I missed this when it first came out but never have I ever encountered such an immaculate and telling time capsule. It’s all in here! Egg-cracking memes, TransTubers, a pandemic inside a pandemic, and, yes, a man who renamed himself “Isis”! I want to be clear: there are serious and fascinating articles to be written about
>The Celebration Parallax may be stated as: “the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it.” In contemporary speech, on any “controversial” topic—or, to say better, regime priority—the decisive factor is the intent of the speaker. If she can be presumed to be celebrating the phenomenon under discussion, she may shout her approval from the rooftops. If not, he better shut up before someone comes along to shut him up.
If you think the influence of trans people might cause the people around them to "discover" their own deep-seated trans identity (" - and that's a good thing"), you can acknowledge that this is a phenomenon that really exists. But if you think some people might mistakenly come to believe that they are trans as a result of peer influence - then all of a sudden "social contagion" is a debunked, discredited transphobic canard.
Serious question: The article asserts it's NOT a social contagion - it's anti-trans to even entertain the idea - but then literally, directly, and overtly describes details of a social contagion. It's not even a case of the reader having to make inferences or ask questions. IT'S RIGHT THERE. This is far from the first article where I've seen this (see link below for another example I just saw where the contagion is explicitly described in the first paragraphs). Do the authors genuinely not see that they just literally described a social contagion? Do they not understand what "social contagion" means? Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? Or is it just such a standard requirement to throw in a sentence that says "it's not a social contagion and you're transphobic if you even think it" that they mindlessly and reflexively insert it into their articles with so little little thought that they haven't even thought about what the words mean?
Yeah, it's infuriating, isn't it? I think it's mostly genuine. If someone actually believes there are "trans people" - whether they think that's a soul-gender in the wrong body or imagine some developmental sciency explanation - and society has been oppressing them for centuries (throw in a bit of noble savage nonsense about other cultures for good measure), then people are being woken up from their unconscious self-oppression to their authentic self. The phenomenon is the same either way round - we can be enlightened about something we were deluded about through influence from someone else, or we can be deluded through that influence about something we had right in the first place. From inside a cult, everything looks entirely different, and it all seems to make sense, usually through cognitive dissonance, just not making sure everything is throught through and matches with everything else you think, along with some careful research. That's the function of those - what are they called? - thought-terminating clichés. But most people don't have anywhere near enough critical thinking skills. I notice another example in the link you gave of someone whose pronouns are "he/they", for instance. Ridiculous. The point of the two pronouns is to give the subject and object version. "He" (subject) goes with "him" (object), and "they" (subject) goes with "them" (object) - but I see that mix of cases all the time. How are we supposed to talk about this person: "He has a kind nature. I really like they." We're surrounded by morons looking down on us for being bigots.
I've always thought the convention of presenting pronouns as "he/him" was silly. Why the grammar lesson? Most of us have known how to do pronoun grammar since we were about two to three years old.
Equally ridiculous, in my mind, is the claim to be a "he" -- to have a masculine "gender identity" -- while simultaneously claiming to be a non-binary "they." How exactly does can one claim to be simultaneously nonbinary and one half of a binary system?
The “queering “ of language means he can use whatever words they want to mean whatever she feels like the words mean. And all the rest of the world needs to bow down to this nonsense. I try to avoid these delusional people.
Yes- non-binary and trans must be in opposition to each other: nonbinary are both or neither- tbut rans want to be totally one binary- tho it just happens to be the one they weren't born in!
Oh yes, I forgot that little bit of idiocy, non-binary hes and shes and "MtF" or "FtM" theys. Not to mention the ones who think "cupcake" and "lampshade" are pronouns. I don't think I've ever seen anyone declaring completely new ones, like qui/quem, but then I don't hang around in those kinds of circles.
I encountered a "she/them" recently. I can only assume this means we are to refer to this person as female when subject, non-binary when object. Mentally exhausting.
"Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? "
Quite. And it's even more frustrating because this is not even a new observation. For decades people have been arguing that feminist angst was provoked and fuelled by a rapid disconnection from physical activities and chores (skinning rabbits, tending to the allotment, hand washing, cooking, baking, making preserves for the winter, darning sock etc) as a result of mod cons and a more consumer based society, which put millions of (mostly middle class) women in a kind of 'limbo state' (not dissimilar to lockdown/ furlough) where they just mooched about the house getting totally bored. This resulted in them forming cliques with other bored housewives in the same situation (not unlike social media), while their husbands worked all day to support the family, leaving the bored housewives to escalate and validate each other's angst. This angst resulted in the rejection of femininity/ womanhood as an oppressive force, and an urge to 'de-gender' oneself (and even adopt cross gender traits and identity) to become 'liberated'.
Throw in the dubious threat narrative of 'patriarchy' (which is everywhere and nowhere just like 'covid') and you have the perfect recipe for a social contagion based on a sense of disembodiment and dissatisfaction with one's gender identity... which is basically what feminism angst is (a kind of 'trans-lite').
And in common with today's epidemic of de-gendering, everything was rationalised and anybody who dared suggest social contagion might play a part in the adoption of a feminist identity was shot down as a 'misogynist' (the equivalent of labelling all gender critics as 'transphobes' today).
I don't think these are just parallels. I think this is the same phenomenon playing out.
This isn't to mock any of it. This is a real challenge which needs confronting (not evading). Perhaps it is the challenge of our age. How do we maintain cohesive identities in an age where technology (from mod cons to social media) is constantly pushing us into disembodied states that are far removed from our natural roles (the roles our bodies were designed for)?
What a risible comment. No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." It was a fight for women to own their bodies, to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like, and to not be relentlessly sexually harassed and demeaned in the streets and the workplace. Oh, yeah, there was also that thing about voting.
Are you really so ignorant of history and reality?
Stay in your cave. You're no Plato, Socrates, or Heraclitus, that's for sure.
"No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." "
I think many former feminists would disagree with you and make the case that had trans medicalisation been available and normalised when they were at college they would probably have fallen prey to it.
In any case most feminists today are pro trans. It's not that feminism is equatable to trans, it's that trans is what feminism looks like now that hormones and surgery have been added to the arsenal.... much like how the pill (an endocrine disrupter) redefined feminism back in the 60s, also leaving a small group of feminists horrified by this new wave of sex positive feminism. Today's TERF's are in a similar position, watching their movement continue on without them.
I don't see how shooting the messenger (me!) is going to make things better :)
"to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like"
I would argue that it's the other way around. The feminist angst of the 20th century (like today's trans angst) was not so much a battle FOR more opportunities...... it was a consequence of HAVING more opportunities. It was the invention of mod cons, street lighting, decent public transport, comfortable indoor offices with central heating and indoor toilets and the creation of service industries (to compliment the brutal manual labour jobs that made up most paid work previously) which allowed feminist ideology to take hold. In the same way, the sudden availability of hormones and surgery is allowing gender ideology to take hold of society today.
To put it bluntly:
1. When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).
2. When trans medicalisation was not an option there was no trans angst in society. Young people were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post gender unicorn).
This is why I say opportunity (the 'privilege of choice') PRECEDES and PROVOKES the angst than comes with that choice. This is why the 'privilege of choice' is in many ways a curse.... in terms of our mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing.
This is hardly a new concept, but it's one that nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge, because it's a UNIVERSAL TRUTH based on the HUMAN CONDITION. It's a unifying realisation, and everybody on the internet wants to stay divided and defend their own pet ideologies and tribes instead. They want to use the trans madness as a weapon to bash their preferred villain (men, lefties, atheists etc) instead of trying to get to the bottom of what is actually going on.
"Stay in your cave."
Like I said, I am not mocking the effects of social contagion or technology-driven angst. I am taking it seriously as something we all need to wrap our heads around.
Ever since the industrial revolution the onslaught of new technology has transported all of us into futuristic worlds that our bodies, our biology, our brains, our psyches and our gendered identities were simply not designed for.
If we still can't discuss the negative effects of mid 20th century mod cons and service industries on our mental health, gender identities and inter-sexual relationships then what chance do Gen Alpha have to navigate the current wave of insane transhumanist technologies that are now being 'gifted' to them, also in the name of progress and personal empowerment?
I think you have a point about the correlation between new opportunities and a range of challenges for people and society, but I don't think it's right to identify the rise of feminism as such a phenomenon. I doubt women gained so much time at home from mod cons as the shiny adverts (made by men) told them they were gaining. Chores tend to expand to fill the time, as any retiree can tell you.
<<When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).>>
I'm not sure why you mention the dirty and dangerous manual labour outside the home - typically men's work, though by no means always - but to say "there was no feminist angst in society" is to presume a lot. Women, prior to labour-saving devices (in this simplified version of history) were still essentially chattel, so we might suppose they would not dare to complain about scrubbing the floor and tending the kids all day. Probably much more commonly than now, men would let off steam after their hard day down the pit by getting drunk, coming home and beating his wife and/or kids.
Was there really "plunging mental health" - when? - what is it you think caused it? The idea that mod cons removed women's happiness because they got bored is very simplistic. It ignores all sorts of other changes in society at the time. Our raplidly increasing technological capability also challenged religion, which began to have less authority in people's views. Mass media was also a factor - magazines, radio and television stimulated ordinary people to think and discuss societal issues more. TV gave a window on lots of contrasting cultures, which is always enlightening and challenges the status quo. And of course two world wars had already demonstrated that women could do just about anything, and it was demanded of them, when the men went off to kill each other.
The feminist movement goes back much further than this, anyway, at least into the early 18th Century as a political movement. Women weren't swishing vacuum cleaners around and gaily popping things in their gas oven in 1700, then feeling bored and getting feminist angst. Nor were all women given leisure by labour-saving devices - many couldn't afford them for a long time (and still can't), and many stood long hours on factory floors putting them together (and still do).
So there might be a grain of truth in your point - maybe *some* influence of increased freedom bringing choice and challenge at that time.
You almost make out that feminism is a mental illness, however, and this is the big contrast here. Trans is, essentially, a mental illness - it's a deluded view of self and sex. Feminism isn't, it's an enlightenment from all manner of delusions created by patriarchy and religious oppression.
I don't even think leisure or choice or availability of hormones and surgery are a major factor in the trans phenomenon. It was constructed and delivered - queer theory emerged out of gay rights and postmodernism, infected universities, and was pumped into major establishments deliberately. We've had hormones and surgery far longer. What's changed is now some nutter is forcing kids to consider whether they'd like to be the sex they are or not.
One absolutely striking thing about this article (there are many, to be sure) is how the writer casually describes being "trans" as something that could simply occur to someone under the right conditions, without in any way acknowledging that this is supposed to be the same "condition" (sorry, gendered soul mismatch) that causes deeply dysphoric children and adolescents such intense suffering that we can expect them to take their own lives at any second. "Trans people know who they are." Unless they don't, apparently.
It's just.. so... crazy and obviously delusional. The idea that none of this has anything to do with social contagion I mean.
But also: just the notion that feeling uncomfortable with people's expectations when one "presents" as a "cis-woman" must mean one is "really" a man: that's just so pernicious, counterproductive, and: bonkers.
Also: the Biden administration's expert on trans issues is a trans woman. Hardly surprising she discounts any suggestion that social contagion has anything to do with this trans-pandemic.
The mind games of this cult are depressing, and I will not use their distorted, miserable language. Some eggs do need to be cracked to put an end to the trail of destruction, and there needs to be a truth and reconciliation. I will not support any politician of any stripe who waffled in the face of this evil. If any adult starts babbling their (trans) religious chants, I'm going to ask publicly if he or she is completely nuts. #AreYouNuts. I'll scream it if I have to.
Nov 27, 2023·edited Nov 27, 2023Liked by Eliza Mondegreen
That "ever-present fear of death" is the beginning of all religion, ever.
Few people realize that Genghis Khan was actually transgender because he transcended gender. He wanted to create the Pax Mongolica and to achieve that he left his Y-chromosome all across the continent to pass on his own genetic transness. That's right, all these eggs cracking are just Mongolian chickens comng home to roost. What a nice guy! Er, I mean what a kind lady!
As I read this, I began to imagine the original article was documenting another revelation or "egg-cracking" phenomenon along the lines of previous mass delusions. What popped into my head was alien parasitisation. There had been a stealthy invasion of body-snatching ETs, but not for nefarious reasons, to bring us into the fold of advanced galactic beings. The lucky ones, the enlightened, claimed they had been given their brain's internal encryption code (cracked, see?) and were now celebrating with each other, patronising those who hadn't been chosen as "mere earthlings"... while we earthlings were wondering what on earth to do about the social contagion of pseudo-alien crazies.
We also know that COVID directly affected the brain, and long covid may be part of the picture, either in the trans-identified or their parents. And, as you indicate, the pandemic was a sudden existential threat to us who had been enjoying relatively secure and comfortable lives away from war zones and natural disasters. Like an approaching Mongol hoard.
It is disturbingly ironic to see someone liken their awakening to their transgender status with the metaphor of the Titanic, whose captain allegedly ignored notification there was a fire on board before setting off, hit an iceberg, and sank. Is their unconscious trying to tell them something, you wonder.
As ever, a piece of genius writing, Eliza. Thank you for sharing your amazing insights. Nanu nanu.
I wonder, could the journalist quoted here even provide what it means for someone to "be trans" such that we can translate for ourselves what this all amounts to? As far as I can tell, it means "wishing one were the opposite sex," but the columnist must believe it means more than that, or else it would be nothing to celebrate.
Another proof why the Independent is worse than the Guardian. Digital newspaper for totally digital readers.
New Horizons was a right game for the pandemic, a virtual island you develop with anthromorphic animals.
Biden 2020 released official yard signs for players, and Hong Kongers used it to hold virtual protests. So it's also an established medium to spread trans idea to vulnerable people, even when Nintendo never intended it to be.
Here I am, naively thinking Animal Crossing was a charming little game with cute animals. Both my kids played it often, but I think the true cult indoctrination came from Tumblr in this house. Perhaps Eliza’s investigations will shed some light on this in the future.
It's created as a charming game with cute animals.
Just keep calm, let your kids play it if they still do, but maybe, ask them to tell you if something strange happens, be careful with strangers, maybe share with you about their gaming experience.
Yeah, I’m not losing my mind over it now. I was in a dark panic for a couple of years when I discovered my girl had been sucked into the gender ideology cult. Now, the proverbial barn door is shut, I can’t go back in time for a parental do-over. We’re just trying to keep everyone grounded in reality, supported in healthy ways, and hoping that maturity brings a broader understanding.
I actually played it a lot. It’s a cute and innocent game, nothing about it is inherently trans supportive, but I think it was taking off in popularity at the same moment the online trans contagion was and it tended to appeal to some of the same people who enjoyed the idea of an alternate reality. It’s only in the game’s interactions with other players that you start to see the trans influence - for example you can see clothing designed by other players and the number of pride flag shirts is ridiculous. However, if you don’t use those features, which are only minor parts of the game, there’s nothing trans about it. Sadly I was playing Animal Crossing while my daughter was spending all her time getting indoctrinated on Tumblr. I wish she’d been playing AC with me instead.
That sounds right. I’m not technologically sophisticated enough to do the things that allow them to play with strangers online, seems mostly they played together. Imaginative play, dress up, Lego world building; all these things are such a regular part of childhood. It’s odd to me that video games hold such appeal, but I was never into them as a kid (Atari era). Maybe it’s the almost unlimited choices one gets with a video game. I remember my girls arguing over which mini figure got to wear the pink shirt, or whatever. Now everyone gets a pink shirt!
"Isis" is an interesting choice of name. Around the 1st century, priests of the goddess Isis castrated themselves or each other, often dressing in flamboyant female clothing and referring to themselves and each other using grammatically feminine language. The majority of Roman citizens appear to have regarded them as demented lunatics.
All of this is predicated on the idea that people can be inherently trans, that it’s a way you can be born, like left handed, or homosexual, or autistic. But they can’t even define what trans actually means. And then what happened to all the “trans” people of earlier generations? Are there hundreds of thousands of 50 year old women walking around who are actually men (whatever that means) and don’t know it? Wouldn’t they be transitioning in droves now that it’s acceptable? Or did they all commit suicide? (Suicide rates are higher now than they were in earlier generations so this doesn’t seem plausible)
If you refute the idea that being trans is a definable, inborn condition, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
I often think of Abraham Riesman and Matt Lubchansky, two men in the same profession, the same social clique, the same political tribe, who crawled out of their eggshells as precious little baby trans birds at the same time. A miracle!
The "dominoes" paragraph reminds me of what Michael Anton calls "the celebration parallax" (https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/):
>The Celebration Parallax may be stated as: “the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it.” In contemporary speech, on any “controversial” topic—or, to say better, regime priority—the decisive factor is the intent of the speaker. If she can be presumed to be celebrating the phenomenon under discussion, she may shout her approval from the rooftops. If not, he better shut up before someone comes along to shut him up.
If you think the influence of trans people might cause the people around them to "discover" their own deep-seated trans identity (" - and that's a good thing"), you can acknowledge that this is a phenomenon that really exists. But if you think some people might mistakenly come to believe that they are trans as a result of peer influence - then all of a sudden "social contagion" is a debunked, discredited transphobic canard.
Serious question: The article asserts it's NOT a social contagion - it's anti-trans to even entertain the idea - but then literally, directly, and overtly describes details of a social contagion. It's not even a case of the reader having to make inferences or ask questions. IT'S RIGHT THERE. This is far from the first article where I've seen this (see link below for another example I just saw where the contagion is explicitly described in the first paragraphs). Do the authors genuinely not see that they just literally described a social contagion? Do they not understand what "social contagion" means? Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? Or is it just such a standard requirement to throw in a sentence that says "it's not a social contagion and you're transphobic if you even think it" that they mindlessly and reflexively insert it into their articles with so little little thought that they haven't even thought about what the words mean?
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6967503
Yeah, it's infuriating, isn't it? I think it's mostly genuine. If someone actually believes there are "trans people" - whether they think that's a soul-gender in the wrong body or imagine some developmental sciency explanation - and society has been oppressing them for centuries (throw in a bit of noble savage nonsense about other cultures for good measure), then people are being woken up from their unconscious self-oppression to their authentic self. The phenomenon is the same either way round - we can be enlightened about something we were deluded about through influence from someone else, or we can be deluded through that influence about something we had right in the first place. From inside a cult, everything looks entirely different, and it all seems to make sense, usually through cognitive dissonance, just not making sure everything is throught through and matches with everything else you think, along with some careful research. That's the function of those - what are they called? - thought-terminating clichés. But most people don't have anywhere near enough critical thinking skills. I notice another example in the link you gave of someone whose pronouns are "he/they", for instance. Ridiculous. The point of the two pronouns is to give the subject and object version. "He" (subject) goes with "him" (object), and "they" (subject) goes with "them" (object) - but I see that mix of cases all the time. How are we supposed to talk about this person: "He has a kind nature. I really like they." We're surrounded by morons looking down on us for being bigots.
I've always thought the convention of presenting pronouns as "he/him" was silly. Why the grammar lesson? Most of us have known how to do pronoun grammar since we were about two to three years old.
Equally ridiculous, in my mind, is the claim to be a "he" -- to have a masculine "gender identity" -- while simultaneously claiming to be a non-binary "they." How exactly does can one claim to be simultaneously nonbinary and one half of a binary system?
The “queering “ of language means he can use whatever words they want to mean whatever she feels like the words mean. And all the rest of the world needs to bow down to this nonsense. I try to avoid these delusional people.
Yes- non-binary and trans must be in opposition to each other: nonbinary are both or neither- tbut rans want to be totally one binary- tho it just happens to be the one they weren't born in!
Oh yes, I forgot that little bit of idiocy, non-binary hes and shes and "MtF" or "FtM" theys. Not to mention the ones who think "cupcake" and "lampshade" are pronouns. I don't think I've ever seen anyone declaring completely new ones, like qui/quem, but then I don't hang around in those kinds of circles.
I encountered a "she/them" recently. I can only assume this means we are to refer to this person as female when subject, non-binary when object. Mentally exhausting.
That is an excellent question.
"Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? "
Quite. And it's even more frustrating because this is not even a new observation. For decades people have been arguing that feminist angst was provoked and fuelled by a rapid disconnection from physical activities and chores (skinning rabbits, tending to the allotment, hand washing, cooking, baking, making preserves for the winter, darning sock etc) as a result of mod cons and a more consumer based society, which put millions of (mostly middle class) women in a kind of 'limbo state' (not dissimilar to lockdown/ furlough) where they just mooched about the house getting totally bored. This resulted in them forming cliques with other bored housewives in the same situation (not unlike social media), while their husbands worked all day to support the family, leaving the bored housewives to escalate and validate each other's angst. This angst resulted in the rejection of femininity/ womanhood as an oppressive force, and an urge to 'de-gender' oneself (and even adopt cross gender traits and identity) to become 'liberated'.
Throw in the dubious threat narrative of 'patriarchy' (which is everywhere and nowhere just like 'covid') and you have the perfect recipe for a social contagion based on a sense of disembodiment and dissatisfaction with one's gender identity... which is basically what feminism angst is (a kind of 'trans-lite').
And in common with today's epidemic of de-gendering, everything was rationalised and anybody who dared suggest social contagion might play a part in the adoption of a feminist identity was shot down as a 'misogynist' (the equivalent of labelling all gender critics as 'transphobes' today).
I don't think these are just parallels. I think this is the same phenomenon playing out.
This isn't to mock any of it. This is a real challenge which needs confronting (not evading). Perhaps it is the challenge of our age. How do we maintain cohesive identities in an age where technology (from mod cons to social media) is constantly pushing us into disembodied states that are far removed from our natural roles (the roles our bodies were designed for)?
What a risible comment. No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." It was a fight for women to own their bodies, to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like, and to not be relentlessly sexually harassed and demeaned in the streets and the workplace. Oh, yeah, there was also that thing about voting.
Are you really so ignorant of history and reality?
Stay in your cave. You're no Plato, Socrates, or Heraclitus, that's for sure.
"No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." "
I think many former feminists would disagree with you and make the case that had trans medicalisation been available and normalised when they were at college they would probably have fallen prey to it.
In any case most feminists today are pro trans. It's not that feminism is equatable to trans, it's that trans is what feminism looks like now that hormones and surgery have been added to the arsenal.... much like how the pill (an endocrine disrupter) redefined feminism back in the 60s, also leaving a small group of feminists horrified by this new wave of sex positive feminism. Today's TERF's are in a similar position, watching their movement continue on without them.
I don't see how shooting the messenger (me!) is going to make things better :)
"to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like"
I would argue that it's the other way around. The feminist angst of the 20th century (like today's trans angst) was not so much a battle FOR more opportunities...... it was a consequence of HAVING more opportunities. It was the invention of mod cons, street lighting, decent public transport, comfortable indoor offices with central heating and indoor toilets and the creation of service industries (to compliment the brutal manual labour jobs that made up most paid work previously) which allowed feminist ideology to take hold. In the same way, the sudden availability of hormones and surgery is allowing gender ideology to take hold of society today.
To put it bluntly:
1. When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).
2. When trans medicalisation was not an option there was no trans angst in society. Young people were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post gender unicorn).
This is why I say opportunity (the 'privilege of choice') PRECEDES and PROVOKES the angst than comes with that choice. This is why the 'privilege of choice' is in many ways a curse.... in terms of our mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing.
This is hardly a new concept, but it's one that nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge, because it's a UNIVERSAL TRUTH based on the HUMAN CONDITION. It's a unifying realisation, and everybody on the internet wants to stay divided and defend their own pet ideologies and tribes instead. They want to use the trans madness as a weapon to bash their preferred villain (men, lefties, atheists etc) instead of trying to get to the bottom of what is actually going on.
"Stay in your cave."
Like I said, I am not mocking the effects of social contagion or technology-driven angst. I am taking it seriously as something we all need to wrap our heads around.
Ever since the industrial revolution the onslaught of new technology has transported all of us into futuristic worlds that our bodies, our biology, our brains, our psyches and our gendered identities were simply not designed for.
If we still can't discuss the negative effects of mid 20th century mod cons and service industries on our mental health, gender identities and inter-sexual relationships then what chance do Gen Alpha have to navigate the current wave of insane transhumanist technologies that are now being 'gifted' to them, also in the name of progress and personal empowerment?
I think you have a point about the correlation between new opportunities and a range of challenges for people and society, but I don't think it's right to identify the rise of feminism as such a phenomenon. I doubt women gained so much time at home from mod cons as the shiny adverts (made by men) told them they were gaining. Chores tend to expand to fill the time, as any retiree can tell you.
<<When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).>>
I'm not sure why you mention the dirty and dangerous manual labour outside the home - typically men's work, though by no means always - but to say "there was no feminist angst in society" is to presume a lot. Women, prior to labour-saving devices (in this simplified version of history) were still essentially chattel, so we might suppose they would not dare to complain about scrubbing the floor and tending the kids all day. Probably much more commonly than now, men would let off steam after their hard day down the pit by getting drunk, coming home and beating his wife and/or kids.
Was there really "plunging mental health" - when? - what is it you think caused it? The idea that mod cons removed women's happiness because they got bored is very simplistic. It ignores all sorts of other changes in society at the time. Our raplidly increasing technological capability also challenged religion, which began to have less authority in people's views. Mass media was also a factor - magazines, radio and television stimulated ordinary people to think and discuss societal issues more. TV gave a window on lots of contrasting cultures, which is always enlightening and challenges the status quo. And of course two world wars had already demonstrated that women could do just about anything, and it was demanded of them, when the men went off to kill each other.
The feminist movement goes back much further than this, anyway, at least into the early 18th Century as a political movement. Women weren't swishing vacuum cleaners around and gaily popping things in their gas oven in 1700, then feeling bored and getting feminist angst. Nor were all women given leisure by labour-saving devices - many couldn't afford them for a long time (and still can't), and many stood long hours on factory floors putting them together (and still do).
So there might be a grain of truth in your point - maybe *some* influence of increased freedom bringing choice and challenge at that time.
You almost make out that feminism is a mental illness, however, and this is the big contrast here. Trans is, essentially, a mental illness - it's a deluded view of self and sex. Feminism isn't, it's an enlightenment from all manner of delusions created by patriarchy and religious oppression.
I don't even think leisure or choice or availability of hormones and surgery are a major factor in the trans phenomenon. It was constructed and delivered - queer theory emerged out of gay rights and postmodernism, infected universities, and was pumped into major establishments deliberately. We've had hormones and surgery far longer. What's changed is now some nutter is forcing kids to consider whether they'd like to be the sex they are or not.
One absolutely striking thing about this article (there are many, to be sure) is how the writer casually describes being "trans" as something that could simply occur to someone under the right conditions, without in any way acknowledging that this is supposed to be the same "condition" (sorry, gendered soul mismatch) that causes deeply dysphoric children and adolescents such intense suffering that we can expect them to take their own lives at any second. "Trans people know who they are." Unless they don't, apparently.
I believe this also occurred to the author, "Io," under the "right conditions."
It's just.. so... crazy and obviously delusional. The idea that none of this has anything to do with social contagion I mean.
But also: just the notion that feeling uncomfortable with people's expectations when one "presents" as a "cis-woman" must mean one is "really" a man: that's just so pernicious, counterproductive, and: bonkers.
Also: the Biden administration's expert on trans issues is a trans woman. Hardly surprising she discounts any suggestion that social contagion has anything to do with this trans-pandemic.
The mind games of this cult are depressing, and I will not use their distorted, miserable language. Some eggs do need to be cracked to put an end to the trail of destruction, and there needs to be a truth and reconciliation. I will not support any politician of any stripe who waffled in the face of this evil. If any adult starts babbling their (trans) religious chants, I'm going to ask publicly if he or she is completely nuts. #AreYouNuts. I'll scream it if I have to.
There must be a good joke here about egg vs nut cracking. Help me out here
I'm getting old. That took me a minute. :)
That "ever-present fear of death" is the beginning of all religion, ever.
Few people realize that Genghis Khan was actually transgender because he transcended gender. He wanted to create the Pax Mongolica and to achieve that he left his Y-chromosome all across the continent to pass on his own genetic transness. That's right, all these eggs cracking are just Mongolian chickens comng home to roost. What a nice guy! Er, I mean what a kind lady!
OK - the Mongol reference and image made me snarf my coffee. Thank you once again for the much needed humor!
As I read this, I began to imagine the original article was documenting another revelation or "egg-cracking" phenomenon along the lines of previous mass delusions. What popped into my head was alien parasitisation. There had been a stealthy invasion of body-snatching ETs, but not for nefarious reasons, to bring us into the fold of advanced galactic beings. The lucky ones, the enlightened, claimed they had been given their brain's internal encryption code (cracked, see?) and were now celebrating with each other, patronising those who hadn't been chosen as "mere earthlings"... while we earthlings were wondering what on earth to do about the social contagion of pseudo-alien crazies.
We also know that COVID directly affected the brain, and long covid may be part of the picture, either in the trans-identified or their parents. And, as you indicate, the pandemic was a sudden existential threat to us who had been enjoying relatively secure and comfortable lives away from war zones and natural disasters. Like an approaching Mongol hoard.
It is disturbingly ironic to see someone liken their awakening to their transgender status with the metaphor of the Titanic, whose captain allegedly ignored notification there was a fire on board before setting off, hit an iceberg, and sank. Is their unconscious trying to tell them something, you wonder.
As ever, a piece of genius writing, Eliza. Thank you for sharing your amazing insights. Nanu nanu.
I wonder, could the journalist quoted here even provide what it means for someone to "be trans" such that we can translate for ourselves what this all amounts to? As far as I can tell, it means "wishing one were the opposite sex," but the columnist must believe it means more than that, or else it would be nothing to celebrate.
It means "pretending" to be what you are not. That's all.
Another proof why the Independent is worse than the Guardian. Digital newspaper for totally digital readers.
New Horizons was a right game for the pandemic, a virtual island you develop with anthromorphic animals.
Biden 2020 released official yard signs for players, and Hong Kongers used it to hold virtual protests. So it's also an established medium to spread trans idea to vulnerable people, even when Nintendo never intended it to be.
Yes but: the Guardian fired Suzanne Moore for deviating from the party line on this subject.
I know, she and Hadley Freeman and maybe some others.
Here I am, naively thinking Animal Crossing was a charming little game with cute animals. Both my kids played it often, but I think the true cult indoctrination came from Tumblr in this house. Perhaps Eliza’s investigations will shed some light on this in the future.
It's created as a charming game with cute animals.
Just keep calm, let your kids play it if they still do, but maybe, ask them to tell you if something strange happens, be careful with strangers, maybe share with you about their gaming experience.
Yeah, I’m not losing my mind over it now. I was in a dark panic for a couple of years when I discovered my girl had been sucked into the gender ideology cult. Now, the proverbial barn door is shut, I can’t go back in time for a parental do-over. We’re just trying to keep everyone grounded in reality, supported in healthy ways, and hoping that maturity brings a broader understanding.
I actually played it a lot. It’s a cute and innocent game, nothing about it is inherently trans supportive, but I think it was taking off in popularity at the same moment the online trans contagion was and it tended to appeal to some of the same people who enjoyed the idea of an alternate reality. It’s only in the game’s interactions with other players that you start to see the trans influence - for example you can see clothing designed by other players and the number of pride flag shirts is ridiculous. However, if you don’t use those features, which are only minor parts of the game, there’s nothing trans about it. Sadly I was playing Animal Crossing while my daughter was spending all her time getting indoctrinated on Tumblr. I wish she’d been playing AC with me instead.
That sounds right. I’m not technologically sophisticated enough to do the things that allow them to play with strangers online, seems mostly they played together. Imaginative play, dress up, Lego world building; all these things are such a regular part of childhood. It’s odd to me that video games hold such appeal, but I was never into them as a kid (Atari era). Maybe it’s the almost unlimited choices one gets with a video game. I remember my girls arguing over which mini figure got to wear the pink shirt, or whatever. Now everyone gets a pink shirt!
"Isis" is an interesting choice of name. Around the 1st century, priests of the goddess Isis castrated themselves or each other, often dressing in flamboyant female clothing and referring to themselves and each other using grammatically feminine language. The majority of Roman citizens appear to have regarded them as demented lunatics.
Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
https://www.ijrhss.org/papers/v8-i3/4.pdf
All of this is predicated on the idea that people can be inherently trans, that it’s a way you can be born, like left handed, or homosexual, or autistic. But they can’t even define what trans actually means. And then what happened to all the “trans” people of earlier generations? Are there hundreds of thousands of 50 year old women walking around who are actually men (whatever that means) and don’t know it? Wouldn’t they be transitioning in droves now that it’s acceptable? Or did they all commit suicide? (Suicide rates are higher now than they were in earlier generations so this doesn’t seem plausible)
If you refute the idea that being trans is a definable, inborn condition, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
your hilarious comments perfectly skewer their pathetic ideas.
I often think of Abraham Riesman and Matt Lubchansky, two men in the same profession, the same social clique, the same political tribe, who crawled out of their eggshells as precious little baby trans birds at the same time. A miracle!