Monday, November 26, 2018

The transgender endgame

My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. 

I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.

This raises a question: what's the endgame for transgenderism? Transgenderism has a political endgame as well as a personal endgame.

On a political level, the objective is social control. A secular totalitarian utopia. Deconstructing boys and girls, men and women into interchangeable legos which the ruling class can play with. It's about power over others. 

And what's the personal endgame? Take a "transgender woman". A biological man who undergoes hormone therapy, a sex-change operation, and cosmetic surgery to mimic a woman. What's the objective? To have a romantic relationship? 

No straight male is romantically interested in a surgically modified man. No straight male is romantically interested in another man, with fake breasts, a fake vagina, and so forth. If push came to shove, a normal man would opt for a sexbot rather than a "transgender woman". The only context in which heterosexual men would have anything to do with "transgender women" is a prison situation. 

No gay male is romantically or sexually interested in another male who's been surgically altered to appear female. Gay men are attracted to young, athletic male bodies. 

No straight female is romantically interested in a "transgender woman" (or "transgender man"). And I doubt lesbians find that appealing either.

"Transitioning" makes the individual equally repellent to just about any conceivable romantic partner. At most you have some people into kinky sex who might experiment on someone who's transitioned. Perhaps there's a niche for the sadomasochistic crowd. That, however, won't give someone who suffers from gender dysphoria, or someone who's been brainwashed into believing that's their problem, the emotional satisfaction they crave.  

1 comment:

  1. "As long as transgender medicine retains the alleviation of pain as its benchmark of success, it will reserve for itself, with a dictator’s benevolence, the right to withhold care from those who want it. Transgender people have been forced, for decades, to rely for care on a medical establishment that regards them with both suspicion and condescension. And yet as things stand today, there is still only one way to obtain hormones and surgery: to pretend that these treatments will make the pain go away."

    1. Actually, "the medical establishment" is a misnomer. Doctors aren't a single monolithic establishment. There are conservative physicians. There are liberal physicians. There physicians of other stripes.

    2. In fact, the largest organizations that represent physicians (e.g. the AMA, the APA) are quite liberal, i.e., very much in favor of "transgender people".

    3. What's more, these organizations often attempt to force dissenting doctors to fall into line when it comes to hot political issues. It's the dissenting doctors who are regarded with "both suspicion and condescension" by their progressive colleagues. If a dissenting doctor thinks sex reassignment surgery won't help someone's gender dysphoria, then there are ways these professional organizations can try to make the dissenting doctor comply.

    4. So, if anything, the shoe is on the other foot: it's the progressive physicians and physician organizations that hold the power and that wish to force all other physicians to fall into line with them. It's the progressive physicians who currently hold most the high cards. Chu should stop pretending like that's not true.

    "The medical maxim 'First, do no harm' assumes that health care providers possess both the means and the authority to decide what counts as harm. When doctors and patients disagree, the exercise of this prerogative can, itself, be harmful. Nonmaleficence is a principle violated in its very observation. Its true purpose is not to shield patients from injury but to install the medical professional as a little king of someone else’s body. Let me be clear: I believe that surgeries of all kinds can and do make an enormous difference in the lives of trans people. But I also believe that surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want."

    Anyway, yes, it's clear what Chu really wants. But no, he can't coerce physicians to perform medical procedures on him that they don't wish to perform or that they don't consider prudent to perform.

    For one thing, American physicians typically pay for their own med school education. (Residency is more complicated, but that's another story.) Average loans - $200,000, give or take. Physicians aren't owned by the state or federal government. So they can't be coerced. Not directly, but of course (as I alluded to above) progressives find ways to make these physicians bleed.