Providing developers and businesses with a reliable, easy-to-use cloud computing platform of virtual servers (Droplets), object storage ( Spaces), and more.
Inclusionary Hornet's Nest
Personal entry follows.
I am writing this primarily to sort out my thoughts on the subject, so as to form a more coherent opinion on it. I'm not interested in sharing this is public with anyone beyond my close friends and relatives. It's doubtful they care to hear my opinion on this subject in any case, but then this online diary is for me, not anyone else.
For the purposes of this entry, I'm referring to "transwomen" as, "men who say they are women, and insist that the rest of society go along with them." Also, for the purposes of this entry, I suppose it's worth mentioning that I'm not a psychologist, I'm not a medical doctor, and I'm not a mental health professional. All that follows is my measured opinion on the subject. I'm an exceptionally average nobody, and anyone who thinks my opinion regarding transgenderism has any weight beyond this online journal is likely mistaken.
What I -have- done is listened to and read the opinions, analyses, and thoughts of:
- educated, credentialed, confident women who advocate for women's rights
- Carl Jung (and in particular his works regarding the concept of "individuation")
- The Academy of Ideas: a think-tank that was for a time preoccupied with the notions of manhood and the concept of maleness, and how all that differs from and/or has similarities to the general concept of masculinity.
What follows is my own synthesis, and is not to be confused with the efforts of the above. They are not to blame for the "woke heresy" that foments below.
To sum up my perspective here, I suggest that the rise of transgenderism is a side-effect of both a lack of male role models, as well as a de-emphasis and/or lack of rites of initiation into manhood in the dominant culture.
To be clear: transgenderism is not the same as homosexuality, and neither of those is the same as the "antiquated" term of transvestism. However, they are not mutually exclusive states.
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
It's my opinion that as technology has increased, the dominant culture has permitted the erasure of initiation rites into manhood that were prominent in aboriginal and indigenous cultures. As far as I am aware, there seems to be no "walkabout" or "vision quest" that's part of American life. This lack of an "earning of manhood" has resulted in men who have abdicated this responsibility, and have instead rejected manhood while at the same time continued to assert dominance over women, -without- taking on the responsibility and accountability for their actions. The only way a man can do this and not be immediately shunned is by declaring that he's a woman.
I think that the result of generation upon generation of males without initiation into manhood has resulted in a situation where a boy who lacks a role model for manhood - but who still strives to become a man - must do one of three things:
1. Regress back into childhood and/or transgenderism.
2. Engage in stereotypical aggressive male behaviour (AKA "toxic masculinity").
3. Seek manhood on their own terms (the most challenging and solitary of the three paths).
Regarding the first scenario: It's my opinion that this has given rise to at least three factions/archetypes of men who call themselves women: The Slackers, the Lost, and the Predators.
The Slackers want life in "easy mode." They still crave power and influence, and see transgenderism as their ticket. Their typical M.O. is to complain about how hard life is, to whine about how contemporary life is geared against them and doesn't accommodate their lifestyle, and ultimately to proclaim themselves the victim.
These folks are, paradoxically, at the forefront of the radical trans rights agenda, doing their best to convince everyone around them that transwomen are the most oppressed minority in the history of the world. They work to benefit from the protections and rights afforded specifically to women, while simultaneously engaging in stereotypical, cartoonish behaviours and depictions of femininity. In this way, they'll never "pass," and since they are obviously men and strive to attain the protections afforded to women, they can have the best of both worlds.
To further their aim, they will mutilate their own bodies, and encourage the mutilation of the bodies of children, so that the Slacker is also seen as in need of just as much protection as a child (never the other way around...). This mutilation is a tactic for domination, and is seen as a worthwhile price to pay for the result they desire: continued victim status and special privileges.
These men will also be the first (and loudest) to demand the "canceling" of a woman who stands up to reject or even question the radical trans rights agenda and its overreach.
I'm of the opinion these Slackers started this whole mess. They're burning down the house so they can keep warm in the long, cold winter of adulthood. The worst part about them as I see it is that they so clearly do not care about the safety and well-being of women. They are the most selfish and short-sighted subgroup I've identified here, in my opinion.
The Lost are the confused boys who need help. Like the Slackers, these guys haven't individuated from their childhood and are drawn to their mothers. There are too few male role models in society and in most of the Western world there is no initiation into manhood, so the Lost don't know where to look for clues on how to behave. As a result, they regress back to their mother's womb, and eventually want to be re-absorbed and completely avoid adulthood.
When they do see role models, they see the males who act out in stereotypical "guy shit" like (for example) MMA and "slap fights," mainstream porn, and video gaming. This kind of behaviour rightly repulses them, and they reject the notion that in order to be perceived as a man, they must act this way. Therefore, they behave as a stereotypical woman, and call themselves such so they can maintain a safer, infantilized lifestyle.
Out of the three groups I generalize here, I have the most pity for these guys. They likely suffer from anxiety and a host of phobias and neuroses. As a group they think they can't hack it "in a man's world," but likely could if they were socialized with positive role models of manhood (unfortunately, role models they happen to gravitate towards are likely the loud, proud Slackers). I also think that some Lost have internalized homophobia, in effect: "I like guys, but I simply CANNOT be gay. Therefore, I must be a woman."
These are the rapists, the molesters, the sexual assaulters. These men do not think they are women at all. However, they will use gender identification as a tactic to infiltrate women's spaces (restrooms, changing rooms, shelters, prisons) so that they can continue to victimize women. They may perform stereotypical feminine behaviours and appearance, but they most often do nothing to (for example) undergo sex reassignment surgery. That would damage the equipment used to assault their victims, so they want to remain "intact."
Personally, I see this group as the most problematic and insidious of the bunch. They are deliberately malicious and hate women as much as the Slackers. Lawfully infiltrating women's spaces is a sadistic dream come true for the Predator. The fact that there is now a need to distribute condoms and Plan B pills in women's prisons on a grand scale is bizarre and heart-wrenching. And it's all because of these men.
I support safety and protections for real, biological women. There can be none if biological males are permitted into women's spaces. That's the reason women's spaces were created, and the fact that men who say they are women are somehow permitted egress is a rollback to a more brutal time. If transwomen really were women, they'd acknowledge this and invest their energy in protecting women's rights, not dissolving them.
kestrel.diary [at] tutanota.com