My latest for UnHerd, a.k.a. more shooting fish in barrels: Trans activists in the academy have abandoned their training in historical methods in order to reimagine figures from Roman emperors to Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I (as far as I know, no such attempts have been made on QEII), and author
Thanks for writing about this. This topic irritates me also.
Frida Kahlo is another one that trans people are trying to reinvent. Why? Because once, as a joke, she dressed as a man (at the age of 17, I think) for a family photo. In every other instance, she wore feminine clothes, not to mention flowers in her hair. She was a brilliant artist and highly intelligent, even when she was young. Dressing as a man for a picture was just the kind of wry social statement she might think to make, as she understood all about sexual politics. But doing that once didn't make her trans.
There’s not much to say about this is there, other than to agree it’s completely dementing. It really is a totalitarian impulse isn’t it, extending in all directions, whether that’s by trying to control people’s private thoughts in the present, or by ‘transing’ the whole of history. The frantic ambition of gender ideology seems to be in direct relation to the flimsiness of its claims.
‘Elagabalus, “long regarded as mad and one of the worst Roman emperors […] is perhaps now best thought of as a transgender teen”.’
I actually lolled
Seeing as a Elagabalus, among such things as marrying multiple wives including a vestal virgin, and dressing up as a woman to prostitute himself to men, was most famous for creating a new religion where he replaced Jupiter as the head of the pantheon of gods with himself and forced priests to worship this new religion under his supervision...I’d say that actually sounds about right.
To the degree I studied the history of Chinese philosophy, I noticed an interesting pattern. Innovations usual presented themselves as ancient wisdom. The reason was that the very concept of originality was suspect. An idea that hadn't proven itself through the test of time wasn't an idea worth considering. It might seem strange to many moderns, but the fetishization of originality is peculiarly western and modern. It wasn't fashionable even in Europe until the 17th century, before which the authority of Aristotle was recognized even when flatly contradicted by the evidence of the senses. Perhaps the activist tendency to read "transness" into the distant past indicates it's really rooted in a reactionary ideology, despite presenting itself as a radical one.
H. P. Lovecraft was now trans apparently. I've seen people who've been retconned to be trans who never were, and then after they decide this was the case, it's "transphobic" not to refer to them by their pronouns.
Agreeing with some of the other comments, by alleging that there were always "transgender" people, the declarants are seeking to legitimize this new concept. More specifically, they are trying to capitalize on the thing that allowed homosexuality to become acceptable. We collectively agree that sexual orientation is something one is born with, and, therefore, it would be cruel to penalize a gay person for something they could never have changed. This notion has helped homosexuality to gain mainstream acceptance. (Of course, this doesn't have to be the basis for our acceptance. We could instead simply agree that, well, "love is love" and there is nothing wrong with having intimate relations with someone of the same sex as long as the parties are consenting. We could agree that, whether or not homosexuality is inborn, it is not harming anyone and has beauty in it. This is not to say I think people "choose" to be gay - but what if they did? Wouldn't it still be fine?)
Anyway, if there were always "transgender" people, and this is an uncommon (but apparently only as uncommon as being a redhead since at least 2% of the young population seems to be "trans"), in-born characteristic, then we have to accept it as long as it isn't harming others. (Some people might be born with characteristics such as a violent streak, and we never just accept that!).
That, I think, is why some people go to such ridiculous lengths to re-write history.
"Why not own their invention, rather than impose it on those who came before them? "
Because they know, at some level, that trans isn't real.
We gay men can point to Old Testament scripture that condemns gay sex to show that same-sex attraction has been documented as having been part of the human experience for thousands of years. That may be its only use on the side of good.
Trans people can't do that because the historical record isn't there. So, like art forgers, trans activists have to rifle through the archives, so to speak, plant fakes and claim to find them. There's a special place in art-historical hell for any dissertation advisor or editor of a peer-reviewed journal who is complicit in legitimizing such drivel.
Has anyone tried to posthumously “trans” David Bowie, the most famous gender -bender of them all? (IMO) Much of my generation might go to war over that if any TRA dares to even hint at it. How sad that the world has regressed so much towards sex stereotypes.
They will no more likely to acknowledge the newness of their beliefs than did the radical reformers of the 16th century who had "discovered" the true way of being Christian and the true interpretation of the Gospels.
I know the illogic very well, as a trans widow. My former husband has the triumvirate of physical abuse by his father as a child, inheriting the red haired appearance of his mother, crisis in his early thirties (after fathering our 2 children) of another male developing dominance in his workplace. Then boom, become a "trans woman" and get a job at the Guggenheim museum, then an equity contract at a database management company. All while claiming to be under employed and unable to pay child support. My channel on youtube (search the name) features the story of 55 more trans widows.
In my experience with these people, it's because they have a deep need to imagine that what they're creating is "natural" - that the society they want is the proper, original version of humanity and they're simply fighting to remove the unnatural later additions and return to the way things should be. They want to cast themselves as reactionaries rather than revolutionaries.
"don't misgender me!!" but it's perfectly fine to retcon the identities of people who've been dead and gone for centuries without their consent?!
Thanks for writing about this. This topic irritates me also.
Frida Kahlo is another one that trans people are trying to reinvent. Why? Because once, as a joke, she dressed as a man (at the age of 17, I think) for a family photo. In every other instance, she wore feminine clothes, not to mention flowers in her hair. She was a brilliant artist and highly intelligent, even when she was young. Dressing as a man for a picture was just the kind of wry social statement she might think to make, as she understood all about sexual politics. But doing that once didn't make her trans.
When one of these “enlightened” declares Mohamed to be trans, I’ll know they are serious.
There’s not much to say about this is there, other than to agree it’s completely dementing. It really is a totalitarian impulse isn’t it, extending in all directions, whether that’s by trying to control people’s private thoughts in the present, or by ‘transing’ the whole of history. The frantic ambition of gender ideology seems to be in direct relation to the flimsiness of its claims.
‘Elagabalus, “long regarded as mad and one of the worst Roman emperors […] is perhaps now best thought of as a transgender teen”.’
I actually lolled
Seeing as a Elagabalus, among such things as marrying multiple wives including a vestal virgin, and dressing up as a woman to prostitute himself to men, was most famous for creating a new religion where he replaced Jupiter as the head of the pantheon of gods with himself and forced priests to worship this new religion under his supervision...I’d say that actually sounds about right.
To the degree I studied the history of Chinese philosophy, I noticed an interesting pattern. Innovations usual presented themselves as ancient wisdom. The reason was that the very concept of originality was suspect. An idea that hadn't proven itself through the test of time wasn't an idea worth considering. It might seem strange to many moderns, but the fetishization of originality is peculiarly western and modern. It wasn't fashionable even in Europe until the 17th century, before which the authority of Aristotle was recognized even when flatly contradicted by the evidence of the senses. Perhaps the activist tendency to read "transness" into the distant past indicates it's really rooted in a reactionary ideology, despite presenting itself as a radical one.
H. P. Lovecraft was now trans apparently. I've seen people who've been retconned to be trans who never were, and then after they decide this was the case, it's "transphobic" not to refer to them by their pronouns.
Agreeing with some of the other comments, by alleging that there were always "transgender" people, the declarants are seeking to legitimize this new concept. More specifically, they are trying to capitalize on the thing that allowed homosexuality to become acceptable. We collectively agree that sexual orientation is something one is born with, and, therefore, it would be cruel to penalize a gay person for something they could never have changed. This notion has helped homosexuality to gain mainstream acceptance. (Of course, this doesn't have to be the basis for our acceptance. We could instead simply agree that, well, "love is love" and there is nothing wrong with having intimate relations with someone of the same sex as long as the parties are consenting. We could agree that, whether or not homosexuality is inborn, it is not harming anyone and has beauty in it. This is not to say I think people "choose" to be gay - but what if they did? Wouldn't it still be fine?)
Anyway, if there were always "transgender" people, and this is an uncommon (but apparently only as uncommon as being a redhead since at least 2% of the young population seems to be "trans"), in-born characteristic, then we have to accept it as long as it isn't harming others. (Some people might be born with characteristics such as a violent streak, and we never just accept that!).
That, I think, is why some people go to such ridiculous lengths to re-write history.
If it has always been, the burden of proof is on the deniers; If it is brand new, the burden of proof is on the radicals.
"Why not own their invention, rather than impose it on those who came before them? "
Because they know, at some level, that trans isn't real.
We gay men can point to Old Testament scripture that condemns gay sex to show that same-sex attraction has been documented as having been part of the human experience for thousands of years. That may be its only use on the side of good.
Trans people can't do that because the historical record isn't there. So, like art forgers, trans activists have to rifle through the archives, so to speak, plant fakes and claim to find them. There's a special place in art-historical hell for any dissertation advisor or editor of a peer-reviewed journal who is complicit in legitimizing such drivel.
Has anyone tried to posthumously “trans” David Bowie, the most famous gender -bender of them all? (IMO) Much of my generation might go to war over that if any TRA dares to even hint at it. How sad that the world has regressed so much towards sex stereotypes.
They will no more likely to acknowledge the newness of their beliefs than did the radical reformers of the 16th century who had "discovered" the true way of being Christian and the true interpretation of the Gospels.
Revisionist behavior -modifying historic examples to support one’s narrative
I know the illogic very well, as a trans widow. My former husband has the triumvirate of physical abuse by his father as a child, inheriting the red haired appearance of his mother, crisis in his early thirties (after fathering our 2 children) of another male developing dominance in his workplace. Then boom, become a "trans woman" and get a job at the Guggenheim museum, then an equity contract at a database management company. All while claiming to be under employed and unable to pay child support. My channel on youtube (search the name) features the story of 55 more trans widows.
Sheesh! Everybody knows it's the archangels who are nonbinary.
In my experience with these people, it's because they have a deep need to imagine that what they're creating is "natural" - that the society they want is the proper, original version of humanity and they're simply fighting to remove the unnatural later additions and return to the way things should be. They want to cast themselves as reactionaries rather than revolutionaries.