Where did the myth of transgenderism originate? The seeds were first planted by the Marxist-inspired writer Wilhelm Reich in his book Die Sexualität im Kulturkampf (1936), later published in English as Sexuality and the Culture War, where he attacked not only the family but also Western civilisation’s opposition to “infant sexuality” (in other words, paedophilia). His ideas were supported by Herbert Marcuse, who argued in Eros and Civilization (1955) that a couple’s desire to marry and raise children was an expression of “sexual repression”. Other famous left-leaning academics who helped form the ideological basis for the decriminalisation of paedophilia, as well as the theory of transgenderism, were Eric Fromm, Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey—father of the American sexual revolution and author of the Kinsey Reports (1948 and 1953)—who were an inspiration to paedophiles worldwide, many of whom advocated having sex with one’s own children if “the love” was present. The sexual revolution also led to the formation of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Some of Reich’s students, inspired by their teacher, later founded an organisation called Legg igjen en kommentar, the Childhood Sensuality Circle, which became an American lobby group for the sexual liberation of children.
The first man to harvest these poison fruits was a New Zealand psychologist, William John Money (1921–2006), one of the first radicals to apply the Marxist theory of social constructionism to human sexuality. As James Heartfield noted in Marxism, Mysticism and Modern Theory (1996), social constructionism contained “no discrete natural foundation to identities, rather socially constructed identities” which were “the real content of the characteristics once attributed to nature”. So nature was set aside and replaced with nurture—a nurturing determined by an individual’s relationship to the means of production, that shaped not only their character but also their biology and genetic make-up, which is still claimed today by transgender theorists, with no credible evidence.
But Money’s research and his concept of “gender identity” needed to be tested on real patients. There was not much science involved. Like his predecessors, Money came out in support of paedophilia “as long as the bonding was mutual”, in which case the practice of sodomy would obviously be considered as an act of love. Paedophilia, from the beginning, has been an integral component of the theory and practice of transgenderism.
Money was the first medical professional to recommend gender reassignment therapy for a baby. A twenty-two-month-old boy, David Reimer, had had his penis mangled in a botched circumcision. His genitalia were surgically removed, he was re-named Brenda and placed on hormone therapy. Money later made David and his twin brother, Brian, perform sex acts while he photographed them. The twins, years later, regretted what had happened and both eventually committed suicide, which was probably a consequence of the suffering they had endured in Money’s care and the influence he had over their parents.
Eager to develop his theory further, Money recognised the need to develop new terminology, not by creating new words, but by redefining old ones to suit his theory. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation, which were later encapsulated into the word transgenderism.
Let’s dig a little deeper into the mechanics of this theory by examining the origin of the word gender, to which Money and his comrades added a whole new meaning, with no basis in fact or history. Gender, they fantasised, is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Before cultural Marxism intervened, the word gender was a linguistic term. It had nothing to do with “the range of characteristics between masculinity and femininity”—a definition that was added.
To complete this fallacy, gender needed a prefix, which was trans, whose dictionary definition was once: “on or to the other side of: across … beyond”. But the meaning of the prefix also needed to change, and so “beyond” (to a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of) came to mean “between” (in a midway position, neither one thing nor the other). To sum up: the false meanings attributed to trans-gender-ism did not relate specifically to the binary types but to the imagined territory “between” them which could contain as many variations as there are stars in the Milky Way, none of which could be scientifically proven because they are based primarily on feelings.
The theory went completely off the rails when it claimed that such changes somehow magically affected human genetics and biology, a claim that has never been proven by science. But what does science matter? Or history? Or truth? Today, transgender activists are even claiming that boys can get pregnant and “have periods too”.
The scientific and biological reality is of course very different; transgenderism is not part of the default value of human expression. Male and female are the default values because human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. If a person has a prefrontal cortex brain injury at birth or before, or if there is a chromosomal abnormality, they may suffer gender dysphoria. But whatever the cause, to say transgenderism is normal is a fallacy. Further: if transgenderism is not a mental disorder, what is it? Is it a physical disorder? And if it’s not a disorder, why must it be treated medically? Why must there be gender reassignment surgery? Why must there be exogenous hormones introduced into the body? If it is not a disorder, then why are there gender reassignment physicians?
As with the religion of climate change, the debates about transgenderism, we are told, are settled and heaven help anyone who dares to criticise. When discussing gender dysphoria these days it is very dangerous for anyone to question “transgenderism” from a biological, ethical or historical angle—in other words, using science or any a posteriori objective search for truth, all of which are no longer considered relevant. In fact, Enlightenment rationality itself, including the scientific method, is now under attack.
Most such attacks come from postmodern left-wing academics and feminists. They are infused with ideological prejudices and presuppositions, based on false doctrines and a proven scientific fallacy (dialectical materialism) about the nature of society, and specifically what concerns us here: the nature of human sexuality. These transgender, trans-rational activists have strong footholds in the elite halls of the academy, government and the literati, where any critique of their policies is, in good old Soviet-style, not tolerated. The price for anyone who dares transgress, in terms of a scientific, historical or ethical critique, is to be vilified and slandered and to have their careers ruined, and even, in Victoria, imprisoned.
For the sake of clarity and science, let’s look at the nature of sex, which is defined by natural biological differences: chromosomes, hormonal profiles, anatomical structure, internal and external sex organs, for which we have obvious visual confirmation and overwhelming scientific evidence. The animal kingdom is also based on these natural binaries that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Marxist theory of “social constructs”. Sex differences (male/female) are outside theoretical constructs. If we go back through time it’s the same repetitive pattern: primitive humanity was male and female, which had everything to do with nature and reproduction. Even ancient Australian Aboriginal cave paintings demonstrate this.
Superficially, sex roles may differ in terms of wealth and fashion, but they do not genetically alter one’s sex, nor do they give one power to switch from one “gender” category to another, simply because one “feels” it, which, according to ideologues, can change from one day to the next. This is what they call transgenderism, which is defined by a “spectrum” of feelings-based gender identities between the two binary sexes, under the LGBTQIAPP+ label, short for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, aromantic, pansexual, polysexual. Transgender identities can then be represented by an array of corresponding pronouns such as ze, hir, hirs, hirself.
A lot of the trans identities used to bolster the numbers are fake. For example, many who are identified as trans are scientifically “cis” (people whose identity matches their sex). Homosexual men and women, for example, identify as gay or lesbian, but that identification is based on their biological sex. In other words, the same-sex attraction they feel along with its sexual practices (lesbian and gay sex) are dissident forms of cisgender sexuality, through which they identify as lesbian or gay, and do not require the need to transition from one sex to another or anything imagined in between, with drugs or surgery. At gay pride parades, cisgender homosexuality is celebrated, often with a pretence of being an expression of transgenderism.
One of the most unscientific statements uttered by trans activists is that “people are the gender they prefer to be”. This claim has no factual basis, apart from, in many cases, being related to medical or psychological pathology, in other words, gender dysphoria, which is not a matter of preference.
In terms of brain function, male and female brains are distinctively different. In Psychology Today, Dr Gregory L. Lantz, in an article titled “Brain Differences Between Genders”, writes: “boys and girls are different—very different. The differences between genders, however, extend beyond what the eye can see. Research reveals major distinguishing features between male and female brains.” The article goes on to explain chemistry, structural differences, blood flow and brain activity. The Spring 2016 edition of the Stanford Medicine Journal reports, “New technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work.”
In some people who suffer from gender dysphoria, there can be minuscule marked structural differences in the brain and brain function, just as someone who suffers from cancer or other diseases can also have structural and functional anomalies. But to claim that these pathological anomalies are indicative of the physiological proof of transgenderism as a sort of biological evolutionary phenomenon, is absurd. The question would then have to be asked: Which transgender “variation” are you referring to, since cisgender—male and female, the natural binaries—are, according to transgender ideology, but two of an infinite “spectrum”. Take your pick. Or better still, make one up!
A minuscule proportion of people in the US describe themselves as transgender, a description that does not require scientific validation. In other words, they are not all gender-dysphoric people. In many studies, for example, gays are lumped in with trans people. But if we exclude them from those with claimed “fluid genders” we would probably be looking at much less than 0.2 per cent of the population of the US. Most pollsters admit that determining the percentage of trans people is difficult, as a percentage of gays identify empathetically as trans; even the trans-biased Dalia Research results admit this.
LGBTQIAPP+ propaganda is not only unscientific but also detrimental to the women’s rights movement, because a trans person can “transition” from one gender to another or anything between whenever they feel inclined. According to the warped logic of transgenderism, fighting for women’s rights is discriminatory and a waste of time. Why bother when you can transition to a man or any variation at any time with all the so-called privileges associated with it? For example, in Canada you have the absurd situation where, in less than a day, you can, with government approval, officially change your biological sex. In October 2016, Lauren Southern, a journalist, visited a drug store in Toronto to obtain a doctor’s certificate that medically identifies her as male. She then went to Human Services Ontario to get her ID card, showed them her passport and the doctor’s certificate, and within minutes was legally a man!
If transgenderism, as many activists claim, is a “state of mind”, how does it differ from a delusional state? Since transgender fluidity flows between preferences that can change from day to day, or hour by hour, one’s belief that one is whatever percentage, part male, part female, or even asexual, is just a belief, a feeling, a desire.
Evidence shows that transgenderism is little more than a fashion statement: the transmission of sexual preferences and desire across a psychological spectrum which can vary according to one’s moods and feelings, or, to put it slightly differently, what shall I wear today?
The blatant propaganda associated with transgenderism was demonstrated recently in a Forbes article, “Ten Science-Backed Tips for Bringing Up Your Child Gender Neutral”. These ten tips are worth noting:
- Make gender less important. 2. Point out sexism in the world around them. 3. Remember that toys do not have a gender. 4. Protect your children from the pink and blue tsunami as soon as possible. 5. Do not try to erase gender. 6. Encourage boys and girls to play together. 7. Let them express themselves and feel safe in doing so. 8. Make difference a positive attribute. 9. Introduce them to purple rain (gays and transgender others). 10. Focus on your child as an individual.
Note that these ten tips have nothing to do with being “science-backed”.
There are many credible biologically determined scientific studies that have confirmed the existence of gender dysphoria as a pathology, but not one that has proven the biological reality of transgenderism. The current state of the “science” of transgenderism has about as much validity to the truth as Bruce Pascoe’s book Dark Emu has to Aboriginal history. In other words: it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.
If moods and feelings are going to be the determining factors, why not extend the range of legal and similar protections to other sexual preferences based on feelings? Why not bestiality and necrophilia? Some have forwarded the idea of “clovergenderism” as a legitimate form of transgenderism: a feelings-based proposition used by adult individuals claiming to be a child trapped in a man’s or woman’s body who is sexually attracted to children. This, of course, falls well within the tradition of the earlier advocates of transgenderism.
On the postmodern Marxist relativist scale of values and equity, these feeling states have as much claim to the full protection of the law as transgenderism, and for the same reasons. Who needs evidence, anyway? Who needs all that evil scientific patriarchal nonsense? Why discriminate? I mean, those who are sexually attracted to sheep, kids and cadavers should have equal claim to victim status, of being just another minority group sexually oppressed by the white scientific patriarchy.
Not so long ago the Left (before it lapsed into insanity), spearheaded by feminists, attacked the child modelling industry for exploiting children and encouraging paedophilia. Now it seems OK for children to be exploited on behalf of an adult political movement. An example is the case of Nemis Golden, an eight-year-old boy (left) and the “little darling” of Canada’s drag queen clubs (strip venues and pick-up joints for gays), which are now treated by most mainstream media outlets as good clean fun. The Advocate, a long-running trans publication, stated that “Lactatia” (his stage name) was “encouraged by his parents”. This child has not even reached puberty. This is child abuse by the child’s parents and trans activists, enabled by the mainstream media. In what moral universe is it acceptable to encourage an eight-year-old boy to mimic a sexualised adult female, perform erotically suggestive dance routines in pick-up joints, and use it as a ticket to fame and claim it as a virtue?
Australia has its own young transgender drag-queen culture. Twelve-year-old Logan Kelly (right) from Ipswich (also known as Candy Featherbottom) is Queensland’s youngest drag queen, who performs in gay pick-up joints for money dressed in scanty, sexually provocative costumes. According to ABC News, Logan’s parents, Katrina and Stephen Kelly, are “incredibly supportive and proud”.
What a windfall these new laws and attitudes are for paedophiles, now that they can legally share toilets, bathrooms and public shower facilities with children. And if anyone objects, the paedophile, not the children, will have the full force of the law on his or her side. Money, Marcuse, Freud, Reich and others must be celebrating, wherever they are, due to the success of their ideas.
As Jordan Peterson predicted several years ago, the passing of laws designed to police our words has now led to the passing of other laws designed to police the raising of our children, by which the state determines if parents are fit to raise their own offspring. The determining factor of a parent’s fitness in relation to the transgender issue is: if they say that hormonal and other treatment may not be the best option for their child, the child can be forcibly removed from the family home and taken into government custody. In Australia, a child who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria who expresses a strong desire to have a different gender has power over the authority of their parents to undergo therapies, including hormone replacement therapy, puberty blockers and gender confirmation surgery.
These laws are not only wrong but evil. Many children who have been subjected to the above medical treatments later come to regret it, and have been left horribly disfigured and intellectually compromised because of the effect of hormonal blockers and other medications. Nothing perhaps highlights the evil of these new laws like the investigative journalism behind this headline in the Daily Mail Australia: “Hundreds of transgender youths who had gender reassignment surgery wish they hadn’t and want to transition back”.
It is important that we distinguish between this toxic and pernicious ideology and the safety and well-being of genuine gender-dysphoric people, who like all people have a right to be treated fairly and without discrimination.
Some people may say it doesn’t matter what gender a person thinks they are, as long as they do no harm to others. I would agree. But the ideology of transgenderism is doing harm, by forcing us to give up our sense of honesty, our objectivity, and our respect for scientific truth and morality. We have decided to give feelings priority over everything, to the point where we are now threatened, punished and ostracised if we dare to question the validity of this ideology.
Eugene Alexander Donnini is a writer of poetry and prose who lives in Melbourne. He contributed “The New Left-Wing Fascism” in the June issue