Guest post: More in the spirit of Mao than of Mill
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on What we don’t like makes us special.
All a diagnosis of gender dysphoria tells us is that a patient is in distress and is ruminating about his or her body. That by itself should only be the beginning of a proper clinical assessment, but far too often it’s treated like a conclusion. [Artymorty]
Exactly. One of the most evil things that gender ideology does is to claim that dysphoria = trans, skipping right past the phenomenon of “desistance”*. The motivation to fast track children into “social transitioning”, puberty blockers, surgical procedures, etc., is to short-circuit and pre-empt desistance by pretending it doesn’t exist, because the alternative is that “transness” doesn’t exist. After all, how can a supposed “gender identity” be anything core, fundamental, unchanging, or eternal, if you can outgrow it? But recruit/trap them before they get a chance to think about things too much, and you’ve won yourself a whole cohort of children (and often parents), who are now fully committed. Having invested their very bodies (or those of their children) in the “cause,” these True Believers will be all the more motivated to defend the ideology, rather than admit that they were fooled and misled by adults who should have known better, and that they have made horrible, irreversible mistakes.
Regret and detransition must, like desistance, be hidden and denied, because it is not the actual health and wellbeing of children that must be defended but their “transness”. Admitting the possibility of mistaken diagnoses leads to questioning the the standards used for a diagnosis of “transness” in the first place. Can’t have that. This is the real meaning behind all of those “Protect Trans Kids” t-shirts. It’s not children being “protected”, but their “diagnosis” as trans. This is tragically ironic: “gender affirming care” is going to inflict more harm on these children than “cis” society is ever likely to. Buying into the “dysphoria = trans” claim means more mutilated, sterilized children. Who’s protecting them?
For those children whose mental or psychological distress is not resolved by going through puberty, whatever it is they are suffering from, it can not be the result of having been “born in the wrong body.” That does not happen. If this supposed “cause” is taken off the table, what is left of “transness” at all? Very little, apart from a movement of bullying, intimidation, and emotional blackmail led by predatory, misogynistic, narcissistic, fetishists.
* We’re often told by gender activists that we must “educate ourselves” about trans “rights”. I believe that most of us here have done exactly that. But we have not reached their approved conclusion. They’re not interested in truth or enlightenment. They want obedience and submission. They want us to re-educate ourselves, more in the spirit of Mao than of Mill.
In regards to education around trans “rights”, I’ve sometimes thought that a good start to getting people to see gender ideology for what it is would be to get them to examine and understand the following concepts:
Desistance and detransitioning
Forced Teaming
DARVO
Institutional Capture
DSD vs “Intersex”
Autogynephilia
among others. Feel free to add to this list.

Understanding the concepts would be useful, but I believe that an understanding of where and how the modern concept of transgender actually began would explain so much about why the ideology is such a confused and confusing mess.
So far as I can tell, it started in the late 1990s as a purely philosophical idea centred on a post-modernist ‘no absolute truths’ view of sex and gender – I think I am therefore I am, if you will. From there it was taken up by the social sciences and expanded by such writers as the high priestess of gender ideology, Judith Butler, whose writing rivalled that of the greatest of theologians insomuch as it said very little, proved even less, but did so in such dense, impenetrable prose that it baffled the reader into submission: uncertain as to whether they were reading genius or bullshit, too many erred on the side of genius. Believing that they had understood what in reality was intentionally unfathomable, the new converts began teaching that gender was more than a social construct, it was at the core of one’s very existence, and suddenly a new generation of students had their heads filled with what they thought was a stunning new insight into the human condition. Those students went on to spread the word to the wider world, and here we are, fighting a muddle-headed ideology based on nothing more than a flawed philosophy that should have been contained within academia but escaped to mutate and cause havoc.
[…] a comment by Acolyte of Sagan on More in the spirit of Mao than of […]