Of ladyboys and queers

The idea of transexuals, a woman trapped inside a male body, began in the late 1980s – early 1990s and seems to have come from the imagination of a psychiatrist who had been treating men with gender confusion for many years. Before then, society got along fine with two genders, although one gender generally had less power than the other. Homosexuality had also been around forever, and homophobia had been eliminated at least in its institutionalised form, and homophobic behaviour and language were not considered acceptable after the paradigm shift that was the sixties.

Biologists have always agreed with the gender binary, and still do as far as I’m aware. No alternative biological theory has been advanced to support anything that includes males born in female bodies and females born in male bodies. Indeed, much recent research in the area of educational needs has been to best make use of the differences between boys and girls, which are not insignificant; girls mature earlier than boys and perform better  intellectually. Girls master language earlier than boys being more able linguistically, and it’s been discovered why this is, a specific area of the female brain is involved.

Differences in the way men and women perform verbal and visuospatial tasks have been documented in scientific literature, but it was not understoood whether men and women actually use different parts of their brains. Now a new study [Brain and Language], accounts for and corrects these methodological factors, and confirms that men and women use different parts of their brains when processing language and visuospatial information.

Do these self-proclaimed ‘females’ alleging they are trapped in a male body perform similarly to natural females in acquiring language and linguistic skills? One would expect that if there was any reality in the claim, that they would. That the female mind would be visible over and above the surface affectations of effeminacy. Further, females are known to have inherent multitasking skills that males don’t possess. It is easy to see how evolution could have shaped this; males going off as hunters needed to focus on that task or perish. Females gathering a wide variety of food plants and herbs, caring for children, and all the other tasks we all know women throughout our evolution have shouldered needed to manage many things at once. Some males can learn to multitask, but females have it from birth. Transgender ‘females’ have none of these inherent female talents, but seem fixated on the peripheral aspects of females, attractiveness to the opposite sex, with artifice playing an important role; makeup, clothes, hair etc. Celebrity culture adds to this artificiality.

So while the claim is that the individual is female irrespective of the body born ‘into’, the reality of female and male is bound inextricably to the body and brain. Unles some theory of ‘spirit’ were advanced in which a female spirit enters a body, and whoops, wrong gender. How would that work? Whose mistake would it be? God’s? There is no biological theory yet advanced that explains how ransgender could be anything other than a mental illness.

I think the problem lies with gender activists who, for personal reasons, campaign for all kinds of changes they want forced onto society, and such is the nature of liberal politically correct institutions and individuals, that transgender has slipped in under tha radar of sceptics, if they still exist, and been accepted by default with no examination or debate. The BBC grandly lists LGBT community as if all these mental patients hang out with homosexual people as a group, rather than most of the latter living their normal lives entirely part of the wider community.

Activists don’t feel part of this wider community, and don’t want gay people accepted, it would dilute their anger after all. These PC uncriticals don’t even question the changing nature of this ‘community’ which looks more and more imaginary at every change; from LGBT it changed to LGBTI or in some manifestations LGBTQ, LGBTQQ, LGDT+ which leaves it open for later additions once they dream them up in trans-think tanks across California. I’ve seen one claim that paedophiles should be included, which was tried briefly in the sixties when these monsters thought t6he atmosphere of permisivenes could be used. But it shows the deranged nature of the people embroiled in this heated campaign, which doesn’t just stop at inventing acronyms, but continues to harrass anyone who voices any doubts about the viability of trans as a theory. Jermaine Greer has suffered banning and mobbing at a US university for daring,as a feminist icon, to publicly say she doesn’t believe in trans. This modern breed of fascist-liberal SJW is only too quick to take offence and bully individuals, while claiming they are a powerless minority.

Before I continue, an abstract from a paper I discovered;

What many transgender activists don’t want you to know: and why you should know it anyway
Author(s): J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea
Source: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 50.4 (Autumn 2007): p521.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 Johns Hopkins University Press
ABSTRACT Currently the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men’s bodies. This understanding has little scientific basis, however,
and is inconsistent with clinical observations. Ray Blanchard has shown that there are two distinct subtypes of MtF transsexuals. Members of one subtype, homosexual transsexuals, are best understood as a type of homosexual male. The other subtype, autogynephilic transsexuals, are motivated by the erotic desire to become women. The persistence of the
predominant cultural understanding, while explicable, is damaging to science and to many transsexuals.


There’s a handy list of word definitions on this link below, so children can learn the terms and feel inclusive. All very cultish, a bit Moony meets Scientology).

Quote: https://www.serc.mb.ca/lgbt/lgbttq-wordsdefinitions

‘You may be familiar with GLBT, LGBT*, LGBTTQ, LGBTTQQIA*, LGBTQQIP2SAA to represent Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, Two Spirit, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual. The placement and inclusion of letters is determined by the communities using the initialism. There is no universal or official initialism for LGBTTQ* communities’.

It strikes me that despite their constant use of words like inclusion, they are desperate to categorise and label difference to the nth degree even within ‘their’ community, which in reality is just disparate groups of non-hetero friends at universities and what they dream up and what drugs they use. The use of make-up is compulsory. Prefered course: Gender studies.

My point isn’t to attack anyone, MYOB really is my motto, I’m concerned more with truth decay, and ignorance becoming commonplace and accepted. Transvestites have been around since we left the trees and decorated our bums with leaves, why was there any need to categorise them [and their lesbian sisters] into ever more diverse categories and labels, some even with their own sub-groups. When it starts getting dangerous and abusive, is when those with real mental illness are convinced and encouraged they need a surgeon to carve their body up, rather than psychiatric counselling.

They’ve done pretty well considering, since their ‘community’ is a miniscule percentage of the population, they have every institution in the West scared to do anything but give the nod, though it’s gertting increasingly hard to keep up with the frequent changes. Don’t take the list above as anything but temporary. I haven’t spotted P for paedophile yet, but some of these people are really out to lunch, it’s their life, their world, their narcissism. And it doesn’t get any crazier than a man I found [not like that] on Twitter who was clearly white, clearly male [with a manly beard even] and he stated that he was ‘Born white male, identifies as black lesbian’. And I really did not make that up. I assume that means he fancies black chicks who like bearded lesbian lovers. Or is that the way a racist but otherwise normal person joins this gendercult when they can’t sign up to being a minority?

Why are they so species phobic though? How about transpecies for those few who want to be, or feel they already are, another species in a detested humanoid body. Surely they also are entitled to the same respect and acknowledgement from the medical profession? Should all other species be lumped together though? Perhaps transwolf, transtiger [there are already some of them, I’ve seen them on video, truly frightening], transgoldfish. If it’s only limited to the imagination of an oversized, bored brain, anything goes. Well, it takes all sorts, as me mother used to say. She had absolutely no idea.

Islam and the West

There is much ignorance on this subject these days, even history seems not to have reached the social justice warriors who want to welcome Muslim refugees no matter what their intentions or attitude towards our culture. Central to this is the Crusades, used frequently by deranged jihadis still stuck in the 8th century mindset, and beset with misconceptions and lies that fuel the liberal-left guilt attitude to Muslim immigration to the West.

‘Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed by liberals as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression­an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity­and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion­has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.’
‘[…] the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful once the most heavily Christian areas in the world­quickly succumbed.’

Thomas F. Madden is an American historian, a former Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University’s Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

Similar to the lie that white Europeans invented and ran African slavery, when it was actually Muslim Arabs, white liberals are still thrown into confusion and guilt by the very mention of slavery [still practised in Muslim countries like the Saud dictatorship], and the young ones are so ignorant they start from imagined white guilt, which is exploited by those with an agenda, whether Muslim or just non-white.

With the mixing of Islam with Western democracy there’s a major problem; human birthrate is roughly 50% male/female. Muslim males are allowed to have more than one wife, and old, established, rich men often have several wives, some as young as 12, leaving none available for those younger males, who are forbidden from marrying kuffirs. Result; sexual frustration. Result, too few female muslims for young male muslims to ever marry except outside the religion, so prevalence of rape of non-Muslim females, made more likely by Qu’ran sanctioning rape of ‘Kuffirs’. If ever a problem was set to blow up, this is it.

It’s not Islamophobia to talk or write about this, a phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something, and there’s nothing irrational about fearing the effect Islam is having on our previously developing, tolerant and civilising society. Notice it’s the only religion this epithet is used with [originating with Muslims wanting to silence criticism they are unused to]. There’s no Buddhophobia, Hinduphobia, Shintophobia etc. but then they’re just religions, Islam isn’t, it’s political, expansionist and colonial, as it has always been.