Transgender time

The end of the year is the right time to talk not about events, but about trends. Of course, the Russian reader may have a reasonable question: is the transgender movement exactly the right trend to talk about?

Yes, from time to time we hear echoes of shocking stories. For example, a few weeks ago the story of a six-year-old boy was quite widely sold out on the Russian segment of the Internet. James from Texas, whose mother intends to turn into a girl. The father objects, the child himself recognizes himself as a girl only in the presence of the mother, and in other cases he clearly identifies himself as a boy; however, the court sided with the mother. This means that if in two years nothing changes, then upon reaching 8 for years, James will undergo hormone therapy (the word “therapy” in this case should be put in quotes), which is already aimed at a physical change of sex.

But, the more terrible and unthinkable such cases are, the more likely that we will interpret them as “excesses” - simply because we know poorly and even worse understand the context there. Say, in general, everything "they" is not so bad, and some crazy people are always and everywhere.

If someone persists in his attention to this topic, it is very likely that our audience will interpret such persistence as “Putin's propaganda,” as an attempt to divert attention from internal problems by savoring horrible stories about rotting abroad. "And they have blacks lynched."

And some of the truth in such assessments will be. Yes, of course, not every mother seeks to turn her son into a girl. Yes, in the West, as elsewhere, there are more normal people, and life does not consist only of excesses. But not in individual stories deal. The changes that are taking place in the West right today are not confined to individual cases - and can, with unfavorable developments, turn out to be our future too.

I Transgender Movement and its Victims

The spread of transgender ideology is literally before our eyes. Major public events of transgender people, such as Transgender Day of Remebrance, and Transgender Day of Visibility, have only begun over the last twenty years. Even ten years ago, even in leftist circles, it was quite possible to “fight for LGBT rights” without highlighting this last “T” - and she was often interpreted, not as “transgender people”, but as “transsexuals”. The fact that sometimes there are people who want to do a sex change operation has long been known. But, until very recently, no one would seriously argue that being a man or a woman (or a representative of “another gender”) is a matter of personal self-determination. The statement that it is possible to be a woman with a male genitalia, or a man with a female one, until recently would have been considered not a very funny joke, but not the most important principle of civil freedom (as it is now).

But in recent years, “transgender rights” have become perhaps the most fashionable topic on the agenda of Western “progressives” - left-liberal politicians and the press. One of the most famous (and most controversial) steps taken by the administration of the previous US President, Barack Obama, was a directive (a joint circular letter from the ministries of education and justice) about showers, released in May 2016 of the year. According to this directive, all public schools should provide transgender people with access to showers on the basis of their gender self-determination (and not on the basis of real belonging to the biological sex). In other words, the directive required that a man who is self-defined as a woman has access to women's showers, and vice versa.

Donald Trump Administration recalled a directive on showers, but the struggle continues — and in this fight, the Obama Party, the US Democratic Party, has definitely sided with the transgender lobby. In early November, 2018, nearly a hundred Democrats - members of the US House of Representatives, signed statementangrily condemning the proposed plans of the Trump administration to “redefine” the notion of “gender” so that it “excludes” transgender people. But, of course, only the lobbyists of the transgender ideology are trying to “redefine” things. And the Trump administration, like recognizes and the left-liberal press itself, thinks only about the possibility of explicitly, formally pointing to what, until recently, no one doubted: the “sex” referred to in the legislation, which is indicated in the identity documents, etc. - this is a natural, biological reality.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Canada, Justin Trudeau's leviberal model is exemplary in caricature (in 2017 year) standard, according to which in the passports of Canadians there is another version of gender - “X” (besides “M” and “F” - that is, male and female). This option can be chosen by any (any? Any?) Citizen of Canada who does not consider himself to be either male or female.

More recently, the example of Canada partly followed (for the first time in Europe) Germany. “Partly” - because in Germany the new law assumes that the “other” gender will be entered into documents not on the basis of self-determination alone, but after a medical examination. In Great Britain, left forces are also active. are struggling for the adoption of laws on the third gender, similar to the Canadian and German standards. In those British municipalities where the left controls local government, they require from educational institutions to create a favorable environment for the transgender transition of students, to allow transgender people in the dressing rooms of the gender to which they prefer to belong, etc.

One could continue to give examples - but what has been said is enough not to be surprised when the mainstream press of Western countries approves says about "progressive" parents who are trying to raise children in a gender-neutral way. In their political correctness, these families go so far as not calling their offspring either “he” or “she”, telling the children that they are boys / girls, and if possible in general hide from them what it is.

It would seem that any person whose brain was not completely eaten by an ideology should be clear that for many children and teenagers it is very difficult to grow up - but transgender propaganda does not alleviate the situation, but catastrophically complicates it.

Changes in one’s own body, the need to master new social skills and build relationships with others, insecurity in one’s own strength - all this is enough for a serious psychological crisis. But beyond that, children can be affected by unfavorable conditions in the family, and much more.

At some point, the child or teenager may simply refuse to recognize the reality that scares him: the reality of growing up, or the reality of increased responsibility for his actions and his life, or the reality of awakening sexuality, etc.

Refusing to acknowledge your gender is also a possible situation for some children. But, instead of helping growing children and adolescents reconcile with reality, and in adulthood live a fully-fledged life (and in the vast majority of cases it is possible), transgender ideology advocates want to deprive young children of information about what it means to be a boy or a girl, a man or a woman. With a high probability, it will provoke or aggravate the crisis at a later age. Then they strive to convince children that abandoning their gender and arbitrary gender identity with the opposite sex, even with the “third gender”, is natural and normal.

The result, alas, is predictable - exacerbation of the gap with reality instead of reconciliation with it, aggravation of the psychological crisis, and, possibly, a broken life. In the worst case - a sex change operation, ruined health, belated regrets. All this, unfortunately, is not fiction, not an attempt to scare, not a gloomy forecast. No, over the past decades, this has already happened to a considerable number of people - so that even networked resourceswhere former “transgender people” and their relatives share heartbreaking stories about their broken fates.

It is curious to note that the absurd ideological hegemony of the transgender movement causes discontent even in seemingly close communities — among some LGBT activists and feminists. Prominent Canadian feminist Megan Murphy пишетthat feminists who are not in a hurry to take into their ranks “transgender women” (that is, men who define themselves as women) are harassed and insulted, and in some cases they are even physically attacked. Murphy herself, after recklessly tweeting the phrase “men are not women,” and aggravated the situation with another remark: “On what basis are trans-women not men?” How do they differ? ”, Was instantly ranked as“ radical feminists, excluding transgender people ”(TERF - Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists). Her Twitter account was then blocked, and the publisher broke the contract for the publication of her next book.

It seems that the next generation of Girondists begins to feel on their own napes: the Jacobins may turn out to be even more radical than themselves.

II Apotheosis of progress

What, in the end, is happening ?! It's one thing if they were some crazy ones. But the whole movement? But parties and organizations that are able to determine the policies of entire countries, including the most powerful ones? But statesmen but high ranking church hierarchs? What is this mass insanity?

A different observer, looking at all this, will believe in the thought that we have before us some kind of another "cunning plan" of the Western elites. For some Russian publicists (widely known in narrow circles) this thought was the last straw of a drowning man. It is somehow safer to assume that secret societies rule the world - even if they are indifferent to people, even cruel, even if they are completely deprived of all human - but at least not taking seriously all that nonsense that their public representatives produce and spread!

But, unfortunately, everything is much worse. The rational grain in the writings of conspiracy theorists is that 99,99% of the world's population really have nothing to do with the adoption of significant political, economic, social, etc. making. But the minority that governs the world is not a centralized Secret Order with Terrible Goals. No, this is a motley crowd of politicians, high-ranking government officials (including, naturally, employees of various special services), heads of interstate and supranational structures, top managers of corporations, heads of public organizations, and the like. There are a great many intrigues and informal agreements in this crowd, but there is no single center, much less secret, in it.

Any secret intentions of the whole crowd is not organically able to carry out. There is nothing secret here that would not be made explicit, and relatively quickly - and for this Wikileaks is not even necessary. Yes, the powerful people usually have plans about which they will not tell the voters in prime time during election campaigns. But it would also be a distortion of the meaning of words to call “secret” extremely obvious and discussed publicly plans (such as, for example, the intention to at least partially replace the population of Europe with migrants).

Many (although, of course, not all) of the powerful are cynics who are motivated only by their personal career and access to the feeder, and are ready to accept and defend any agenda for the sake of these benefits - if only they are praised for it, not scolded.

But the problem is not in the cynics. The cynics themselves would never have thought of joining an unpopular ideological agenda; only popular ideology can be used in the struggle for social status, political influence, material success.

In order for the opportunists to join the ideology, it is necessary that it first spread among sincere people - among people who accept a certain ideology not for the sake of benefits, but because they consider it worthy and correct.

Global popularity, including in the ruling circles, of the more and more delusional problems of left-liberal, “progressive” ideology is the real problem.

Megan Murphy, mentioned above, rightly writes that transgender attitudes are religion. More precisely, religion is the whole complex of left-liberal beliefs, and the transgender movement is only one of the most new, savage and aggressive sects of this religion.

The statement that a woman can be a man, a man can be a woman, and that in general anyone can choose any kind of “gender” - what is this if not the next round of merciless struggle for freedom and equality that the progressists have been waging for almost two hundred and fifty years?

Everyone should have the same opportunities as any other. - this is the main principle of all equalizers, from the eighteenth-century Russoists and the Bolsheviks of the early twentieth century to the socialists and fighters for the rights of transgender people of this century. Time after time, attempts to implement this in practice lead to disaster. And time after time, all new generations of equalizers are trying to achieve what is not, what has never been, and what can not be.

Do they know that this never happened? As a rule, they know. Do they know about the sad fate of their predecessors? If not all, then some - know. Why doesn't it stop them? Because people, in fact, care not only about physical survival and safety, not only about comfort and pleasure, not only about social status. Each of us knows that one day he will die (only some remember it better and others worse), and he wants life to have some meaning that cannot be destroyed even by death. Who would not want to know that he lives right and that “the best part of me will avoid burial”? The thirst for righteousness is no less a strong human thirst than the thirst for life, or pleasure, or excellence. And she, too, is capable of blinding.

Over the past centuries, many people - first European intellectuals, then the European "mass man" (and nowadays, not only European) have become victims of a strange paradox. In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, people understood the structure of the surrounding world much worse than our contemporaries. But the very ability of a person to learn the world quite logically fit into their presentation. A person can know the world because the world flows out of the mind, or created by an intelligent person (God), or in some other way based on the mind. And a person is at least a partial similarity, or an image, or a reflection, or a manifestation of the same universal mind.

Ultimately, it was precisely such ideas about reality that gave Europeans the strength and determination to explore and master the world, the confidence that this work is feasible and worthwhile. Speaking about this, I do not urge to forget that the forces alone are with little determination - in order to be able to apply them, favorable political, economic, geographical, etc. are also needed. conditions. But the foundation for any human action is always his worldview. We act on the basis of what we know, what we believe in, what we consider important or not important, possible or impossible.

So, the Europeans took up the development of the world. But the world that opened up as the development of physics, chemistry, geology, and other natural sciences turned out to be strikingly unlike that European culture was ready to be considered “intelligence”, “personality”, or at least their manifestations / creations. The farther, the more the minds of Europeans took possession of an absurd picture - a man thinking and seeking meaning, abandoned into a world that in itself is devoid of reason and meaning.

Such a picture of the world is absurd precisely because if the Universe were alien to the mind, it could not be anything other than complete chaos, impenetrable to man; and the man himself in this chaos could not have arisen. But, although it was absurd, people of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries could not replace it with something else, without giving up their sciences. Now, it seems, it is already becoming possible - and for this you do not need to reject science at all, to take the position of rigid biblical fundamentalism, as many American evangelicals do. What and how to replace is already a completely separate philosophical and theological topic that goes beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, I will limit myself here to referring (for example) to Article modern Danish theologian Niels Henrik Gregersen, in which he gracefully (though not indisputably) conjugates the theology of the first chapter of the Gospel of John with physical and cybernetic ideas Seth lloyd.

We will return, sadly, to our sheep. Finding himself in a meaningless and unreasonable world, believing in this absurdity, a person can no longer consider himself to be an imperfect, but still a kind of universal and perfect Mind, a reflection of a perfect Light. But the consciousness of one’s own imperfection remains, but the longing for the perfect Light remains.

And then the person begins to dream about how he will pull himself out of this swamp by the hair. Eliminate any imperfection of human life; to make humanity perfect, omnipotent, immortal - these are the passion and striving that underlie all forms of the liberal and left progressism of the XVIII-XXI centuries. Remove any weakness and any limitations that constrain a person! Make available to everyone what is available to anyone else, and make everything accessible to everyone!

But the problem is that the same features that limit us, and form. Yes, in every person there is something like any other person. But this does not negate the fact that each of us is born at a certain time and in a certain place, precisely in these, and in no other parents, with certain genes, with a certain gender. In addition, a person uses any rights and opportunities only as a member of a certain community - and only to the extent that this community’s place among other communities allows, and the place of the individual within the community.

True, it is true that the more a community refrains from interfering in the private affairs of individuals — in other words, the more freely people can dispose of themselves and their property — the more diverse ideas can be put into practice and, thus, checked, refined, improve. Therefore, all other things being equal, the better private property is protected in the community, the more opportunities for this community for intensive development and prosperity.

Of course, FA von Hayek formulated this argument best of all, which is true and valuable in liberalism, of course, not in the left, but in the right, conservative liberalism.

However, there can be no complete freedom of the individual from the community. To develop, you need to start to survive. Therefore, the cohesion and survival of the community, starting from the smallest - the family, and ending with the largest - the whole nation, invariably turn out to be more important values ​​than the freedom of the individual. And the power of communities over individuals in practice cannot be exercised in any way other than as the power of some people over others than as a certain hierarchy.

Attempts by Marxists to destroy "the family, private property and the state" were, in fact, an attempt to destroy the necessary forms of human existence - to destroy humanity itself, as it really exists, for the sake of a fantastic dream of ideal communist humanity.

These attempts were doomed to failure. But the leftists themselves each perceive failure as evidence that the next time they have to dig deeper. Reaction structures are restored because a deeper layer of reaction structures remains untouched under them - that is their logic. The young Marx perceived himself as the successor of the radical leaders of the French Revolution, who “understood” that it was not enough to demolish the old polity — it is also necessary to destroy private property.

“Cultural Marxists” of the 20th century “understood” that the destruction of the state and private property does not automatically lead to the death of the family, it does not save a person from “reactionary”, “egoistic” inclinations. They seriously undertook the discredit and destruction of the family, the incitement of war between the sexes, the normalization and propaganda of sexual minorities (converted, thus, from the personal affairs of certain individuals into whole subcultures and movements), etc.

But now, before our eyes, there comes a time for an even more radical, transgender ideology. We do not know whether the ideological hegemony of the transgender movement will prove to be a minor episode or not? Maybe “transgender people” will eat up their outdated left-wing fellows. Or maybe the other way around - the above-mentioned “feminists who exclude transgender people” will achieve that transgender ideology will be recognized as a leftist bias, and its adherents will follow the path of “mad”, Ebertis, detsists, “opposition of workers”, Trotskyists and tutti quanti.

We don’t know the future, although, of course, we would like the transgenderization to be stopped and the liberation from leftist frenzy as such. But whatever it may be, we can already say that it is in the form of a transgender ideology that the leftist, progressive religion has approached its logical limit. The dream of correcting all the weaknesses and imperfections of humanity turned into an attempt to radically redraw not only the social, but also the biological nature of humanity - and thus, to destroy people as such. Replace people with some other, non-human form of life. This is the point where we are today.

If you find it important that we publish such material, support the authors

Gregory of Murom

Vespa on social networks

Materials that you will not find on the site

G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!