On gender pronouns, gender identity and transgender people

Online discussions about transgender people, their rights and other related subjects, such as gender identity and the use of certain gender pronouns, were very popular last year and there's a trend right now of governments in various countries that are getting involved to force a certain "(far) leftist" agenda down everyone's throat.

The situation got particularly bad in Canada where they introduced legislation (Bill C-16) that could be used in the future to force people to refer to others by their preferred alternative gender pronouns. One of the people who spoke out against this was Dr. Jordan Peterson, who rightly pointed out that this was a serious violation of freedom of speech. But Peterson only appears to have a problem with the alternative pronouns such as 'ze' and 'zir', and wouldn't mind addressing transgendered people by the traditional pronouns:

Dr Peterson says he does not object to trans people or to choosing which traditional pronoun they prefer. "If the standard transsexual person wants to be regarded as he or she, my sense is I'll address you according to the part that you appear to be playing," he said.

And in my view that's a very stupid thing to do because by doing that you violate your personal integrity in order to please someone else. If you value the truth and want to go through life seeing reality as it truly is -- which I'm sure Peterson does -- then by pretending that someone else is a woman instead of a man and vice versa and going along with their delusions, you're deceiving yourself and everyone else around you. I don't know about Peterson, but my mind would constantly try to cope with this contradiction in interactions with such a person because I absolutely hate lying to myself; it would cause quite some mental discomfort. In addition you're also being disingenuous and a hypocrite, since obviously you know the truth but you choose to pretend to the other person that you're going along with their delusion. Nothing good can come out of that in the long term and it only makes matters worse.

The correct thing to do in such instances would be to address these people by the gender pronoun that goes with their original biological gender (assuming you knew what it was, because if you don't, chances are you'll fall victim to their deception). So if the person was born a man, it's 'he' and you tell them that they're a man, and if born a woman it's 'she' and you tell them that they're a woman. Not only would this be logical and in line with the truth and objective reality, but it would also send a signal to the transgender person that they should probably go back and think long and hard about the beliefs that they have about themselves. This could save them from a great deal of trouble, and possibly even save their lives if they manage to get out of their delusion, seeing as how the suicide rate is very high among these people; as explained by psychiatrist Paul R. McHugh:

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns.

[...] Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

Not to mention that many of these people often regret having sex-reassignment surgery as well. As fertility doctor Lord Robert Winston explains, "what I've been seeing in a fertility clinic are the long-term results of often very unhappy people who now feel quite badly damaged."

Think about it, if someone walked up to you one day and said that 1+1=3, would you go along with that because that's what "they identified with," or would you correct them and explain to them that 1+1 actually equals 2? Isn't it considered morally wrong to pretend that 1+1=3 and leave them in their faulty thinking while you have the chance to correct them and potentially help them? Well, it's no different when it comes to someone believing themselves to belong to a gender that they're clearly not.

Because what will you do when you encounter someone who thinks that they belong to a different species? What if someone walked up to you who thinks they're a cat? Are you going to play along and treat them like a cat, because that's what they think they are? Do you think that's healthy? Or do you think it's wiser not to go along with their delusion so that it might trigger them to reevaluate their beliefs about themselves, and perhaps even help them to snap out of it eventually?

If we're going to be cowards and be afraid to speak and stand for the truth, then we shouldn't be surprised when 10 years from now things get a lot more worse than they are today, and we find ourselves living in some kind of freak reality where nothing is what it seems anymore (which is already the case today to a very great extent). Not only do we already have people who now claim that they "were born in the wrong species," but we even have physically healthy people who believe that they should be disabled and are now intentionally disabling themselves, a group classified as "transabled" and suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). What kind of stupidity will people come up with next if this continues?

Tolerance

I know that it's absolutely possible to value the truth and choose to live a life based on the truth while also being tolerant of other people, their views and their way of life. The way I see it is that every living organism in the universe -- including human beings, obviously -- has a right to life, granted to it by the universe. Like I wrote before:

This fundamental right is granted by the universe itself to the organism, and no organism can lay a claim on another’s right to life. Everything else in the universe follows from this fundamental right to life, including a universal sense of morality:

In the final analysis, a good and natural sense of morality is based on the following statement: Respect each other’s right to life.

It’s really that simple. Good intentions, decisions, and actions (virtue) are those that respect everyone’s right to life. Bad or evil intentions, decisions, and actions (vice) are those that interfere in any possible way with the right to life of an individual or a group of individuals.

When people talk about equality between individuals in society, the only true equality that can ever exist is when it comes to their right to life — everyone has an equal right to life, granted by the universe.

Having the right to life would have no meaning if you couldn’t also have the opportunity and freedom to actually live your life. This means the freedom to be able to live your life as you choose, provided that you don't interfere with the right to life of other people. Because freedom cannot exist when you curtail other people's freedom; you can't have freedom by destroying it.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. — Thomas Jefferson, “Rights of British America” (1774)

So when it comes to tolerance, I'm all for letting these transgender people be free to live their lives as they wish, and to do with their own bodies anything that they wish. But if they're going to expect -- and even demand -- that I play along with whatever they come up with for themselves, then I absolutely have the freedom to refuse to cooperate with that as well, especially when I find that it's at odds with the truth and objective reality. And if I disagree with what they say, or with what they think of themselves, I absolutely have the freedom to say so. You can live your life the way you want, but you can't expect -- let alone demand -- from others to approve of it and/or to go along with it.

The real issue

Most of the (online) discussions about gay, lesbian and transgender people, gender identity and related subjects are all a waste of time because they don't address the real and underlying issue -- the root cause of these symptoms. My personal research so far shows that the real underlying problem is sexual suppression and repression that's prevalent in societies around the world.

Due to sexual suppression, children aren't allowed to -- and in most cases can't -- develop their sexuality in a free, natural and self-regulated manner and as a negative consequence of that develop very perverted sexual preferences and warped ideas about (their) sexuality. This is the root cause of people developing paraphilia, such as sexual attraction to the same sex (homosexuality), a primary sexual preference for children (pedophilia) or for animals (zoophilia), and people developing warped ideas about (their own) sexuality (gender dysphoria; transgenders).

Basically sexual suppression and repression causes severe mental damage to children as they grow up, which eventually expresses itself throughout their adulthood through various forms of neuroses. I'll go into more details on this in the near future in my article series on sexual suppression and repression. But anyone who wants to learn more about this should study Dr. Sigmund Freud's work, and especially the work of one of Freud's best pupils, the very brilliant Dr. Wilhelm Reich. You can find all of Reich's books on Amazon; I suggest getting especially his books "The Invasion of Compulsory Sex-Morality", "The Sexual Revolution", "The Function of the Orgasm" and "Children of the Future". The best quick clue I can give you is the following quote:

The sexual instincts are remarkable for their plasticity, for the facility with which they can change their aim…for the ease with which they can substitute one form of gratification for another. — Sigmund Freud

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if we prevent children from freely exploring and experimenting with their sexuality and satisfying their sexual desires -- which, yes, are present from early childhood; just ask Dr. Freud -- then, out of pure necessity, they will still try to do so in other unnatural ways, while developing warped ideas about (their) sexuality in the process. Like Freud discovered after many years of research, they will easily "substitute one form of gratification for another" often very perverted one. It's that simple. ¹

For example, I mentioned "transabled" people above who suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). Well, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that these people "sometimes have a sense of sexual arousal connected with the desire for loss of a limb or sense" (Brugger, P; Lenggenhager, B (December 2014). Clearly "transabled" people suffer from another one of the consequences of sexual suppression and repression in society. This just goes to show you how right Dr. Freud was, to what extent the sexual instincts "can change their aim," and how perverted and warped other means of sexual gratification can get when people aren't allowed to freely satisfy their sexual desires in a natural way, starting from early childhood.

The unrepressed man of the future — if there is a future — will look back at our age and wonder how we survived without all landing in the madhouse. That so many of us do land in madhouses will be accepted as the natural consequence of (sexually) repressed civilization. — Robert Anton Wilson

The irony

If you can see and understand the root cause of these problems as explained above, you can also begin to understand how it's the people themselves -- especially those labelled "conservative" or "right-wing" -- that create the problems that they're now fighting against. Because they're the ones living according to religious beliefs, dogmas and other backward ideas that promote sexual suppression and repression in society, while using the power of the criminal State to enforce their ideas on everyone.

And apparently they still have no clue that it's their own way of living that creates the kind of environment -- where children are caused severe mental damage while also warping their sexual development -- that ultimately produces gays, lesbians, pedophiles, transgenders, rapists, serial killers and many other damaged people that they don't want to live with. If you're one of these people promoting sexual suppression and repression in society, you should start looking in the mirror. All of those people that you don't want to live with, were your victims as children. You're to blame for this mess.

Now, I have to be honest and mention that it's not entirely your fault. The truth is that this system was already in place for thousands of years before you came into the world, and like all of us, you got forced and brainwashed ("culturally conditioned") from early childhood into accepting things as they are. But now that you know, you can't pretend anymore like you're innocent or ignorant. Now that you know, you have to act on your conscience.

Footnotes

1. As the fucking brilliant Dr. Wilhelm Reich writes in his book "Children of the Future" (1950):

Young people have more than merely a right to be “enlightened”; they are fully entitled to their emotional health and their sexual joy in life. This right has been taken away from them. Countless young people have lost all awareness of their sexuality, although this has opened the way to serious psychic disturbances during puberty.

If the young person is unable for external or internal reasons to take the step to sexual intercourse and to a mature sexual life, his development is blocked and it is easy for him to start to slip backwards, i.e., to have recourse to childish fantasies that lead him away from the naturally given goal that now exists. We observe that various drives then increase in intensity. For example, the inclination toward persons of the same sex increases; the social barriers preventing sexual intercourse and the separation of the sexes are the major reasons for excessive indulgence in mutual masturbation among young people of the same sex. The lascivious desire to look at naked bodies or to expose one’s own sex organs and the temptation to have sexual relations with children also often occur for the first time at this stage. Because of pent-up sexual energy, which finds no satisfactory release, sadistic and masochistic tendencies, which are usually attenuated and kept in the background by the development of normal sexual activity, now become fully effective. It is certainly not our intention to frighten anybody by pointing out such things. We merely wish to state that the foundation for such disturbances can be laid by preventing young people from having normal sexual relations at a time when they urgently need them. We cannot ignore the facts and must fight with all means available against the sexual rules of society that cause such damage in young people. We must use all our force to make them understand that their struggle with masturbation, their feelings of guilt, their sexual deviations, are not their fault nor are they inherited; instead, they are for the most part the consequences of a society’s rules governing sexual behavior which force the development and the natural course of sexuality into one mold into which it is impossible for all young people to fit.

What is more, there are many men who have the physical and emotional characteristics appropriate to the sex organs with which they are equipped, yet they desire younger, effeminate men toward whom they behave like a man to a wife; and there are completely feminine women who behave toward harder, more masculine-looking women like a wife to a husband. These kinds of homosexuals did not become inclined that way because of physical developments but as a result of defective emotional development in early childhood, when they suffered severe disappointment at the hands of a member of the opposite sex. For example, a male child can easily become openly homosexual if the love he has for his mother is too often and too bitterly disappointed because she is a strict, harsh person. Similarly, a girl can easily be induced to become homosexual at a very early age if she is severely disappointed by her father. Such children readily withdraw their sexual desires from the opposite sex and turn instead to those of their own sex. As a rule, these early disappointments are repressed. Upon growing up, the person who has suffered such disappointments is no longer aware of them and can only recall them when he or she relives this early period of development while undergoing psychiatric treatment.

The most powerful rebuttal that we can make against the claim made by so many homosexuals that they represent a special kind of sexuality and are not an aberration, is to point out that in the course of a special kind of psychiatric treatment any homosexual can stop feeling the way he or she does, whereas a normally developed person never becomes a homosexual through this same treatment. If the homosexual behavior has not gone on too long and has not totally destroyed relations with the opposite sex, if also the person in question is not happy with the homosexual state and wishes to be rid of it, then homosexuality can be cured fundamentally by treatment, which reverses the aberrant sexual development that occurred in childhood. What we have said so far is scientifically based fact, and it can be further reinforced by pointing to the example of primitive peoples who lead a satisfying, undisturbed sexual life, who do not hinder the sexual development of their children, and among whom homosexuality is consequently unknown, except in the spiritualized form of friendship. According to the findings of Malinowski, an English ethnologist, homosexuality starts to appear among primitive peoples at the same rate that missionaries import Christian morality into these people’s natural sexual lives and separate the sexes from each other. This is also confirmed by the fact, which we observe over and over again, that wherever normal sexual relations between men and women or girls and boys are prohibited or hampered (e.g., in boarding schools, in the army or navy, etc.), homosexuality develops in proportion to the degree of sexual suppression. Thus, ignoring the cases which are physically based, we may provisionally conclude that homosexuality is a purely social phenomenon, i.e., a question of sexual education and development. The best means of preventing it is to bring up and educate the two sexes side by side and to permit sexual intercourse to commence at the right time.