7 min 3 mths

By Mark Blair

‘The enforced orthodoxy of the UK biosecurity state to which every politician, institution and public figure must pay homage and exhibit dogmatic obedience.’

Simon Elmer

Trans is not a flash in the pan because it’s far more than a creepy guy in lippie and a frock. It’s more than queer furries, non-binaries, Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) and transableism, or even transhumanism.

Certainly, though, it’s easy to see why, with considerable backlash against the excesses of ‘trans’ now underway, and an ever-growing number of much more in-your-face issues to deal with, that ‘trans,’ might seem an outdated topic. However, we’re going to ‘bracket off’ all these distractions, and go back in history a bit.

One episode of the nature/nurture debate raged in the West from the 1960s to the mid-1990s. While the hard sciences made great progress, for example, with electroencephalography providing data about how the human mind works, the ideological left managed to dominate the social sciences. Their shtick was that the environment is the only determinant of human behaviour, full stop. There are no bad people, only bad childhoods.

Readers, this left-wing ‘anti-essentialism’ is the thing to focus on: the more a society believes that ‘human nature’ (behaviour influenced in any degree by genetics) is simply bad (right-wing) science, the more power the political left gets because the political left is the group dedicated to re-booting society in a post-human-nature framework—and to say that ‘communism’ and ‘post-human-nature framework’ are synonyms is quite accurate.

This brings us to the mid-1990s when two amazing things happened. The first was the spread of postmodernism from the ‘soft sciences’ into both real science and the real world. The second was how ordinary folks, who were busy with modern life, took no notice.

Postmodernism is by definition ‘post-truth.’ Readers may not have heard of Lyotard (‘no metanarratives’) Foucault (‘biopower’) or Butler (‘gender performativity’), but have likely heard the phrase ‘lived experience.’ Well, ‘lived experience’ is the postmodern notion that if you ‘experience yourself’ as a kitchen chair, then you are a kitchen chair. Governments grabbed this ideology like a dog with a juicy bone because it greenlights massive expansions of bureaucracies and social control.

What if the anti-left has focused more on the extreme manifestations of ‘trans,’ and not enough on why some people—like women and homosexuals—seem to be in favour of initiatives whereby people who regard themselves as oppressed can lead happier lives?

Here is a good place to consider what a ‘broader definition’ of ‘trans’ might be. So, there’s the notion that ‘trans’ is an extension of the women’s and homosexuals’ civil rights movements. There’s the possibility that ‘trans’ is attractive to those seeking more avenues of sexual expression. And a refuge in an era of rising mental illness? What about a life adventure in an era in which a great deal of real-world adventure has been legislated out of existence?

“Roughly eight-in-ten US adults say there is at least some discrimination against transgender people in our society and a majority favour laws that would protect transgender individuals from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces,” the Pew Research Centre says.

Even if we accept that social contagion (via the Internet) is an important factor influencing young Western women to declare themselves ‘trans,’ there is still Abigail Shrier’s insight that girls are ‘fleeing womanhood like a house on fire, their minds fixed on escape, not on any particular destination.’ Here is food for thought! What is so unappealing about a contemporary young Western woman’s life that she doesn’t even want to be a contemporary young Western woman? How could an unreal ‘lived experience’ like ‘trans,’ be more appealing?

Now let’s jump to ‘political trans.’ Only two or three years ago, the notion of ‘political trans’—that people might ‘become trans,’ to further their political agendas—seemed ‘out there.’ But the data is now clear: political trans is very much a thing, and this brings into focus the addition of brown and black stripes to the Pride flag. You see, it may be that some people only understand ‘trans’ as ridiculous and dismissible; but what if you look at the arithmetic of groups that (a) see themselves as oppressed, and (b) are therefore staunchly willing to support other oppressed groups? It’s an impressive arithmetic, readers! ‘Trans’ people plus homosexual people plus ‘black’ people plus ‘brown’ people plus more-than-half-of-all-western-women people is a major cohort of the human race.

As noted above, governments are perennially in favour of feel-good initiatives that increase government power while simultaneously infantilising the populace, so governments are smoothing the ‘trans’ path.

This is how pro-trans policies have become so entrenched so fast, and there’s no doubt about this. Nothing less than a revolution could uproot the bodies of pro-trans legislation now in place across the Western world. The UK and Canada are almost trans-police states. Moreover, Both Gen Z and Gen Alpha have been indoctrinated by kindergarten into the notion that some people are ‘born in the wrong body.’ (Although it’s evident that they know almost nothing of the less innocuous realities of ‘trans,’ presumably thanks to ‘the lived experience’ of the echo chamber.)

Kathleen Stock’s text Material Girls provides us with a notion to finish up on. Trans, she explains, is a social fiction (which the ‘Stroop effect’ reveals). Now, the human condition is replete with social fiction, like telling your Granma how much you like the awful jumper she gave you for Christmas. ‘Trans’ is a massively larger social fiction; but it is a massively larger social fiction that leverages Singer’s expanding moral circle, whereby people across the political spectrum are more and more supportive of a world characterised by equality and acceptance, even if that does means we all live a lie.

‘Trans’ will remain, and should remain, a major target of the anti-left—it’s a triumph of postmodern anti-science—but it is here to stay. ■

About Author

Leave a Reply

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