Sit down and read this essay in The New York Times by Andrea Long Chu. It is, inadvertently, an icon of our radically disordered culture. Here’s how it starts:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.

Could there possibly be a more succinct statement of our very particular cultural madness? What I want is against nature, and I believe it will make me miserable, but I want it, and you had all better give it to me. 

Chu goes on to say that being on estrogen has made him even unhappier than he was to begin with:

Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began transition. I now feel very strongly about the length of my index fingers — enough that I will sometimes shyly unthread my hand from my girlfriend’s as we walk down the street. When she tells me I’m beautiful, I resent it. I’ve been outside. I know what beautiful looks like. Don’t patronize me.

I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.

I won’t go through with it, probably. Killing is icky. I tell you this not because I’m cruising for sympathy but to prepare you for what I’m telling you now: I still want this, all of it. I want the tears; I want the pain. Transition doesn’t have to make me happy for me to want it. Left to their own devices, people will rarely pursue what makes them feel good in the long term. Desire and happiness are independent agents.


But I also believe that surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want. Beyond this, no amount of pain, anticipated or continuing, justifies its withholding.

Nothing, not even surgery, will grant me the mute simplicity of having always been a woman. I will live with this, or I won’t. That’s fine. The negative passions — grief, self-loathing, shame, regret — are as much a human right as universal health care, or food. There are no good outcomes in transition. There are only people, begging to be taken seriously.

Read the whole thing. 

Do you see what’s happening here? Chu says that the treatments doctors have given him are making him sicker, even making him desire suicide. But if he wants to suffer and to die, then he should have that right. Satisfying desire is the only thing that matters.  

This poor man with asparagus-colored hair is going to submit to mutilation next week, and will have to spend the rest of his life inserting an object into the wound surgeons will have made in his pubic area, to prevent his body from healing itself. This man — “like many of my trans friends” — expects this medical procedure to make him no happier, and in fact may make him feel more miserable, even suicidal.

But he wants it. People like him want all of society to upend its laws, its customs, and its norms to facilitate that desire, and to act like there’s nothing wrong with it. And society is giving them what they want, and punishing those who deny that this is paradise.

Freeing the autonomous will from sex and gender norms is the summum bonum of contemporary American progressivism. The insatiably miserable Andrea Long Chu is its incarnation.

From The Benedict Option:

“The significance of sexual difference has never before been contingent upon a creature’s preferences, or upon whether or not God gave it episodically to a particular creature to have certain preferences,” writes Catholic theologian Christopher Roberts. He goes on to say that for Christians, the meaning of sexuality has always depended on its relationship to the created order and to eschatology—the ultimate end of man. “As was particularly clear, perhaps for the first time in Luther, the fact of a sexually differentiated creation is reckoned to human beings as a piece of information from God about who and what it meant to be human,” writes Roberts.

Contrary to modern gender theory, the question is not Are we men or women? but How are we to be male and female together? The legitimacy of our sexual desire is limited by the givenness of nature. The facts of our biology are not incidental to our personhood. Marriage has to be sexually complementary because only the male-female pair mirrors the generativity of the divine order. “Male and female he made them,” says Genesis, revealing that complementarity is written into the nature of reality.

Easy divorce stretches the sacred bond of matrimony to the breaking point, but it does not deny complementarity. Gay marriage does. Similarly, transgenderism doesn’t merely bend but breaks the biological and metaphysical reality of male and female. Everything in this debate (and many others between traditional Christianity and modernity) turns on how we answer the question: Is the natural world and its limits a given, or are we free to do with it whatever we desire?

Andrea Long Chu’s sexualized wound that will never heal is progressivism’s answer. More from The Benedict Option:

Future historians will wonder how the sexual desires of only three to four percent of the population became the fulcrum on which an entire worldview was dislodged and overturned. A partial answer is that the media are to blame. Back in 1993, a cover story in the Nation identified the gay rights cause as the summit and keystone of the culture war:

All the crosscurrents of present-day liberation struggles are subsumed in the gay struggle. The gay moment is in some ways similar to the moment that other communities have experienced in the nation’s past, but it is also something more, because sexual identity is in crisis throughout the population, and gay people—at once the most conspicuous subjects and objects of the crisis—have been forced to invent a complete cosmology to grasp it. No one says the changes will come easily. But it’s just possible that a small and despised sexual minority will change America forever.

We have gone beyond gay people to allow transgender people — fewer than one percent of the population — to change America forever.

Progressives! They make a desert and call it peace. They carve a gash and call it a vagina. They make us all insane, and call the sane crazy.

If you want to save yourself and your children from this doom, turn your back on it now. Let the dead bury their dead. Let our finest surgeons gouge holes into our mentally ill young people, and call them heroes.

What about the Hippocratic Oath? Here you have someone declaring on the pages of The New York Times that the surgery he is about to have will not make him happier, and in fact may drive him to suicide. But he doesn’t care. He wants that he wants. In a just order, those surgeons would be charged with a crime if they go through with this. Desire is the only criterion of health, is that where we are now? What if someone desires to have their legs amputated? Or to commit suicide? Where are the limits?

Nihilists. We are nothing but nihilists. We are wicked and deserve to be judged.

UPDATE: From Andrea Long Chu’s Go Fund Me appeal for surgery:

Transition is expensive. I’m lucky enough to have insurance that covers hormones and (most of) vaginoplasty, which I am getting in November. Everything else, including facial feminization surgery, hip augmentation surgery, vocal surgery, is considered “cosmetic,” and therefore insurance won’t cover it. That makes paying out of pocket the only option.

I live on a stipend from NYU, where I’m a doctoral student, plus money I make writing freelance. I’m hoping to sell a trade book in the next year, but that remains to be seen, and even if it’s a good deal it may not free up the funds necessary for my surgeries.

Dysphoria can be hard to describe. I’ve said elsewhere it feels like heartbreak. I like to talk a big talk about how all transition-related surgeries are cosmetic, and they are—no one wants to transition into an ugly person—but it’s also true that without any of these surgeries my suicide risk is much, much higher.

Give me money for surgery or I might kill myself. Or, according to me in The New York Times, give me money for surgery and I might kill myself anyway. It’s my right!  

UPDATE.2: Transgender columnist at the NYT miffed that Chu is off-Narrative:

“Gooshy miracle.”

UPDATE.3: On Chu’s website, he posts a PDF link to a paper he delivered earlier this year at a Columbia University conference. This is the kind of thing they’re talking about at one of America’s great universities. The paper is titled “Did Sissy Porn Make Me Trans?” There are no images, but don’t click through to it and start reading unless you are prepared to go to an extremely dark place. I almost didn’t post this here, but after thinking about it, I concluded that it’s actually vitally important to know.

I’m going to summarize the paper for those who don’t want to read it. Again, I cannot caution you strongly enough about its content, and the pornographic images Chu describes in detail in the paper.

The paper’s title comes from a comment Chu saw on an online forum. “Sissy porn,” we learn from the paper, is a genre in which submissive men are forced to have sex with other men, in such a way that their masculinity is forcibly taken from them. Chu says this genre is also called “forced feminization porn.” Chu says that sissy porn explicitly intends to turn male viewers into transsexuals, in part by “instruct[ing] them to understand their addiction to the genre as constitutive of their own feminization.” Chu writes:

Now Jon would hardly be the first closeted trans woman whose gender dysphoria felt like porn addiction. Indeed, the internet is full of women like this, if you know where to look. The phenomenon is common enough, in fact, to have given rise to an entire subgenre of anxiety fielding on the popular discussion website Reddit. In typical post from 2014, titled “Did sissy porn make me trans or was I trans all along?,” one user writes: “About 3 years ago, I discovered sissy hypno videos [that’s “hypno” like short for “hypnotism”], which in a nutshell are flashing subjective images telling you to wear panties, be girly… and even take hormones. I became completely obsessed with these videos….”

This person is now “95% sure she is trans,” writes Chu.

Now, imagine a confused 12-year-old boy — perhaps one experiencing same-sex desires — finding sissy porn on his smartphone, and giving himself over to it. It’s only a few clicks away.

Chu goes on to talk about the dynamics of sissy porn. Here’s is a key portion, one I can quote here

Sissyhood is not the obliteration of subjectivity, but its diminishment. Sissies have selves, in other words, but these selves are simplified, emptied, dumb. The technical term for this is bimboification. Numerous captions instruct spectators to submit themselves to hypnosis, brainwashing, brain-melting, and other techniques for scooping out intelligence.

Chu describes, unprintably, that the porn video’s explicit instructions order the viewer to surrender his entire to the sexually dominant male’s desires. The act of sexual submission is not only castration, and the willed destruction of the submissive’s masculinity, it is — this is crucial — also the willed destruction of personhood. Of sexualizing the desire for obliteration.

What Chu describes here is the process of demonic possession. If that is what is in Andrea Long Chu’s head, no wonder he is depressed and suicidal. This is profoundly evil stuff.

UPDATE.4: Read this comment. Do you let your kid have a smartphone and/or unsupervised Internet access? You might want to rethink that:

The third update really struck a cord with me. I am familiar with sissy porn, having discovered it in high school, and it’s much broader than what Chu is referring to. Some background on me: I am a millennial, I was raised Catholic, and I first discovered Internet porn at a friend’s house when I was 12 years old.

When I was in high school and we first got Internet access at home, I used it to look for porn when no one was around. In the first few years, I had pretty typical straight teenage boy interests when it came to porn. Having been poorly formed in male-female dynamics, however, I was very interested in having power over women, and this led me to search for hypnosis.

Since this was a very small niche back then (I imagine there’s a large catalog for every fetish out there now), I absorbed whatever material I could find, and within a few months, this led me to the site of a woman who specialized in hypnotizing men and making them think they were women. Although the latter part just seemed gross, as I had no interest in being a woman, something about the power exchange appealed to me, even though it never did before. I have a theory that this is a pattern for frequent porn users: they may initially look for other things, but with enough exposure, they desire to be a passive sexual participant since it involves less effort on their part.

Despite the feminization aspect, I kept going down this rabbit hole as the thought of being the submissive one was appealing. So I did my best to avoid the sissy stuff at first, reading stories, downloading audios, and later watching videos where women claimed to hypnotize men (there is a whole cottage industry of female hypnotists who record audios and videos for this purpose, which I would not encourage you or your readers to investigate). As much as I tried to avoid it, though, the sissy audios and videos were hard to miss. There was clearly a market for it since so much was being produced, and I would occasionally partake when it was what I could find for free. Eventually, I didn’t care what they asked me to do in these recordings. Being under the power of a woman was what was appealing.

By the time I reached my 20s, I was in deep. Later in my 20s, I also discovered the free streaming porn sites, and I was eager to see what content I could find on them. I’d just throw in a few hypnosis key words in my search, and the sissy hypno videos that Chu wrote about started popping up. In fact, they seemed to be the bulk of the hypnosis themed content. I clicked a few of them, since I couldn’t find much else. They’d usually feature transsexual images or video clips with words popping up suggesting that the viewer engage in female grooming or sexual behavior. The audio for these was either airy pop songs, the female hypnotists I’d discovered before, moaning noises, or some combination of the above.

The discovery of these videos led me to reflect on how big my problem had become. From high school through my 20s, I’d gone from looking at pictures of naked women to watching videos of women hypnotizing men or abusing them. And you’d better believe there was some transsexual porn in there too – I doubt many who look at what I looked at don’t eventually come around to seeking transsexual porn, too.

On the non-porn side of life, I had no ability to attract women or get a girlfriend, probably because porn had convinced me to be passive and wait for them to come to me. With no success with women as a man, transitioning seemed like it might give me a shot at happiness and sexual prospects. I began browsing transgender forums and reading their literature and web comics. I looked into what it would take for me to start hormone replacement therapy. If it weren’t for my Catholic upbringing and the crazy advice they gave on these forums (lie to therapists, separate yourself from family and friends who don’t respect your decision, etc.), I might have made an irreversible mistake.

Although most transgender forums deny that sissy porn has any impact on their decision to transition, there are places where they are a little more forthcoming: 4chan and similar anonymous style message boards. While it’s hard to tell who’s telling the truth and who isn’t on these boards, an awful lot of them feature transsexual/sissy porn and are frequented by posters who claim to be transsexual themselves. There’s one in particular designed for lonely un(der)employed young men where threads regularly appear suggesting that they look for transsexual girlfriends or become transsexual themselves, often offering advice on how to get started.

I don’t know who’s making all of this stuff, but with all the videos and message board posts, there is an awful lot of content being produced that seems to be designed to reach lonely young men and recruit them into the ranks of the transsexual community. Content doesn’t make itself. Someone is putting a lot of effort into this. There are so many of these sissy hypnosis videos, and those take time to edit. And on 4chan and similar forums, posts disappear quickly. To keep appearing near the top, people have to start new threads, which we’re not dealing with a few actors who made some videos and retired – some people are still at work trying to recruit young men who are addicted to porn and feel like they have nothing going for them. Who these actors are and what they want, I cannot say.

I am fortunate that I rediscovered my faith in adulthood and got my act together. I have since married and am raising children with my wife. However, it still haunts me to think how differently things may have gone for me, and I pray regularly for boys and young men who took the other path or face a temptation to that path. I did not feel any predisposition to homosexuality or gender confusion, and yet it almost ensnared me.

Posted in , , . Tagged , , .

Hide 238 comments

238 Responses to Andrea Long Chu’s Fake Vagina

← Older Comments
  1. Christian says:

    And eunuchs! to guard their harems, eventually!

    since you can’t go round chopping people’s bits off anymore… but you can fund billions of dollars into getting them to ‘consent’ to it…

  2. EngineerScotty says:

    “Gaslighting” refers, of course, to the movie Gaslight in which (IIRC) a sadistic husband attempts to brainwash his bride by turning down the gas to the house and causing the lights therein to dim, all while insisting that nothing is wrong with the lighting and it’s all in her mind.

    As Siarlys points out, the word is suffering from overuse; particularly from those on the left (and “liberals”, to the extent these are distinct) who accuse Trump of such. Trump certainly utters a lot of whoppers in public concerning things that are easily fact-checked; and “gets away with it” in that his political patrons and constituents don’t seem to mind or do anything to hold him to account. OTOH, as far as “gaslighting” goes; I’m not sure that Trump has been as successful as the term implies–a sound majority of the population disapproves of him and generally considers him to be full of sh1t, and we still have (for now, at least) a robust and critical media.

    As for my initial claim–I was claiming that the belief that “gender is unconnected to biology” is a fringe belief. Raskolnik’s citation of Nature does’t really contradict that. The article in question does distinguish between “sex” and “gender”, defining the former along biological terms and the latter along sociological terms; but the claim often heard on the right is that the “cultural left” wants to utterly obliterate such distinctions. Of course, many on the right seem to want to do the same thing, just in the opposite direction. (And even if one subscribes to the axiom that “gender” is sociologically or culturally defined; any examination of current cultural attitudes in place pretty much everywhere, will reveal an extremely high correlation to physical sex, even if not 100%).

    If Raskolnik wants to engage in “Alice in Wonderland” arguments, I suppose I can’t stop him. But then, he frequently accuses me of race treason and similar, so I guess an accusation of gaslighting ought to be considered par for the course.

  3. C. L. H. Daniels says:

    But Scotty knows that. He knows all of this.

    And he’s lying about it.

    But he claims otherwise anyway.

    Because he’s trying to gaslight us.

    Or maybe he’s just gaslighting himself. It’s been my experience on these comment boards that many liberals here simply do not buy into Rod’s alarmism. I find this impulse eminently understandable, because I used to be one of them. I once accused Rod of being “hyperbolic”. I once argued here that the LGBT lobby wasn’t going to “make the rubble bounce” in the culture war and that really, all they wanted was to be left in peace, free to live the way they saw fit (this was pre-Obergefell).

    I don’t believe those things anymore. I still find Rod to occasionally indulge in what I consider to be hyperbole, but overall I have come to believe that a lot of his concerns are actually rather justified, in part because the course of events seems to keep on vindicating him. It’s not like Rod brainwashed me. I just read the news. And when things started happening like Brendan Eich being forced out at Mozilla, I took note. That incident with Eich was the tipping point for me when it comes to LGBT stuff – I realized that no, it wasn’t just about being left in peace. It was about forcing an entire world view onto everyone else, with no room left for freedom of conscience. Many other things have happened subsequently that have driven this point home in a fashion that is difficult to ignore if one is being honest with oneself.

    So I’m sure Scotty isn’t being actively malicious. I just think he’s indulging in a little solipsism. He’s liberal, he doesn’t agree with the extreme version of gender ideology and neither do his acquaintances, therefore it must only be a crazy fringe who think like that. Would that it were so. Even if it is a small group who thinks that way, they are a group with an inordinate amount of real power. The power to have major medical organizations issue advice, to get people fired and their livelihoods destroyed, to get peer reviewed studies withdrawn from academic journals and otherwise suppress science that contradicts their ideology, to cow politicians and silence their opponents. In some countries, this group is getting laws passed to criminalize “mis-gendering”. I don’t believe you can call any group powerful enough to bend legislators to their will a “fringe”. That would imply both that they’re crazy and powerless, and they are manifestly not powerless.

  4. Lee says:

    I want to mention something about this sissy porn stuff that you think it is so important that it be widely known. I read an article maybe a month ago linked to from one of your blogs although I don’t remember if it was in the blog or the comments. It was about the reasons for the decline of people having sex in the US at all age levels.

    A small part of the article dealt with porn and it’s current effects on teenagers. It said that many young women and girls now experience “awful sex” their first time because they are highly likely to experience one or more of the following – being choked, having their face ejaculated on or anal sex – because that is what boys think is supposed to be sex. The boys get their “education” from porn and the girls get turned off of sex from the get-go. Needless to say, the boys often also get turned off of sex because of this misunderstanding but it takes them longer since it isn’t painful, degrading or making them bleed. Yes, the article also mentioned a gynecologist concerned about the high rate of teenage girls coming to her with tears inside both vaginally and anally.

    Call me crazy, but I think this is a lot bigger problem than sissy porn.

  5. Judith Sylvester says:

    “I’m so, so tired of Scotty’s gaslighting. It’s just beyond tiresome.”

    So I went back to find out who said that. Oh, of course, Raskolnik, the tiresome contributor I usually just skip past. So, there is an esoteric hint in there for you, unless you really just enjoy complaining.

  6. Haigha says:

    “Perhaps Nature is objecting to the Trump Administration’s recent attempt to decree (to the extent that such a decree has any legal force) that only gender at birth matters?”

    This partakes in the dishonesty of the “Nature” editors. The administration’s proposal is about the word “sex” as used in a law that was passed decades ago. It says nothing about “gender”. And “gender” is simply not a scientific concept.

    The “Nature” editorial is a form of corruption: They hedge their language in the editorial itself, so as not to deny the obvious scientific reality of sexual dimorphism, and argue instead on the basis of ideology and the usual conflation of genuine intersex conditions with transgenderism and “gender dysphoria”. But they intend and hope to trade on their authority and prestige on scientific matters in order to fool the public into believing lies about what science does and does not tell us about transgenderism.

    In other words, they don’t present any real argument against the administration’s proposal on the basis of hard science (i.e., the area in which they have earned their authority), but only on the basis of ideology and morality (in which they have no special competence).

  7. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    A few thoughts;

    Regarding update 4) I have frequently wondered if the most effective way to keep a teenage girl a virgin until she turned 40 might be to allow her unfettered access ti the internet. As in “The is sex. This is what the boys want to do to you.”

    *shrug* Probably not.

    Part – a BIG part – of the problem is the fixed idea that Sex is super important. That how one chooses to achieve satisfaction in sex is a major defining part of who you are. I recall reading in Charlton Heston’s autobiography that when he got the part of Michelangelo in THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY je read up on the man as much as he could. He was familiar with the assertion that Michelangelo was gay, and also with the assertion that he had had female lovers. As far as he could tell, Michelangelo had tried both, and found them far less interesting than the great love of his life; carving marble.

    So, you think you would be happier in a body of the opposite sex. Tough. I would be happier in a younger, more coordinated body. But the requisition didn’t go through.

    Live. With. It.

    And stop letting parasites like the doctors who propose to be given a great deal of money to mutilate you, prey on you.

  8. JohnInCA says:

    @C. L. H. Daniels
    I want to be clear… you read about how someone didn’t want to work for a man who had attempted to forcibly annul the marriages of gay people†, and decided that gay people weren’t content with “live and let live”?

    That was your “step too far”, a handful of gay guys saying “I won’t work for him, he attacked my community”?

    If that’s your bar, then so be it, but you shouldn’t fool yourself: you didn’t want gay people to accept “live and let live”, you wanted gay people to turn the other cheek and never stand up for themselves.
    †Yes, annulling the marriages of gay folk already married was one of the explicit goals of Prop 8, it was in their advertisements, their propaganda, and after it passed, they sued the state to get it done when the state wasn’t moving fast enough for them. Support for Prop 8 was never about “live and let live”.

  9. grin without a cat says:


    I don’t grant such frivolous claims to transgender status any validity, and neither does any other progressive I’m aware.

    The Obama Administration did.

    On May 13, 2016, the Departments of Justice and Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter on Transgender Students.

    First, the definitions:

    Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender. A person’s gender identity may be different from or the same as the person’s sex assigned at birth.

    . . .

    Transgender describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.

    Accordingly, the terms “gender identity” and “transgender” are purely subjective. If a person sees fit to identify as transgender, nobody else is in a position to say that he or she is wrong.

    And that’s great. I’m all in favor of people self-identifying as they see fit.

    But the memorandum said that the schools would have to treat the student consistent with that gender identity, just on the student’s say-so:

    The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.

  10. Cleo says:

    Reading this article summarizing a column that I find horrific and disturbing just reinforces the resentment I feel as a heterosexual woman at liberals & leftists telling me I’m an evil bigot if I don’t accept this Andrea Long Chu person as a woman just like I am – this person has a new fake vagina that “she” will have to care for in a way totally alien to me for the rest of “her” life in order to prevent her body from healing the mutilation done to her.

    Well I’m sorry, “she” will never be a woman just like I am. Ever.

  11. Christian says:

    It seems like the commenter who described it as “A cabal of older, wealthy gay men trying to come up with a way to groom future conquests of previously straight men” might be right. It’s like imperial Rome all over: sexually exploit your slaves, Tiberius with his harem of boys, Nero, etc. The Federalist article is quite revealing about the funds being poured into this. The destiny of the sexual revolutionaries seems to be to try to create the world-harem that their infinite desires compel them towards. It starts to make sense to me that the Fathers and Dante said sodomy was worse than murder. Plus it looks a bit like eunuchs – you can’t just chop people’s bits off anymore, but you can pour millions into getting them to ‘consent’ to it…

    (Sorry if my language in the earlier versions of this post offended you, Rod.)

  12. Ted says:

    Depressed Person Throwaway Account: your candor regarding your own situation merits the greatest respect. But I have to ask: this is what 150 of psychiatry has come to? Mutilating a patient to save him from suicide?

  13. Sands says:

    We have two intertwining systems of jurisdiction, federal, and state. Certain areas of law are considered to be in the federal realm (example: patent law), while others are considered to be regulated by the state. And contrary to what a lot of people believe, federal laws are regulated and limited to be only in certain areas as defined by the Constitution. (Hence the whole ruckus about the interstate commerce clause and Wicker)

    I specifically said that the law that was struck down by the judge is a federal law, so I’m not sure why I need another anylasis. The judge says that the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to ban female circumcision, and I say he’s wrong. If the federal government can give life sentences to people who grow and sell weed, I think we can fit a national law banning female circumcision in there somewhere. The past 157 years has shown us, after all, that federal authority reins supreme.

    Yes,I know the difference between federal and state law. And the events of the past 157 years prove, undoubtedly, that federal authority > state authority.

  14. Harve says:

    Ted says:

    “Richard Nixon brought himself down.”

    “Jenkins, as the American poet Delmore Schwartz once said, even paranoids have enemies.”

    And paranoids who tape their criminal actions will likely bring themselves down.

    “And if you don’t think the Chu piece was the news of the weekend, I can’t help you.”

    Hummm, climate change report – we’re likely screwed, Mexican border closure and tear gas, Russia stirs up things with the Ukraine, struggling grad student seeks to monetize her angst and advance her academic/ literary career.

    Perfectly obvious!

    C. L. H. Daniels says:

    “I once argued here that the LGBT lobby wasn’t going to “make the rubble bounce” in the culture war and that really, all they wanted was to be left in peace, free to live the way they saw fit (this was pre-Obergefell).”

    I.e. as long as they kept their place and didn’t get too uppity.

    EngineerScotty says:

    “I’m not sure that Trump has been as successful as the term implies–a sound majority of the population disapproves of him…”

    True, but we should never forget that our anti-majoritarian Constitution privileges minority rule over majority governance.

  15. Meredith says:

    Apparently most porn companies are owned by a large company called MindGeek. I’ve seen a good bit of speculation that this corporation is trying to reshape people’s phyches for some sinister reason.

  16. grin without a cat says:

    @Raskolnik, @EngineerScotty:

    The Nature editorial itself (as opposed to the tweet) explicitly denies that gender is “unconnected to biology.”

    It [the leaked draft of the HHS memo] has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour.

    (emphasis mine)

  17. Raskolnik says:

    he frequently accuses me of race treason

    This is literally libelous.

    I dare you to find one instance, one SINGLE instance, where I have ever accused you or anyone else of “race treason.”

  18. Raskolnik says:

    @grin without a cat

    Typical disingenuous motte and bailey obfuscation.

    The claim that determining “gender” on the basis of genitalia has “no basis in science” is facially ludicrous and it is absurd that in the Year Of Our Lord Two Thousand Eighteen an ostensibly respectable “science” publication would make such a claim.

    All the obfuscation and weasel words in the world can’t change that.

  19. Dana Ames says:

    Haven’t read through all the comments. Re 3rd and 4th updates: This is yet another indication of the actual place of women in our culture. I’ve noticed that feminists who oppose porn are getting a lot of pushback for expressing how porn and transgenderism tend to denigrate what is female, and obliterate women.


  20. Martin says:

    I suspect there is a connection between these videos and this ideological tract:

    More intellectual feminists like Betty Friedan seemed to have been horrified by these tendencies of the feminist movement, nevertheless they could not be removed.

    [NFR: Go to Chu’s website. He actually wrote about the SCUM Manifesto. — RD]

  21. Chris says:

    So there is a huge untold (unreported) backstory to the clergy scandal (the lavender mafia).
    Matt in Virginia reports a huge untold (unreported) backstory about the gay lifestyle. There is a backstory (unreported) in the transgender push too? What else is hidden?

  22. The judge says that the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to ban female circumcision, and I say he’s wrong. If the federal government can give life sentences to people who grow and sell weed, I think we can fit a national law banning female circumcision in there somewhere.

    Please Sands, you are merely betraying your ignorance, and posturing like Humpty-Dumpty at the same time. “And I say…” would be the essence of judicial activism, if you were on the bench. The federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the constitution (which are quite extensive, but not infinite) and the states have all the plenary police powers they had before Union, subject to those restrictions specified in the constitution (which are rather extensive restrictions).

    E.g., in British common law, there is no exclusionary rule, because the law takes no notice of how evidence is acquired. Not so under our Fourth Amendment.

    ‘I want what I want and I want it now’ is the antithesis of constitutional restraint on the exercise of police power. One of the finer contributions of the Rehnquist court was to curtail open ended exercise of federal power just because someone thought it was a good idea. For instance, congress passed a law providing federal penalties for carrying a gun near a school. When the Supreme Court struck it down, on the grounds that congress has NO power to pass general criminal statutes, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) made a real ass of himself pontificating in a press release that this is a terrible decision because guns in schools is a serious problem. Sure its a serious problem. Every state in the nation had laws about it. Those laws were not struck down. In fact, the defendant in the relevant case had been under indictment in state court when the feds took over the case to try out the new federal statute.

    So no, there is a sound constitutional reason why congress has NO power to pass a general criminal law about female circumcision, and every state in the union has undeniable authority to pass virtually identical criminal penalties. Constitutional restraints do not bow to a personal desire that authority can be found “somewhere” to do whatever you personally think best. Imagine how Donald Trump would use such a concept… well, you don’t have to imagine, it drips from every tweet, but thank God we have a judiciary that enforces the constitution whether the president likes it or not.

    The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity.

    That was one of the most bone-headed edicts issued on Obama’s watch, and it is a grave distortion of the doctrine that courts give deference to administrative agencies in their areas of expertise. The Department of Education has NO expertise in what makes a male, male, or a female, female. Nor can it make policy contrary to an enabling statute. We all know what male and female meant to congress when Title IX was passed into law.

    That was your “step too far”, a handful of gay guys saying “I won’t work for him, he attacked my community”?

    Quit whining. Stop contemplating your navel. “He attacked my community” is no basis to remove anyone from any position or office. There is no legal or coherent empirical definition of “my community.” What if a man who believed his daughter to be possessed called a Roman Catholic exorcist. Would that mean someone who belonged to a coven of witches could demand he be fired because “he attacked my community”? (I know Franklin Evans wouldn’t be on either end of that discussion, that’s not what I’m talking about.)

    I voted no on my state’s DOMA for a variety of reasons. Does that mean someone who believes that homosexuality is downright satanic can refuse to work under my supervision, or fire me if they are in the ordinate position, on the grounds that by failing to vote for DOMA I attacked their community?

    The entire framework is ludicrous, not to mention incredibly childish.

    Yes, annulling the marriages of gay folk already married was one of the explicit goals of Prop 8

    So what? A lot of people don’t believe that two persons of the same sex constitute a marriage. If it doesn’t they shouldn’t have marriage licenses. That doesn’t erase them from the face of the earth or disemploy them or rob them of title to real property or empty their bank account. Its a perfectly valid position to hold, and if a majority of citizens disagree, it will not be a legally enforceable point of view.

  23. Amy Giglio says:

    Someone else might have mentioned it, but Malachy Martin’s book “Hostage to the Devil” profiles an exorcism of a transgendered man. My heart broke for him.

  24. Seth Smith says:

    As someone who is fairly conservative on social issues, I still think that we should all hold compassion in our hearts for Chu. Do I think the NY Times piece is terribly problematic and indeed mockable? Yes. Do I feel that the transgender movement has come into direct conflict with the feminist movement in a feedback loop that remarkably looks like the left eating itself alive? Yes. Was my first reaction to the piece in the Sunday Review disgust? Certainly.

    Yet, however misguided and tragic the battles over 21st century sexual politics have become, the only perspective that will truly help win people over to a more sane place is one of compassion and even love for these people, for ALL people. This is what my wife and I teach our girls.

  25. Moone Boy says:

    Death to Videodrome! Long live the New Flesh!

    Masha: Videodrome. What you see on that show, it’s for real. It’s not acting. It’s snuff TV.
    Max Renn: I don’t believe it.
    Masha: So, don’t believe.
    Max Renn: Why do it for real? It’s easier and safer to fake it.
    Masha: Because it has something that you don’t have, Max. It has a philosophy. And that is what makes it dangerous.

  26. C. L. H. Daniels says:

    I want to be clear… you read about how someone didn’t want to work for a man who had attempted to forcibly annul the marriages of gay people†, and decided that gay people weren’t content with “live and let live”?

    That was your “step too far”, a handful of gay guys saying “I won’t work for him, he attacked my community”?

    If that’s your bar, then so be it, but you shouldn’t fool yourself: you didn’t want gay people to accept “live and let live”, you wanted gay people to turn the other cheek and never stand up for themselves.

    It’s this attitude right here that I’m talking about, actually. The idea that you cannot agree to disagree. Whatever your opinion of Prop 8 (which I certainly didn’t support), it was a legitimate exercise of democracy, not the next Kristallnacht, and Brendan Eich’s decision to donate to it was well within his rights as a private citizen and frankly no one else’s business. Not to mention, it had absolutely nothing to do with Mozilla. There is not a single account of Eich acting in a discriminatory manner as an executive there.

    But no, that’s not good enough. Opposition to gay marriage cannot be principled, it can only be monstrous in your world view, so he clearly had to go, because he was a Bad Person. Don’t you see what an ominous precedent that sets, though? You presumably would be (rightly) aghast at the prospect of someone being fired for supporting gay marriage, so how is this any different (hint: it’s not)? I’ll tell you why you think it is: It’s different because you support gay marriage, and you cannot conceive of people who don’t as being motivated by anything other than malice and bigotry.

    And why should it stop at gay marriage? Next it’ll be people who don’t support immigrant rights, or trans rights. But that’s OK in your book, because those are obviously Bad People, just like Brendan Eich is a Bad Person, and Bad People deserve whatever they get. Right?

    Wrong. It is incredibly destructive of democracy to start treating those who disagree with you as beyond the pale. That’s how we’ve gotten to the incredibly polarized politics we have today, and frankly that’s how we got Donald Trump. Don’t like Trump? Then maybe stop trying to demonize everyone who doesn’t agree with you and instead agree to disagree in good faith. Let’s stop this going after people’s jobs and businesses and livelihoods over political disagreements, because that’s the road to totalitarianism.

  27. Northern Observer says:

    Queer Trans Tyranny can not last. Sooner or later the breeders will snap out of it and stop treating gays like purse puppies to show off their virtue with.
    Gays who want to protect their newly acquired bourgeois liberties had better start disciplining their anti heterosexual fringe, lest the whole bridge fall down. Which in a way is quite unfair to the gay community as much of this garbage comes from lesbian university professors who are as community oriented as owls. But we each have our own crosses to bear. Straits had to defeat fascism and communism, Gays will have the radical gender theorists and trans tyranny to tame.

  28. Thrice A Viking says:

    “Long Chu” does indeed sound pornographic, as pointed out. But “Chu” sounds like it’s Chinese, or perhaps Korean. Aren’t all white people, even if they’re trans-genders, forbidden such cultural appropriation?

  29. Thrice A Viking says:

    Harve, what do you mean by “Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck”? I immediately thought that it was just more dumping on men, but perhaps you had something more than just “toxic masculinity” in mind.

  30. Ted says:

    C. L. H. Daniels: well put, but you’re wasting your breath. These people are interested in argument. They can’t argue. The only thing they can do is scream.

  31. Josep says:

    I don’t really know if this same insanity occurs in continental European countries, and wouldn’t be surprised if it also occurs in other English-speaking countries; after all, unlike in many other Indo-European languages, with the exception of pronouns, nouns in English are not separated by gender. Slavic languages such as Russian even go whole hog as to include gendered past-tense verbs.

    @Siarlys Jenkins

    Cosimano doesn’t understand how biological evolution works. To get wings, you give up arms, and therefore, opposable thumbs. Look up the taxonomy of bird wings compared to reptile and mammal limbs…

    I’m not sure if he means having our arms replaced with wings (like birds and bats), or growing a pair of wings to be used alongside arms (think of Pegasus).

    @no comment

    sex with condoms

    The rest I can understand, but what’s wrong with that one?

  32. SporadicMyrmidon says:

    I haven’t read all the comments, so I don’t know if this has already been posted, but this seems pertinent, especially as action is still possible to save a child from sexual mutilation.
    This story from “de-transitioned” activist Walt Heyer seems to have been getting traction:
    There is a website in support of the six year old boy:
    The father seems to have prepared a long document linked at that site:
    Rod’s article here seems to be getting reposted in many places, and while Mr. Andrea Long Chu may be making horrible decisions, we can at least take action to save a child from sexual mutilation, with the full support of his father.

  33. Thufir Hawat says:

    Do you see what’s happening here? Chu says that the treatments doctors have given him are making him sicker, even making him desire suicide. But if he wants to suffer and to die, then he should have that right. Satisfying desire is the only thing that matters.

    It is often difficult to explain to non-believers the doctrine that Hell is freely chosen, but this person’s op ed is the demonstration of it. That is a person choosing Hell. “It will make me miserable and probably destroy my life but I still want it and must be allowed to have it.”

  34. JohnInCA says:

    @Siarlys Jenkins
    @C. L. H. Daniels
    That was a lot of outrage, but both of you failed to actually address my questions.

    So I’ll try again.

    Can person A take deliberate political action to strip group B of legal rights, and still be kosher with “live and let live”?

    Cap person C, a member of group B, having thus been harmed by the stripping of legal rights, quit their job for person A and still be kosher with “live and let live”?

    Please note, I did not call anyone a monster. I did not say anyone should stop existing. I did not say anyone did anything illegal. I did not accuse anyone of being evil.

    That’s all stuff that you two interjected into my questions regarding the boundaries of “live and let live”.

  35. EngineerScotty says:

    The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.

    And I think here, the Obama Administration went a bit too far afield. I’ve no problem with those wishing to change their legal gender, being required to file some paperwork to that affect with the Court or other relevant authorities, so notice is given (to all interested parties) of such. Similar, essentially, to changing one’s legal name.

    Lots of people don’t like that idea, though; they want the State to not recognized gender changes at all.

    But it would eliminate, if nothing else, the likelihood of frivolous claims.

  36. Deanna Deville says:

    First off, Andrea is a she, so f off with the misgendering thing.

    Second, she has opened her heart and made herself vulnerable in her article. Because it plays into your world view, you’ve chosen to mock her, Mr. Dreher, for your own purposes. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    You complain that she admits that her surgery may not make her happier. Let me ask you: Can you guarantee that any decision or action you might take will make you happier? Have you never in your life made a decision or taken an action that made you less happy than you were before you made it?

    I thought not. So how about shutting the heck up about things you know so very little about.

    Yes, I know you and most of your will mock me too, but go ahead, knock yourselves out.

    [NFR: I guess your fake vagina has failed to make you happy too, mister. — RD]

  37. B.Kevorkian says:

    I wonder if Mr Dreher would entertain a thought experiment:

    Imagine you wake up in an asylum in the body if a woman, and everyone there is trying to cure you of the bizarre delusion that you’re a man. Would you cooperate, work through your problems, start to find guys hot, and, once cured to their satisfaction, go out, get married & have kids?

    Or would you freak?

← Older Comments

Leave a Reply

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