Why You Shouldn't be an Anti-Trans Extremist

Battle of the Gynocrats!

• Are you tired of elites shoving trans-insanity down your throat?

• Have you or a loved one been forcibly castrated against your will?

• Do you object to rape?

You may be considering becoming an “anti-trans extremist.” However, I am here today as a moderate voice to convince you why you should not be an anti-trans extremist. In fact, there are good reasons to support children being spayed and neutered:

1. A degree of selective misanthropy is healthy and good;

2. Overpopulation leads to pollution, and pollution is bad;

3. Freedom is good;

4. Woke eugenics is good;

5. McGenics is good.

battle of the gynocrats!

Gynocracy, as I define it, is a system of government (legal, cultural, or religious) where the mothering instinct dominates over society. Gynocracy is not the same as matriarchy, which is a government dominated by women. For example, if I joined a cult led by Camille Paglia, that would be a matriarchy, but not a gynocracy.

What I mean by “mothering instinct” is hysterical, disproportionate harm prevention. Seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmets, and protecting people “from themselves” is called “paternalism” but it is better described as gynocracy.

The formula of gynocratic moral panic is as follows:

1. Victimize and Infantilize: deprive a group of any moral responsibility, agency, or independence. Depict the victim group as innocent, youthful, naive, and ignorant. “They know not what they do.”

2. Apologize and Normalize: make excuses for the victim group, no matter how bad or inexcusable their behavior is. Say the victim group is “just like us,” and imply that, “if it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone!” Ignore the deviancy inherent in the group.

3. Villainize: villainize anyone who doesn’t join your moral crusade, accusing them of racism, sexism, pedophilia, or rape.

4. Exaggerate: blow up the problem beyond all proportion. Never admit the small, insignificant, or inconsequential numbers of “victims” involved in your crusade.

BLM

First, black criminals are victimized. Instead of being held responsible for their actions, blacks are depicted as being perfect moral agents who have never done anything wrong. This is achieved through infantilization. He was “just a student;” “just a kid;” “still a baby;” “could have been Obama’s son.” Claims of “mental illness” is used to infantilize and excuse all behavior.

Second, their behavior is normalized by apologia. “Anyone could find themselves using a counterfeit bill to buy a banana. Anyone could find themselves smoking crack. Anyone could find themselves pointing a loaded gun at a pregnant woman.”

Third, skeptics are villainized. If you don’t buy the narrative, you are racist, genocidal, and hateful.

Fourth, the claims are exaggerated. “Blacks are the victims of genocide; thousands of black men are being shot by cops; cops are the #1 killer of young black men,” and so on.

Irvo Otieno was a Kenyan immigrant who flew over to Virginia to begin burglarizing women's homes. He was arrested and was violent with cops, later covering himself with feces. He was infantilized and called a “young man” at the age of 28. His behavior was apologized for by citing his supposed mental illness.

Irvo Otieno’s killers.

The killers of Irvo Otieno were 75% black. They were infantilized and apologized for with the excuse that they were “possessed by the spirit of white supremacy.” Similarly, George Floyd was killed with the consent of two non-white officers who stood by and did nothing.¹

Stop Asian Hate!

Similar to BLM, the black attackers of Asian people are seen as “possessed” by the spirit of white supremacy, and cannot be held morally responsible for their behavior. The black attackers are as much victims of white supremacy as the Asians themselves. In the same way that children cannot be held responsible for their actions, the attackers are infantilized. Black criminality is excused because “Trump said China virus!” If you point out that white-on-Asian hate crimes haven’t increased as a result of Trump’s rhetoric, and blacks generally oppose Trump, and black Trump supporters are the least likely to commit crimes against Asians, your logical arguments are villainized as complicit in white supremacy.

unionism and welfarism.

Poor and unemployed people are victimized through the term “working class.” This label implies their willingness or ability to work, when that is often not the case. It justifies their lack of employment by blaming “capitalism” or “corporate greed,” and states that “they just need some help.” Behaviors like laziness and drug abuse are normalized and apologized for, saying, “if you were poor, you would probably feel exhausted; you would probably do drugs.” The role of talent and ability is ignored. Anyone who opposes the expansion of unionism or welfarism is villainized. In 2016, Trump popularized a new villainous label, “globalist,” which many heard as an echo of Nazi and Stalinist accusations that “international cosmopolitans exploit the working class.”

european refugees.

Refugees in Europe are infantilized by their sponsors and supporters, who refer to fully grown adult men as children. They are cast as victims of war, when most of them come from countries without any active conflicts. Cultural differences are forcibly normalized through a two-tier policing system, where native rioters are jailed, but foreign rioters are apologized for, excused, and released. Opponents of refugee programs are villainized as racist Nazis.

Protect Trans Kids!

Infantilization is achieved by focusing on children themselves, rather than re-imagining adults as child-like. Trans-kids are cast as victims of bullying, which is said to cause their mental illness, rather than bullying being the result of mental illness. The high rates of mental illness among their mothers is normalized and ignored. Opposition to trans-kids is villainized as transphobic and leading to the death of children by forcing them to commit suicide.

right-wing gynocracy.

The left does not have a monopoly on gynocratic moralism. Centrists and right-wingers have their own:

Left-gynocracy:

• BLM;

• Stop Asian Hate;

• Unionism and Welfarism;

• Refugees Welcome;

• Protect Trans Kids!

Centrist-gynocracy:

• Female teacher sex scandals.

• Gambling.

Right-gynocracy:

• The opioid crisis;

• Black-on-white crime;

• Stop trans-grooming!

If you can think of more examples, please post them in the comments. I’ll start with these five issues, and explain how they each follow the same template as the left.

Female teacher sex scandals.

First, teenage boys ages 16 to 17 are victimized and deprived of sexual agency through infantilization. Anyone who is skeptical of the persecution of female teachers is villainized as a supporter of child abuse or pedophilia. Male participation and initiation is apologized for, saying that “those teen boys are too young to understand sex.”

gambling.

Victims of gambling are said to have no control over their behavior: they are infantilized. Gambling websites are villainized as predatory. Gambling behavior is normalized: “anyone could find themselves betting their life savings on sports.” Their behavior is apologized for: “gambling is an addiction, so they hold no responsibility for their actions.”

the opioid crisis.

Drug users are victimized by saying they had no choice but to do drugs, and they are infantilized by saying they didn’t know that drugs are bad. Their behavior is normalized and apologized for by saying, “if you were poor you would also do drugs.” The opioid crisis is used as an indictment of “the elites,” and has formed a right-wing pipeline to appropriate welfarist and unionist rhetoric. The story is that “working class white people were doing great, and then the elites took away their jobs and forced opioids on them.” Anyone who is skeptical of this narrative, and sees the problem as having to do more with religion than economics, is villainized as anti-white, or anti-working class, or a globalist.

black-on-white crime.

Victims of black-on-white crime are infantilized by highlighting stories of children dying, such as that of Cannon Hinnant. Despite the fact that most white victims of black crime are part of black communities and engaged in friendships and romantic relationships with blacks, the white victims are normalized as “normal everyday white people, just like you and me.”

Out of the 9,440 murders committed where the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim was known, only 1,998 were committed by a stranger. 1,664 were committed by a family member, and 1,350 were committed by a romantic partner.

There were 566 black-on-white murders in 2019. Assuming that only 21% of cleared² murders are committed by a stranger, 120 white people were murdered by black strangers. By contrast, 181 white people were murdered because they had black family members or romantic partners.³

A majority of black-on-white murders are perpetrated by friends, step-family, or within mixed race families; by lovers, spouses, neighbors, and acquaintances. Black-on-white murder isn’t random, but follows a pattern of interracial relationships and friendships, and results from the choice to live in black neighborhoods. Most white victims of black violence become victims because they choose to befriend, sleep with, marry, or live around black people. It isn’t accidental or random.

White victimhood is normalized by saying that “anyone could live in a black neighborhood.” This is simply not true. Most white people choose not to do this.

75% of white people in 2014 had no black friends at all. Dating or intermarrying with black people is a choice that only a small percentage of whites will ever make. The fact this small percentage are then more likely to become victims of interracial crime is logical. When the far-right engages in moral panics around black-on-white crime, they are infantilizing those whites who elect to engage in interracial relationships, saying that they cannot control themselves, and need to be protected from themselves.

stop trans-grooming!

Trans-kids are victimized and infantilized, even when the vast majority of them do not begin medical intervention until adulthood. But more importantly, the role of parents is ignored, excused, normalized, and apologized for. Often, parents are seen as victims of doctors or “brainwashing.” Parents are denied their agency. Conservatives get around this problem by implying that trans-children are getting on hormone blockers and getting surgeries without parental consent, which is not true.

Trans-kids score much higher in narcissism. Narcissists are much more likely to engage in attention seeking behaviors. As a result, trans-kids exaggerate their own presence in American culture. They love the attention, both from the left and the right.

How much time, energy, and effort must the state devote to protecting children? With our limited resources, how much focus should we dedicate to the question of trans kids?

trans by the numbers:

The next 20 slides are dedicated to understanding what transgenderism is and what it is correlated with (and perhaps caused by).

As of 2022, the Williams Institute estimates that 300,000 children ages 13-17 are trans. Of these 300,000, 14% were diagnosed in the last year.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

Is liberal ideology making kids trans? This question is similar to that of homosexuality: what makes kids identify as gay? Human sexuality is complicated and doesn’t have a single cause. Homosexuality is not genetically determined, for example, but there may be genetic factors which increase the likelihood of homosexual expression.

It is possible that ideology “unlocks” latent biological or cultural potentials. Factors such as poverty, racial identity, drug use, or mental illness may create the conditions of a “sexual predilection” which is then exploited by ideology.

If liberal ideology is a fault, we should expect a linear relationship between trans identity and Biden’s margins in 2020.

How many lefty moms push trans on kids?

59% of Democrats say “we haven’t gone far enough to support trans kids.” Let’s assume that all of these Democrats, if they had children, would encourage their children to become trans. Let’s further assume that only liberal women with BPD encourage their kids to become trans. 6.2% of all women have BPD, and it’s probably higher among liberal women, but let’s ignore that for now. The result is that we can estimate that 3.66% of Democratic mothers are pushing trans ideology on their kids.

One of the reasons why this number probably isn’t as high as 3.66% is because the percent of Democrats who say trans-ideology has gone too far (15%) are overwhelmingly mothers. But since I may have underestimated the number of Democrat mothers with BPD, the two errors balance each other out, and we’ll stick with 3.66% for now.

Take the total percentage of trans kids, then subtract the “expected trans” value based on 3.66% of Democrats. This results in a disparity ranging between -1.4% (DC) and 2.6% (New Mexico). In states like New Jersey and Rhode Island, party affiliation was a poor predictor of trans identification among children.

The R2 value for a linear relationship between Democrat votes and trans kids is 0.3, which is fairly weak, but it is a correlation. There are potentially confounding variables:

1. Maybe more Democratic leaning states have more non-whites, and non-whites are more likely to be trans;

2. Maybe Democratic states are richer, and wealth leads people to become trans;

3. Or, maybe more Democratic leaning states have less economic growth, and lower economic growth leads people to become trans.

Once a state becomes more than 50% for Biden, the likelihood of (trans kids)/kids > 3% increases dramatically. This might indicate some kind of threshold relating to policy or legal actions by the governor or state legislature. Perhaps healthcare policies in these states allow for greater access to mental health professionals, who are more likely to suggest to children that they “explore their gender identity.”

If we narrow the field to only states where Biden won, the correlation becomes extremely weak, (R2=0.02). After a state goes Democrat, there’s no indication that going super-ultra-mega Democrat results in a linear increase in trans-identification. It’s also possible that trans-identification has little to do with local conditions, and is purely a product of the internet, which is uniformly distributed over the American landscape.

For Republicans, two outliers were Mississippi and Texas, which both have large non-white populations. North Dakota also breached the 2.5% mark.

Whiteness isn’t correlated strongly with trans kids (R2=.08).

No correlation (R2=0.03) between trans kids and real GDP growth, 2022-2023.

Drug overdose rate: no correlation (R2=.01).

Irreligion had an R2 of .07. I decided to create an artificial variable by adding Catholicism together with Irreligion.

Irreligion + Catholics.

For Maryland and Mississippi, the discrepancy may be due to higher black populations.

I created a variable called “not WASP,” which attempted to combine atheists, Catholics, and blacks, but it was less predictive (R2=.15)

Neither medium nor average income was very predictive. (R2=.13)

I also looked at the white-only poverty rate to see if trans identification was a “luxury belief.” No correlation (R2=.04)

Urbanism formed a parabolic curve. Perhaps highly urban and highly rural environments both produce trans kids, while “suburban” environments reduce trans identification. (R2=.24)

Change in urbanism wasn’t predictive. (R2=.03)

What about rates of childhood obesity, ages 10-17?

Skinny states like Maine had more trans kids than obese states like Kentucky. (R2=.03) This would suggest that even when we control for race, there is no correlation between trans-identification and childhood obesity. This is despite the fact that childhood obesity leads to precocious puberty.

Here’s a map of childhood obesity:

Cancer rates were, if anything, inversely correlated with trans kids. That seems to negate the mutational load hypothesis.

Winner:

So far, the best correlated factor with trans kids was irreligion + Catholics (.33). The presence of non-Protestant religions, like atheism and Catholicism, was a slightly better predictor of trans-kids than political affiliation, at 0.3. This suggests that trans kids are a religious phenomenon, rather than a political one — although it is increasingly difficult to separate the two concepts.

Catholics might increase trans kid affiliation because Catholicism is a relatively passive religion where people aren’t as involved. Putting denomination aside, I wanted to see how often people attend church in each state.

I decided to subtract the Catholics and see what happened.

We’re making it out of the hood with this one. (R=.44) The Jersey Shore (2006) was much more important than I had previously realized. Spray tanning must reduce transgender identity significantly.

When I inverted the question to be “never church” and then added Catholics this also produced a fairly good correlation (R2=.43). I am guessing that Maryland and Mississippi are high due to the higher black population, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts are low due to a lower black population.

Accounting for blacks didn’t provide a better correlation (R2=.38), but it did eliminate Mississippi, Maryland, and Massachusetts as outliers. It made the eternal problem of New Jersey even worse, however. I’m wondering if the Williams Institute data on trans kids in New Jersey is wrong, or if Chris Christie has been eating them. Very disturbing.

Finally, I tried “Weekly church minus Catholic or black” and got decent results. (R2=.35)

Historically, Louisiana, Delaware, and New Jersey all owned slaves. New Jersey was the last state in the north to abolish slavery. It’s possible that there is a “racism” factor that is stopping kids from becoming trans. That sounds bizarre to inversely correlate racism with trans identity, but it makes sense if we consider racism to be a form of ethnocentrism, and trans identity as a form of overcompensation for a lack of identity.

Trans identification is partially a result of generalized identity confusion. Children with a weak religious identity (atheists and Catholics) or a conflicted racial identity (Hispanics and blacks) are more likely to become trans.

New Jersey remains an outlier as a wealthy and healthy state: low obesity, high incomes, close to the beach.

Still, money doesn’t correlate well with trans identification.

Family values.

For a wealthy state, New Jersey’s TFR (1.77) is relatively high.

TFR has an (R2=.26) inverse correlation with trans kids. New Jersey is finally not an outlier.

Advanced degrees correlate weakly (R2=.24) with trans kids. What I want is “high fertility in spite of education,” or “raw will to have children despite suppression.” In other words, “family values.”

I attempted to create a coefficient of “family values” by multiplying TFR by percent with graduate degrees. A better way to demonstrate “family values” would be to look at the TFR of those with degrees. Didn’t have that data, and we’re already 20 charts deep, so it’s time to put a bookmark in this article.

% of trans kids out of all kids.

As you can see by this map, trans occurrence doesn’t correlate well with political affiliation. New Mexico is not more liberal than California, but has a much higher rate of incidence. New Jersey was also underrepresented, despite being liberal. We can show the graph of disparity as well.

The disparity is between the expected value (based on political affiliation) and the occurrence of trans kids. The most “surprising” states were Rhode Island, Maryland, Maine, and New Mexico. With the exception of Maine, these are states with high levels of urbanization and Catholicism.

how many trans kids are on hormones?

From Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

The number of trans kids who initiated hormone therapy was 1,390 in 2021. There were 42,167 new diagnoses in that year, which implies that 3.3% of trans kids go on puberty blockers.

4,231 went on hormone therapy, which means that at most, 13% of trans kids are experimenting with some kind of medical intervention.

The thing which conservatives are most scared of, “chopping up children’s genitals,” occurs in a very small number of cases. 282 mastectomies were performed on children in 2021. There are probably twice as many MtF as FtM, meaning that 33% of trans kids are FtM. Accordingly, out of the potentially 13,915 FtM trans kids, there were 282 top surgeries, which means only 2% of trans FtM kids are getting surgery. Bottom surgery is even more rare. Maybe 0.068% of trans kids get bottom surgery.

Conservatives like to say that “an adult taking a knife and slicing up a child’s genitals is much worse [than rape.]” But every year there are 3.66 million babies born in America. Only a few dozen have their “genitals sliced up” every year. This is equivalent to a 0.0005% chance.

If conservatives cared about protecting children, they would admit that children are thousands of times more likely to be raped than to be victimized by transgender surgeries. In fact, the number of children who are killed by dogs is roughly equivalent to the number of kids having trans-genital surgeries.

Conservatives aren’t actually concerned with preventing harm. Rather, they are interested in gynocratic forms of performative morality. They will hold endless protests against women’s sports while thousands of children are dying in car crashes. Where are the “anti-car” extremists?

marginal symbolic obsession.

Trans kids don’t matter. If they were banned from having surgeries, it wouldn’t matter. If they were all castrated, it wouldn’t matter. These are, by definition, mentally ill people with mentally ill parents. Whatever happens to them is of little consequence.

The left has made trans identity into a shibboleth. Deranged activists scream and shout about trans genocide. These are religious fanatics. Conservatives, disturbed by the success of these shamans and witches, declare themselves to be “anti-trans extremists.”

If you save your enemy’s children, you win.

Preventing trans kids from experimenting with life altering hormones is not going to change them into populist libertarians. Delaying the inevitable till 18 will have no effect whatsoever on the political makeup of this country.

The explosion of trans identity is not caused by surgeries and hormones. It is a symptom, not a cause. You can stop the symptoms and force them to wait till 18, but that will have an entirely marginal effect on the overall level of trans identification.

Ultimately, conservatives don’t want to win. They want to complain. If they wanted to win, they would be doing the surgeries themselves. Conservatives believe instead that it is their job to nag, harass, and play referee with liberals.

Let’s say that 40,000 children become trans every year. Maybe some of them (10%?) will grow out of it, and become LGB, and drop the T. Maybe 20% of those LGB people will become “conservatives,” like Dave Rubin. That means by stopping trans hormones and surgeries, conservatives are potentially winning over 2% of trans kids.

In 2022, 38% of Americans said "our society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender." 36% said we have not gone far enough, and 23% said we're doing good. Litigating 2% of these treatments out of 4% of the population, blaming the doctors, and never mentioning the fact that in 99% of these cases parental consent is obtained, is not the winning issue that conservatives think it is.

Voters care about economics, inflation, jobs, immigration, healthcare, and crime. Women’s sports, bathrooms, and trans kids are totally irrelevant. They exist as a football to be kicked around in a game of meaningless reactionary resentment.

When someone becomes an “anti-trans extremist,” they have demonstrated their unwillingness to win elections. Trump has been supporting the trans community since 2012.

Opposing transgenderism is a shell game for conservatives who are unwilling to honestly oppose homosexuality. If conservatives openly oppose homosexuality, then the weakness of their position is exposed. By hyper-focusing on trans kids, they can directionally point toward their position implicitly, without exposing their obvious weaknesses.

The left and right are competing for who can be more gynocratic, or tap more deeply and effectively into the mothering instinct. Who will win: protecting trans kids from bullying, or protecting children from trans-groomers? The motive is the same: obsessing over marginal groups that don’t matter at all for purely symbolic point-scoring against the opposing tribe.

When the left conceives of its enemies, it imagines a preacher, a domestic abuser, a capitalist, or a racist. It doesn’t think about saving these people, but crushing them. When the right conceives of its enemies, it imagines transgender people, but then its goal is to save these people, not to crush them. This is a form of mythological confusion.

love thy enemy.

Some conservatives object that “we don’t want to hurt trans people, we want to save them from trans ideology!” No leftist would ever say such things:

• We don’t want to hurt rich people, we want to save them from capitalism!

• We don’t want to hurt racists, we want to save them from racism!

• We don’t want to hurt preachers, we want to save them from religion!

• We don’t want to hurt domestic abusers, we want to educate them and save them from sexism!

Conservatives seem to want to save trans-identified teenagers through harm-avoidance strategies centered on the concept of “consent.” Or, they are cynically pulling a “reverse Saul Alinsky,” and using the principles of the left against them. I don’t find the most passionate opposition to trans-kids to be motivated by cynicism, but in “Christian-ish” tradition.

Here’s what Jesus had to say about genital mutilation:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)

Jesus endorsed genital mutilation, which was not strange given the popularity of circumcision in his time. Many slaves were eunuchs, and Jesus favored slaves as the “salt of the earth.” It was the policy of the Catholic church until the 19th century to hire eunuchs for its choirs, and the Byzantine Empire used eunuchs such as Narses to command its Christian armies. There is no contradiction between Christianity and genital mutilation.

Genesis 34:13–31 describes a plot by Simeon and Levi to trick the enemies of Israel into mutilating their own genitals “for God,” so he can weaken them and slay them. The Israelites themselves were circumcized, which can be viewed as a symbolic castration or cutting of the flesh.

As to why the Catholic church ceased hiring eunuchs, castrati, it may have been due to the influence of Enlightenment and humanist thinkers who thought of the process as barbaric and reminiscent of primitive cultures. As Europeans began to explore the world, they found that other cultures practiced many forms of bodily mutilation, including piercings and tattoos. Bodily modification came to be associated with savages and pirates, not with civilized Christians, and the practice of castrati was ended. Earlier, the practice of castrated eunuchs was already ended as Christianity had generally outlawed the practice of enslaving fellow Christians (unlike Muslims who continued the practice).

Transgenderism is motivated by a different theoretical framework. Its intention is primarily to prevent harm, rather than to enslave and sterilize. But the biological effect of castration remains the same today as it was thousands of years ago.

Mutilating one’s own genitals is painful and reduces sexual satisfaction. Some people regret this decision. Some men live happy lives even after mutilating their genitals. I personally don’t advise anyone to mutilate their genitals, but if someone wants to mutilate their genitals, I don’t feel the need to go on a holy crusade to stop them.

If conservatives want to delay kids from mutilating their genitals for an extra 1-5 years, they can legislate against the couple hundred cases that occur every year. But this won’t stop the increasing transgender identification among teens, which is largely a response to the religious vacuum left by traditional religion and racial identity.

Christians find it easier to bash trans-groomers than to offer a positive and compelling vision of identity. This is because the central telos of Christianity has been stolen by the left.

Zeus binds and mutilates Prometheus for stealing fire from the Gods.

Thanks for reading.

1. The fact that George Floyd’s cause of death was “cardiopulmonary arrest,” which can be caused by overdose, and not asphyxiation itself, “demonstrates the limitations of an autopsy by itself in diagnosing death by asphyxiation.”

2. “Cleared” means we know the murderer.

3. This is assuming that the “known vs unknown” ratios for uncleared murders are the same as those for cleared ones.