It may only be early August, but it is safe to say that 2015 will be remembered as the year in which the cult of Transgenderism stepped out of the shadows of the internet and into the light of society, media and law, bringing with it a new way of speaking about what it means to be a person. Why, though, do so many people believe in this ideology and the phantasmagoria necessary to keeping it afloat? How is it that we as a society have become susceptible to such fantastical ideas as, say, having an identity which is fundamental yet subjective? Why are the names Male and Female now widely used to denote things which are interchangeable? Surely we can go a long way towards answering these questions by first recognising that the notion of ‘gender identity’ is thriving only because of our woeful understanding of the power and meaning wrapped up inside the word Sex.

Gender versus Sex

John is male-sexed. John either has hands (because of being somebody) or does not have hands (despite being somebody). Either way, hands are a part of a whole – if we were to find a hand in the street, we would say “somebody is missing a hand” not “some hand is missing a body”. Just as each part of John’s body has a nature and is signified through a name, so it is with the whole of his body – his sex. To take away John’s sex we would need to take away his whole body, leaving nobody. John’s sex gives him a unified identity. John’s body has hands, but it does not have a sex. Rather, John’s body is a sex. And, in the same way that John can use his car as transport only because of it first being a form of transport, so too he can do sexual things only because of first being a sexed body. One of the great damaging myths of our time is that sex is something we do. It is not. It is something we are.

But if this is sex, what is gender? One way to find an answer is to compare what is known about sex with what is claimed about gender. Three key areas come to mind. Firstly John is one of two sexes (Male and Female) whereas Transgenderism tells us his available genders are Male, Female, Both and Neither (with Neither containing within it a galaxy of Queer identities). Secondly John’s sex represents the whole of his body, meaning his gender can neither represent the whole nor be superior to his sex. And thirdly it is not possible for John to change sex,

whereas ‘gender re-assignment’ is possible. More and more countries are legally permitting people to re-assign gender without medical intervention (Malta and Ireland are the most recent). The State cannot be using the name Gender to mean sex because, in order for this to be the case, the State would need to believe both a) that it is possible to change sex (re-assign gender) and b) that this is possible without medical intervention! From a legal perspective, then, sex and gender are different concepts.

None of this tells us what John’s gender identity represents. The most common definition is that it is his ‘inner sense of being Male or Female’. This looks innocent enough: gender is ‘the sex you feel you are’. But this cannot be right because it gives only four possible permutations of sex and gender – male feeling male, male feeling female, female feeling male, and female feeling female – whereas Transgenderism says John can also feel Both or Neither. But Both and Neither are not sexes, so if Both and Neither are genders, a gender cannot be ‘the sex you feel you are‘.

John can have an inner sense of being something, and that something is neither the sex he is (Male) nor the sex he feels himself to be (limited to Male or Female), yet Transgenderism says John can name his somethingness Female – the same name that half the population uses to represent their sex. Trangenderism has parasitically attached itself to the linguistic structure of the sexed body, yet uses those names to describe states of mind. And it is this insight which allows us to accurately translate the innocent-looking definition: ‘inner sense of being Male (sex) or Female (sex)’ is revealed to be a Mobius strip-like non-definition – John’s gender is his ‘inner sense of being Male (gender), Female (gender), Both (gender) or Neither (gender)’. His gender (1) is his sense of his gender (2), which in turn is his sense of his gender (3). On and on it goes, without telling us what a gender is. In fact, the only definition necessary is this negative one: John’s gender is ‘not his sex’.

From Sexual Orientation to Sexless Marriage

This distance, between the body/sex and the mind/gender gives us a good lens through which to see the role that has been played by the relatively modern concept of ’sexual orientation’. Here, sexual orientation denotes John’s state of mind as codified in terms of the relationship between the sex John is and the sex of those whom John sexually desires – if the sexes are the same, John is ‘gay’; if they differ, he is ‘straight’; and if he desires both sexes, he is ‘bi-sexual’. Thus sexual identity is of the body (regardless of our mind); sexual orientation is of the mind (with regard to bodies); and gender is of the mind (with regard to the mind only). Sexual orientation, then, has acted like a stepping stone, levering our mind far enough away from our body so as to leave us prone to the suggestion of having a purely mental fundamental identity.

From this we can also see the true nature of the relationship between Transgenderism and so-called Equal Marriage. Popular commentary would have us believe that, with the marriage debate (legally) settled, Transgender rights are nothing more that the new kids on the social justice block. But common sense tells us Transgenderism preceded Equal Marriage both conceptually and legally. After the Gender Recognition Act came into effect in 2005, the names Man and Woman were no longer legally understood to represent non-interchangeable sexually mature bodies; therefore the State understood that any combination of two adults could become any other combination of two adults; therefore it was unsustainable to continue to recognise within law something which could be done only by one specific combination – one man and one woman; therefore legal marriage needed to be reconfigured so that all marriages were understood to be between ‘two adults’.

Some call this ‘genderless marriage’, but we should call it what it is – sexless marriage. That which has always been known to be possible because of sexual difference is now legally understood to be possible despite sexual difference, begging the question, “why does sexual difference exist if not for sexual union and the procreation and rearing of children?” Transgenderism is not following in the wake of sexless marriage. Rather, Trangenderism necessitated sexless marriage – according to the belief that Male and Female are interchangeable, we had the wrong definition of marriage. No wonder the State was deaf to objections. It had an internal error which needed to be flushed out of the legal system. Reality says it is the existence of the cake which allows the cherry to be ‘the cherry on top of the cake’ whereas Gender says the cake exists only because of the pre-existence of the cherry on top of it. Gender is dependent on sex (how can we have an inner sense of anything unless we are first somebody?) yet has legally dethroned sex. Our Gender is superior to our whole.

The Sexless Revolution

Ultimately, things happen when they are first able to happen. This is the first generation to believe that two women can marry in the same way that a man and a woman can. It is also the first generation to believe Woman can become Man. Coincidence? Do we believe in sexless marriage because of our belief in Transgenderism or despite it? It is not only that contraception, abortion and State-licensed sexual anarchy have made us gullible enough to believe in the insane. It is also that Transgenderism has crept up on us, under the camouflage of language, disguised as sex. A grounded understanding of sexual identity is absent from society to such an extent that this psycho-legal spiritual sickness has been able to infect the population at a terrific rate with little opposition, pouring out of law and into society.

Every ideology relies on propaganda, because he who owns the language owns the terrain. But this has always referred to a manipulation of words within a pre-existing and accepted linguistic structure – white supremacists never claimed that a black man was ‘a black men’ or ‘a blacks man’. Gender, though, asks us to re-learn the language of our own body – members of the female sex must learn that John too can be a She. On that basis, and on the basis that Transgenderism is a law-driven top-down phenomenon, I think we need to accept that the ideology named Gender is an ideology like no other. The sexual revolution has given birth to the sexless revolution. We must stumble blindly into the legal future bodiless and stripped of all natural identity.

Our inextinguishable sexual identity has a name, and that name happens to be either Male or Female. It is not so much a case of us being out of tiny minds. Rather it is that we have lost sight of the enormous meaning of our body.



  1. It is all very confusing, not least because the terminology used is often vague, and often deliberately so as the liberal left like to use language to obfuscate their real agenda. This article falls into this trap as well at times eg., ‘gender reassignment’ is nothing of the sort as it does not
    change gender; it is the swapping of man/woman sex organs and other key body parts (ie breasts) to give the appearance of changing sex. Indeed, should we refer to transgender or transsexuals? Like any liberal left word game, it is mostly about power not reason. So drag queens can be banned from a Pride parade because their presence might upset transgender people.

    Now in case anyone is interested I am a lesbian trapped inside a man’s body and you’re a bigot if you don’t accept this.

    • “Gender reassignment” is an ideological term in the first place, because it smuggles in the idea that gender is assigned in the first place. It seems to be a kind of magical thinking: an authority figure in a white coat holds up the newborn and declares “It’s a boy!”, thereby making it a boy, and they could just as easily make it into a girl with a different incantation.

  2. We are told, in big, bold letters that ‘She is Cait’. Bruce Jenner gets lots of publicity.

    No, mate, you might look like a woman, you might dress like a woman, but a woman, you are not!

    You are not so, so, courageous!

    You are just a man who has had plastic surgery, hormone treatments, an enormous
    clothing and cosmetic allowance: but you are still just a man wearing women’s

  3. Having passed off gays as being a “different kind of normal” they are not trying to pass of TS people as “a different kind of normal”. What will it be next year? People who think they are Napolean are a “different kind of normal”.

    Fact is that whether you take the religious or the evolutionary approach to human development, people that cannot pro-create in the way that was intended are not “normal”. They are faulty, just as someone that is infertile is faulty. Given the opportunity, every parent of a gay or TS individual would have had their kids “fixed” at birth. Soon, this technology will be available to us – I wonder what the left will make of that?

      • Go away feminist, we tire of you. Part of the reason is feminist policy delaying first child, STDs f-ing up the fallopian tubes and the other bad habits they were told were empowering (smoking, drinking like a man).

      • Everybody needs help conceiving. It takes two, even when intermediated by a turkey baster or someone in a white coat.

      • You mean parents of hermaphrodites. Not only is this condition very rare but the surgeons usually get it right. Being TS is rarely associated with being hermaphrodite.

    • “Given the opportunity, every parent of a gay or TS individual would have had their kids “fixed” at birth”. Jesus God, are you actually serious?

      • If parents were able to have a blood test showing their kids were going to be gay or TS (and this is coming very close as the genetics necessary is narrowing down te areas of the genome responsible) and then have that issue fixed using some kind of gene therapy, then yes, most parents would opt for the therapy. Soon after, those parents that hadn’t taken the gene therapy option would be considered cruel.

        • What is more likely is that we will have prenatal tests for homosexual tendencies WITHOUT the possibility of therapy.
          Then, pregnant women will have the opportunity to abort their unborn child for homosexuality, as they currently have the choice to abort their Down’s Syndrome children.

          I will be very interested to know what the liberals will make of that. Will feminists support the “right to choose” for homophobic women?
          Will the LGBT community stand with the feminists or against?

          My bet is that a compromise will be reached: prenatal testing for homosexuality will be illegal. That way women will still have the “right to choose” for any reason, but some choices will be impossible because the necessary information will be suppressed.

          Of course just as there were once back-alley abortions, there may also be back-alley prenatal testing in the future.

  4. There are such a small % of people who are transgender, I can’t understand why CW wants to keep banging on about this subject, a persons sexual identity is his own issue, and falls within the scope of liberty.

    There are a number of ways in which people can be born in terms of their sex, the scope of XX or XY variants.
    *Genetic mutation. Mutations happen frequently and often result in a miscarriage, XY chromosome mutations in babies which are not miscarried include :

    One of these permutations can result in excessively violent and ‘big’ men often found in prison, and another, tall lanky women with varied fertility. Those are mild variations- others can create major damage.

    *Some children are born hermaphrodite, what that means is that either parents or doctors have to choose their sex at birth, and they then have ops which prioritise one gender above another, it doesn’t follow that the mind of the baby is automatically going to follow the parents choice, or how they raise it.

    *Variations in hormones in the womb which influence development of the babies brain.

    People need to be a lot more ‘tolerant’ of other people, it’s possible to be disabled in all sorts of different ways. Pro-lifers should be supporting the existence of life, children who are loved by their parents, whoever they are.

    • I agree with a lot of this but I’m not going to change my use of words to suit.

      Bruce Jenner is a man who’s had surgery.

      • Correct. Bruce Jenner is a man that suffers from the delusion of being a woman. The error is in one part of the brain, not in multiple parts of the body. The error may be genetic or it may be psychological, but the correction should definitely not be in the body.

      • Correction.

        Bruce Jenner is a man who has not had surgery.
        While he has undergone some cosmetic surgery, he has not undergonesex reassignment surgery or ruled it out; he stated that, for him, life as a woman is primarily a matter of mental state and lifestyle.

        Bruce Jenner suffers from some sort of mental illness, and should not be encouraged in his delusions.

    • Also marriage is a social convention that dates back millenia to when people started farming and wanted to pass on ownership of property to their ‘legitimate’ children, partners, sons or daughters ‘in law’. Marriage has been altered to allow everyone the same opportunity within law to access the same property rights and tax benefits, which in the case of people with sexual variations is a basic aspect of liberty.
      This is really a non issue for the Church, as an institution which is separate from the state, the Church can decide it’s own policy, (although I think the content of the Bible needs revisiting), the Church doesnt guarantee even heterosexuals the right to get married in Church.
      Being able to adopt children is the real issue in non standard relationships, even heterosexuals have no automatic right to adopt children.

      • Marriage was concerned with the orderly propagation of children, and the uniting of two families by the hoped-for resulting children. Most of the people who married millennia ago would not have had the expectation of possessing any significant amount of property to bequeath,

    • If you believe in liberty you also believe in the right of individuals to be intolerant. You cannot force toleration on anybody, you can only get them to repress themselves.

      • Per the opinion of’ a prof on another post, you can tolerate somebody without celebrating their existence, we ”tolerate’ lefties, but don’t celebrate them, and by ‘tolerating’ lefties we don’t ‘repress’ ourselves. We have freedom of expression, but that doesn’t forgive rape or murder, and neither does ‘liberty’.
        the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

        • um, didnt you define toleration as not saying horrid things about people? Seems to me people should be allowed to say whatever the hell they like

    • According to them it has nothing to do with sexuality. *scoff*
      Genetic disease don’t count. They’re a genetic condition. It’s sickening they use others like this and conflate it with their own, purely psychological, problems. Category error at best. These people need to be sectioned from normal people, not foisted on us and told to engage in roleplay to get them off.

  5. excerpt
    “In an effort to better understand the transgender community, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) launched a study on the state of health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. This 2011 report, The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding, found high rates of substance abuse, attempted suicide and HIV infection among other problems in transgender adults. The report concluded that the marginalization of transgender people from society is having a devastating effect on their physical and mental health.

    A similar conclusion was reached by the 2011 Injustice at Every Turn, survey of nearly 6,450 transgender and gender nonconforming people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. It found that as many as 63 percent of respondents experienced some form of discrimination due to bias about their gender identity, including the loss of a job, bullying and even physical and sexual assault. As many as 41 percent of respondents reported they had attempted suicide — a rate 25 times higher than that of the general population.

    In a study now in press in the American Journal of Public Health, Bockting found that half of the transgender women and a third of the transgender men surveyed said they struggle with depression from the stigma, shame and isolation caused by how others treat them. Anxiety was a significant problem for them, too. People who were the youngest and least educated, and those from rural areas had the most psychological distress.

    Other research led by Andrea L. Roberts, PhD, suggests that being gender-nonconforming (while not necessarily the same as transgender) puts children at higher risk for physical, psychological and sexual abuse and for post-traumatic stress disorder later on (Pediatrics, 2012).

    Biological basis for transgender identity, research by the University of Boston

    • By asking the general public to indulge the delusion of a mental illness, they remove our integrity. Everything we say or do after this point doesn’t matter. They’ve made the average person disgusted with themselves for going along with the farce. They have foisted a lie upon us, anti-science and damaging to all it doesn’t apply to, yet we took up the mantle of this lie on pain of job loss, social faux pas and media urging. At worst, we might be reported to the thought police and arrested for a ‘Hate Crime’. They have made the common man a liar, and while underneath there is a growing undercurrent of resentment about this where before no particular care whatsoever, a placid neutrality, this shall end up backfiring against those Cultural Marxists who push it. They are sitting ducks, too dumb to see it. As with Gamergate, the average person is tired of being pushed around by shrill ninnies. Little Hitlers who get brainwashed by the porn site Tumblr, who haven’t a clue how good they have it to sit around complaining about non-issues nor possess the social intelligence to see how conceited it is to expect us all to sexually roleplay with the mentally ill in our free time and in breach of freedom of association. I cannot wait for this trend to die and K-selection to continue. They can’t quit physics and the pendulum of politics is swinging back in a self-correction.

      • Thanks pcb, but the only thing I can think of is that I referred to a book, ‘We Are Our Brains’, which explained that our sexuality and gender identity are ‘hard wired’ in the brain at a later time in pregnancy than our gender is established. The ‘banned word’, if there was one, may have related to the book’s author, Richard Swaab. His name is unfortunately shortened not to ‘Rich’ but to the alternative common name, making him sound like something you might find in a certain sort of clinic.

  6. Gender is masculine/feminine, and neither have ANY bearing on sexuality. This would also be ‘homophobic’ and stereotypical to imply.

  7. Its really simple.
    Its part of the war that the state has against its people in the west. Its attached to the eventual formation of a global government.

    What they are directly attacking here is the concept of traditional marriage and traditional gender roles as part of this. If they promote something as perverted and confusing as this to those concepts mentioned, then they are able to attack that. Attacking that is key to creating a weaker society which is easily owned and led into a fascist new world order.

  8. Considering that feminism is a gender critical thing for the most part, and gender is a social construct created from traditional sex roles, this article has to be the most absent minded thing anyone could write. Its conservative society which created gender in the first place, not feminism and a good proportion of feminist theory is dedicated to opposing transgender ideology.

    Sex a thing people are and not something people have. Not quite, because not all humans biologically develop into one sex or the other, sex is biological and sex roles are sociological. Gender identity forms as an intersection between the two factors.

    Sexual relations and the sexed body are not the same thing, one is possible regardless of the other. Humans do have a mind of free will and sexual relations falls under this free will, the sexed body does not. Sex roles result from a social system which is still in place despite feminism and sex roles represent a capping of peoples free will via a mandated behavior given to everyone based on sexed body. This mandated behavior includes tastes and interests, ways of speaking and presentation of the body. Also included in this mandated behavior is the type of sexual relations one should take part in, which in conservative society is opposite sex relations in marriage for reproduction. Same sex relations are outside of sex role expectations, not outside of human inclination. Sex roles come from ideology created by some humans, they are not innate in all humans and they will never be because human behavior is subject to free will. Humans dont have to eat as they see food and feel hunger, other animals will unless trained. Humans dont need to be trained, they can make this choice if they really want to, they can also make a choice to not engage in behaviors that will lead to reproduction and to prevent another person from making this choice is wrong. Its wrong to create a social system where everyone is forced to marry to survive, its wrong to create a social system where women must submit to men because doing so amounts to creating a system that rapes.

    Traditional roles amount to rape when women cant get economic security without men, even if the sexual relations are consensual in marriage because she has been placed in a social system from birth that has trained her with limited choices making this one appear more attractive. There is no love in need or dependency, and this is the very thing the traditional sex role system created. Feminism is not the reason people are transitioning “genders” and its not the reason for the rise in online violent pornography, instead the patriarchal system is the reason for these things. Its called post feminist backlash and its been underway since the 90s, your website is part of this backlash.

    Sex roles are still here but they have moved on, women have moved from an expectation they be in the home and serve to a new sexism where they are increasingly sexualized and reduced to their appearance. Sex role are being taught in a different way, dolls are moving on from babies and prams to be about appearance and beauty, toys are increasingly sexed and color coded in ways more extreme then before feminism and this is whats causing so many children to think they have a gender problem. if they dont fit into the all out action and violence boy toy box or the pink and pretty girl toy box then they end up branded gender non conforming and possible trans gender. Children are being given hormone blockers to stop puberty to make gender change easier when they grow up. This is not the fault of feminism because feminism believes in letting toys be toys and abolishing sex based expectations. In other words there would be no need to change ones body to do what they want in life, to wear what they want and be with who they want. Its the right and the anti feminists that created this situation in an attempt to reinstate sex roles and push back society. Trans gender people are people who experienced it all from their own individual perspective, rather then seeing it as a socially common struggle which all members of their sex are also policed on certain things.

    What you people on the right want is for us to all live your way, and you dont have this right and the fact you dont have this right is why feminism happened. Sex roles enforced on all society will be fought and destroyed by the new wave of feminism, because they are the cause of gender identity problems and they are the tool by which women have been oppressed.

    If the women who wrote this site wish to remain subservient to men then do so, live as you want but dont impose that way on everyone else. It may be that you become a protected minority one day, to a point where its you who is considered queer because everyone else changed so much.

    In one of the other articles on this site a woman writes about men no longer doing womens bidding for them and how women need to win mens trust back. If this is the case then maybe its time to look to the women on the right, hold them responsible for all of mens wars and all the bad deeds from history. All while women on the right get to gather and complain they no longer have men to carry out their deeds and are having to do them instead. As you do you will all learn the truth, you will learn that as soon as you open your mouth and speak out about anything you will get rape threats, death threats from men just like feminists do. You lot like to think sex roles are natural just so you can think you have some power in the world, you believe women have power in the home via reproduction but cant see the truth in that. To get that you must make your body available. By your definition a woman does not have real power unless she has sexual relations with a man, agrees to be owned by him and have children. This is not power, its the opposite, its the giving up of freedom in return for less hostility.

    • “Sex roles enforced on all society will be fought and destroyed by the new wave of feminism”

      Only among indigenous post-Christian Europeans. Brits of the future will have very clearly defined roles wearing burkhas and avoiding education in the case of women, and stoning to death all gays, transexuals and any women who refuse to obey their fathers or husbands, in the case of men.

      Ironically the enlightened society of modern Britain that evolved rights for women, gays and transexuals will be destroyed by the demographic consequences of feminism combined with mass immigration from the third world.

      • Indeed. Prof. Richard Dawkins has only one child. He will be outbred by the Aamish, the Heredi Jews and the Muslims.

    • What you people on the right want is for us to all live your way, and you dont have this right

      What the people on the left want is a world where gender, which by definition is imaginary, is more real than sex which is an empirical reality. So all men will be men in the sense that Bruce Jenner is a woman. This is the liberal’s way, and they want us all to live like that.

      I question whether they have the right.

  9. Some men claim the identity of women. Some women claim the identity of men.
    Some white women claim the identity of black women.
    In a few cases, otherwise-ordinary men and women claim the identity of mythological creatures such as vampires.
    As for me, I claim the identity of Napoleon Bonaparte. I am the soul of an 18th Century French military leader who died on St. Helena, trapped in a 21st Century male body.

Comments are closed.