More on “transgenderism” and eugenics

A good friend who subscribes to News from Underground wrote me in response to theJane Robbins piece, which I sent out yesterday, on (what I called) the slow collapse ofthe transgender movement. Putting several of his friends on copy, my friend objectednot just to Robbins' article (in part because she's a conservative), but also to my prefatorynote, wherein I suggested that the "transgender movement" may be meant to split theleft, divide the country, and—not least—inhibit procreation, for the purpose of "population control," which is a euphemism for eugenics.

Some of my friend's friends weighed in, also writing Robbins off because she's on the right—one faulting her for ignoring the "pain and heartache" of transgender people—and also denying flatly that that "movement" can have anything to do with an elitedrive to discourage procreation. (My friend had much else to say about what heregards as flaws in Robbins' piece.)

With birthrates at a record low—both in the US and worldwide—I think it's importantthat we start a rational discussion of this question; and so I offer you my answer tomy friend's, and his friends', objections to the Robbins article.

MCM 


Thanks to all of you who've weighed in on the Robbins piece. Since you've made similar argumentsagainst it, let me reply to all of you by making just three points:

> It's true that Linda Robbins is conservative. So what? Using that fact to dismiss her argumentsis merely to evade them—just as it is when rightists, say, or centrists, brush off arguments or evidence because somebody on the left advances them. As it happens, the opposition to "transgender medicine" now includes an interesting alliance of conservative Christians and radical lesbians, who, though motivated differently, share the same concern about the scientific groundlessness of such "medicine,"and, more often than not, its destructive consequences—problems that we have to face, regardlessof the politics of those who point them out.

> The suffering of transgender persons, and the aims of the transgender movement, are two different things; and since Robbins' piece deals only with the latter, she's not obliged to register concern about the former. I share your concern about the former; I count some transgender persons as good friends. On the other hand, the billionaires who fund the movement mostly don't share that concern. While some few of them are themselves transgender, the others include players like George Soros, whose passion for "inclusion" and "diversity" might be more credible if hehad not spent millions on the installation of the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine, where gay rightssuffered a dramatic setback when that happened. (Do a search on "C-14" and "homophobia.") 

The sudden advent of "transgender rights" owes everything to such elite support. It certainly did not come out of any grass-roots struggle, as did the eventual successes of the fights for civil rights, feminism and gay rights. As I noted in my prefatory bit, transgender ideology is pushed all over, from on high, in journalism, medicine and the arts—a propaganda blitz that's wholly unrelated to the pain and heartache, or political activism, of actual transgender people, trying to live their lives down here among the rest of us.

> Such elite support, and the state's investment in transgender ideology, demand that weask why this is now happening. Certainly the fact that it's a profitable game—those surgeriesand hormone treatments cost a lot—has something to do with it; but that alone cannot explain the movement's having swept the media (including Hollywood), the corporateworld, and nearly all of academia as well as the medical establishment. So what's thereal agenda here? 

To my suggestion that it's driven by eugenics you've responded with a snort that it's "just silly"—that it's just not true, because .... it can't be true, because .... it can't. 

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that. For starters, you should look into the history of the eugenics movement, which dominated elite thinking till the middle of the 20th century, when it went underground because the Third Reich gave ita bad name, and which really never went away. I don't think it's "silly" in the leastto  speculate that that movement has had everything to do with the worldwide release of lethal toxins—including certain poisonous vaccines and medicines (like Vioxx) as well as glyphosate—and the reckless imposition of 5G, with thestate doing nothing to curtail it: on the contrary. These substances and forces aren't just killing us outright, but also variously lessening fertility, both male and female.  To see transgender ideology as yet another means of "population control" is not so wild a notion as you evidently want to think; so maybe you should think about it rather than reject it out of hand. (Along these lines, consider the experience of Tyrone Hayes, the scientist whofound that atrazine, the main component of the herbicide Syngenta, interferes with the male development of frogs, often turning males into females—as it might also do to humans. Just for publishing those findings Hayes paid quite a price: https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on.)Those are my thoughts, which I hope you find helpful. Thanks again for your responses. 

MCM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.