questions of whether or not the average man would be fine being chemically castrated. This assumption can not hold for abnormal populations, efficacy of the other options aside.

So far what we have discussed is mostly to show that the practical importance of pointing out autogynephilia isn’t as ideologically important as some people believe it is. On the conceptual side of things, it is remarkable to note that most people’s idea of autogynephilia is a ridiculous caricature which has little to do with how humans actually operate. The dismissal of it as a mere fetish is not only practically but also explanatorily facile. A “mere fetish” would not provide anyone serious motivation to cut a bodily organ off. The idea that the etiology of this desire is due to propaganda is an anachronistic point since, as previously mentioned, severely dysphoric autogynephiles have been recorded long before the current culture war craze regarding transgenders. Fetishes are merely abnormal, whilst paraphilias are intense and often life altering. A man with autogynephilia may be completely incapable of any serious sexual relations with another person. To say this is due to narcissism is another cartoonish oversimplification that you have to have microcephaly to earnestly make. There is no image of oneself whose protection constitutes autogynephilic attraction. Moreover, it is an erotic target location error as opposed to psychosis. If autogynephiliacs really believed that they had female bodies, then dysphoria would be impossible.

The fetish simplification also obscures the etiology of it. Perhaps social contagions transmitted by pornography may be the cause of developing fetishes, but this is not necessarily the case for paraphilias. The idea that pedophilia can be somehow be transmitted by watching MILFs is outrageous and not simply lacks substantiation. It only seems reasonable because of the conflation between merely abnormal sexual action with extreme. No matter how bored you get of the “normal stuff” you will likely never get a fetish for outright gore (despite the fact that there are plenty of people who are sexually aroused by such things), nor (if you are a straight male) masc4masc barebacking (my choice here is specific, as people erroneously think gynandromorphic characteristics are somehow a thing which can only be fetishized due to extreme porn exposure, when we see that this sort of sexual generalization is rather unremarkable despite being arguably abnormal).

The common trans rights activist perspective is not at all impressive either. I have already explained some objections in the previous section on in what sense “gender” is a social construct. Just as there is little pragmatic reason for anti-TRAs to go down the route of calling out autogynephilia, there is thus a lack of reason for TRAs themselves to deny the typology. These commitments are not merely superficial as they are politically based, but they are superficially political. Another common rhetorical line I see is that it is dysphoria which comes first and autogynephilia second. I have never seen this claim substantiated, and its motivation for acceptance seems to be based on similar lapses in conceptual comprehension as I have outlined above.

Another pointless, moronic topic which I have grown stupider paying attention to.

Gender “Critical”?

The term “gender critical” to describe a feminist is on its face superfluous. Using it as a differentiating description is as cringe inducing as how Randians call themselves “objectivists”, how Yudkowskiites refer to themselves as “rationalists”, or how new atheists refer to themselves as “skeptics” (how the pyrrhonians weep!). The term “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists” doesn’t make much sense either. As these people have the mental capacities of infants, it will be more appropriate to call them “rattle feminists”.

What is their argument? Do they have one? I think you know my answer. To summarize their position, they are “gender abolitionists” who insist on using the vocabulary of outright gender nihilists. A common retort to support this idea is that their oppression is based on sex. I have already addressed why this is a stupid objection. Contingencies are not sufficient to make something not be all the same socially constructed. Money based on the gold standard does not suddenly make economics an area of study reducible to the methodology and observable phenomena of the physical sciences. Of course, this is something they should understand well. To the extent that they understand that patriarchy is a social structure which has historical contingencies, they should commit to the existence of gender roles as explanatory devices. But to that extent, they also commit to gender. To conclude, the terminological discussions here are facile.

“Thankfully”, that is not their complete position. The other main side of the argument is that, transwomen by attempting to achieve certain gender attributions are really affirming gender stereotypes. Most culture warriors reading such a statement, as they are boneheaded, would not see the immediate problem with this claim. We must note that to them these gender stereotypes really have their root in sex based oppression. It should also be taken seriously their insistence that no transgender genuinely passes. If we translate their claim we get the following: “natal males, by acting out the sex based stereotypes of natal females, reinforce these sex based stereotypes despite them not being attributed to as natal females”. By my analysis of stereotype reinforcement from individuals, why this is true is a mystery and I have never seen a rattle feminist elaborate further. Putting the problem in broader strokes, if the oppression is sex based, the “gender non-conforming” behaviour of natal males is utterly contingent to the struggles of natal females.

The main issue here is that the rattle feminist wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to avoid any form of solidarity with natal males as this would be apparently an idealist position. However, at the same time, they believe that these natal males are still somehow metonymically related to themselves enough that their behaviour should be a detriment to their causes. They wow listeners that know little better with an apparent theoretical sophistication whilst their position is at its base incoherent. If we were to look at actual discourse, (using here TRA terminology) I have never seen a trans woman do something strange and someone immediately thought “cis women are weird”. All of this is also discounting the degenerate natal females and pick-mes that far outnumber the transgender population. Like with all culture war idiocy, attention is not proportional to relevance.

Concerning women’s sports

We first note that this topic has little if anything to do with gender abolition. The argument is often subsumed under the general pseudo-metaphysical phantasmagoria of “biological reality”. Like I have been doing throughout this rotten essay, it is time to point out obvious things that people with intact prefrontal cortexes should find unremarkable. Firstly, the division of sports by sex has only pragmatic import. Sex is a general predictor for the performance on different physical task. Obviously the distribution in performances are overlapping, and it is indeed possible for a man to be worse than a woman in a sport where men normally pull out higher scores. As sex merely has an instrumental use in this context it is inappropriate to centre the discussion around sexual categorization (but of course since everyone is an utter imbecile they will). To do so would be akin to arguing about whether the baseball bat (which I may use to beat some sense into whoever is reading this document) is a hammer merely because someone wants to use it to hammer down the nail. It is ironic as letting transgenders in female sports would be precisely an exception that proves the rule (as opposed to the incorrect, incoherent usages of the term some “persons” make).

Instead of arguing about the metaphysics of the tool, we should ask ourselves if it is appropriate to use other tools. An example of a salient factual question would be whether or not cross-sex hormones are a suitable criteria for ensuring competition between transexual natal males and non-transexual natal females are fair. Such concerns, while important, are largely beneath conceptual consideration, and is furthermore a dispute which can be resolved by techno-scientific means. There are of course conspiracy theorists which would object to the factuality of these studies. These people are subhumans that I quite frankly have very little interest in addressing seriously.

The question of women’s bathrooms is also for the record uninteresting for much of the reasons already outlined in this section. It is just another unfounded concern which one should look to resolve via statistical analysis.

What is lesbianism?

Like most things, discussion about this is asinine. What exactly “lesbian” means has very little to do with the actual topic at hand. It is another case of arguing about how to use some cluster of phonemes and it seems like people are more attached to the sound of the world than the substance. Now, the essential question behind this false one is whether or not there are prejudices against transgender people in dating. Perhaps. However, the true issue is that there is not a practical outcome of such an observation. The scaremongering people make that TRAs want to force gay conversion therapies, whilst of course fantastical, is rooted in this the strategic vaccuousness that comes from these topics pertaining to biases in dating preferences. This is the problem with focusing on most superstructural issues. There is nothing more frustrating than watching people piss out observations in the open without concern for whether or not they are locating problems which can be genuinely dealt with.

Is transgenderism a mental illness?

If we take the distinction between “transgender” and “transsexual” seriously, and base on our interpretation on the etymological construction of the term, our understanding of what the term “transgender” should entail would be that it concerns someone who has taken body modifications and gender performances that they may be attributed in a fashion prototypical of the opposite sex. This attribution should result in differential social treatment which extends to material relations. As there is nothing psychological to this, to call it a mental illness is merely a category error. Similarly, an analysis of most accounts of transsexualism should reveal this attribution to be a category error as well.

Is gender dysphoria a mental illness? Most certainty. There seems to be many amusing conflations about what this entails. Whilst they are silly, they are at the very least understandable, for a lot of language about gender tends to be reified into pseudo-metaphysical categories because of its vagueness. No, gender dysphoria is not necessarily tied to psychosis if we were to take a dispositional (i.e. actually coherent) view of gender identity. This however does not prevent it from being a mental illness. Progressives very often feel the need to use “affirmative” signifiers even if their talk borders on performative contradiction. If gender dysphoria were not a mental illness, then a treatment for it would be wholly incoherent. This just comes from any reasonable understanding of “treatment”.


Another boring topic, another section. I have some trouble with this one as it is not outright incoherent. One question however: why are these people important? What we take from the existence of detransitioners is that transitioning is a decision one might regret. Furthermore, misdiagnoses are possible which results in mismedication. The stakes here are high, but this detail is only a problem for the “actuary”. As I fail to see many real discussions about risk management, I can only conclude that we are dealing with another theatrical concern with little basis in reality. It makes little sense to ban treatment via hormone replacement therapy and “sex reassignment surgery” (another strange misnomer though this is unimportant) altogether just because there are caveats of some significance which one has not bothered to properly measure.

There are plenty of treatments that are high risk but are done because there are no other options. Merely banning a treatment without making a serious venture into alternatives should be justified on the basis of a purported lack of efficacy (which has failed to be provided) and that the risks of treatment are far higher than the risks without treatment (an exercise in risk management).  An asinine objection is to mention Bodily Integrity Dysmorphia as though this is a clear knock down argument. No serious thinker should be impressed by this. First of all BID has little studied on alternative treatments to straight up amputation. Whether or not removal of body parts is an ethical approach is also a controversial issue. Of course, the culture warrior has little interest for such intricacies, and neither do I. I am only addressing this topic because of how much I see transgenders spammed about on imageboards.

Occasionally a serious approach to the problem does occur, but only in a sea of nonsense rhetoric about “the other side” being cultish and indoctrinating dysphorics. Worst of all, the pedophilia accusations, as “you are a pedophile!” is apparently the new Godwin’s law. This is also an obviously unfounded labelling, as delaying the development of sexual characteristics is precisely the opposite of sexualization. Then there is the nonsense about children consenting which is an utterly unrelated issue. Even if they could not, then the responsibility should be on the parent’s part which is customary for any other form of medical treatment.

Calling trans rights activism a cult is a conceptual reach so far that I am tempted to assume it is satirical. That, of course, is my misanthropy waning with the exhaustion of writing this essay in a single day. If there are zealots, then they can be easily observed on both sides of the “debate”. If there are people who are willing to ostracize dissidents, it also seems to me like a bipartisan phenomena. Moreover, I have never seen a trans rights activist insulting a detransitioner for the mere act of detransitioning, yet this is a common fiction propagated.

The cult assertions themselves really play into the commentary I made regarding “gender studies”. They demonstrate little interest in lucid discussion. Rather we should all apparently be as sensational as possible. There should be nothing controversial about looking for alternative treatments to gender dysphoria. Those that believe otherwise want to reify transexuality into an identity. To the extent that dysphoria is a medical issue however, this claim is just as nonsensical as a conviction that schizophrenia is an identity, and its treatment is genocidal.


To conclude, most of this discussion is unintelligible or grounded on non-sequiturs, and I am frankly shocked that anyone takes it seriously. There is nothing worse than a poorly constructed argument, and I have laboured to catalogue these prevalent errors where I have found them. It is only asked of the dear reader that they should, for once in their life, make the wise decision and abide by the maxim: “whereof one can not speak, one must remain silent”. I hope this document can help to speed up this idiotic discussion so that the culture warrior zeitgeist can move to robowaifus which is a topic, while I predict plenty of nonsensical arguments shall arise regarding it, I can at the very least use as a platform to properly recruit more people who could be intrigued by my theoretical ventures regarding artificial general intelligence.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *