TRANSGENDERISM:  To Be of Not to Be?

The ability of Americans to freely debate whether transgenderism is an unimportant natural trait like one's race is proves the vastly increased social tolerance of Western societies in the 21st Century.  People like Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and Buck Angel even become a hero of sorts.

That social tolerance is so commendable, it even seems the Republic still has a chance of survival in the US.

At least in personal interactions, if not for control of the almighty dollar.

But when one looks at the merits of transgenderism in terms of a constitutional freedom, one has to wonder if it is not instead an unfortunate mental state rather than a civil liberties question of biology and lifestyle.

CaitlynJenner BuckAngel


What is Abnormal Behavior?

People with the condition known as gender dysphoria believe their gender is psychologically the opposite of the body they have, man not woman and vice versa.  The former term for the condition, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is still in common use.


It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of males and 0.002% to 0.003% of females can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, American Psychiatric Association (2013), about 1 in 200 men and 1 in 350 women as a high figure.

Most people assume transgender people are all homosexual.  That is not the case.  However, the distribution of sexual preference among transgenders is approximately the reverse of the distribution of gay versus straight, 85%-15%.  Naturally, the gender attraction of an individual does not change with a sex change procedure.

For the heterosexual minority then among transgenders, the experience of physically switching genders creates a scenario where it seems the patient is becoming homosexual instead of heterosexual while his or her partners are indeed different, now lesbian or gay rather than straight.


The gender dichotomy surfaces at a very early age.  Studies of natural twins tend to show GD/GID is based primarily by far in genetics rather than experience.  So, the general condition of oppositional gender identity affecting a few has apparently always been an element of humanity.  Its biological causes are essentially unknown.


Historically, GID was defined as a mental illness that can be treated with psychotherapy and/or hormone replacement in extreme cases, in an effort to prompt the patient to at least begin to become psychologically their natural gender. Religion based therapists have also abounded. 

These efforts for so long proved to be of dubious effectiveness, especially for the long-term. Yet, many people who went through traditional transgender therapy insist they greatly benefited, even reversed their thoughts generally.


Similar efforts many years ago tried unsuccessfully to cure homosexuality.  That medical practice is now all but abandoned.  Yet, a few say they succeeded through this therapy.


The positive perspective from both kinds of reversal may lie more in rhetoric and preferred self-image than in a form of fundamental change.


Of course, now the medical therapy employed is typically to make the person become fully the gender they already believe themselves to be.  Hormone therapy is used in this opposing manner too.  Sex-change operations have varied aspects and goals.  The term gender psychotherapy is badly passé.  Gender counseling is the correct phraseology now.  Gender oddly becomes a matter of choice.

Yet, even with this complete reversal of course, there is a large percentage of people “reassigned” by surgery who at some point before long desire to return to their former biology.  Many do.  This is especially true of those, like Bruce Caitlyn Jenner, who are attracted to heterosexuals.  Media reports continue to surface that Jenner is dissatisfied with her switch, despite the awards for courage she has won.


When transgender people are asked their preference for their future, they tend to wish they could become their natural gender, unsurprisingly.  Yet by far most are convinced that is simply not possible to do, at least for them. 


Whether to even consider going for the physical reversal therapy at all is about equally divided within the group.  Periodic cross-dressing is the outlet for many for a lifetime.

Transgender people are more likely to be depressed or suicidal, though social pressure may have far more to do with this than biology does.  Certainly, the stress from the uncertainty surrounding one’s gender identity must play a large role in this too.

Defining a Civil Liberty

So, should transgenderism become a civil liberty protected by the US Bill of Rights?

The guidepost to a successful society is the set of individual liberties that a vibrant republic protects.  Included are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and association, personal privacy, due process of law and the now forsaken US right to contract.  None of these basic liberties depend on one’s personal categorization somehow.  Such freedoms are for everyone.


The newest constitutional civil liberty defined as protected personal privacy is the freedom to have sex with a person of the same gender and now to marry within the same gender.  Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003), Obergefell v. Hodges (US 2015), Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

This line of high court cases opens the contention that transgenderism is another meaningless, immutable trait like homosexuality, also deserving of constitutional protection. 


However, mental conditions like sociopathy and pedophilia also bear a direct link to one’s genetic makeup.  Where can a stark line to be drawn between the protected civil liberty and simply sick behavior?

Extending the principle of a constitutional liberty to any form of open personal interaction becomes an absurdity rather quickly.  Lawrence and Obergefell did not protect incest or bestiality and never could in a rational way. 

For instance, in other contexts, no one has the freedom of public nudity nor a special right to a job when covered in tattoos.  Odd shocking behavior has its legal limits.

Getting among the “suspect classes’ of human traits especially protected by the 14th Amendment has been a difficult feat across history.  As a technical matter, homosexuality nor gender have yet risen to the level of “suspect class” presumed to need constitutional protection.  General concepts of due process and privacy have had to make do so far in expanding the gender/sexual revolution.


But the key question for transgenderism under the Bill of Rights becomes one of medical science, to the extent psychiatry and psychology have risen to the status of being a science.  Like with the question of terminating early life through abortion, the scientific answers are complex and contradictory for society when it comes to transgenderism.

Can a Conundrum be a Constitutional Right?


Many people are born with down’s syndrome, approximately 1 in 700 births.  Many others are born with ingrained mental illnesses that are certain to develop during their lives. Some people are born with seemingly no gender identity or sexual preference at all oddly, including some having misfit sexual organs. This is the Q in the acronym LGBTQ.


None of these categories of conditions create a “suspect class” for purposes of the 14th Amendment protection of civil liberties, even though these natural differences are generally harmless to others.  The suspect classes remain race, heritage and religion.

Those born with psychopathy or sociopathy or pedophilia may seem unable to help themselves in harming others, but they gain no special favor in the law for their evil acts.  There are no special exceptions made for ingrained psychology in most instances.

So, the only pathway for transgenderism to gain special treatment in constitutional law is to be considered a right to privacy under Obergefell and Loving.  This is the juncture where the legal theory comes apart in the middle.

There simply is no privacy being invaded by the government when it comes to transgenderism.  Their privacy is so secure in society that transgenderism was not even known to people beyond a few until recently.


There have been no laws banning the belief your gender is not what it appears to be.  Thought crimes are unlawful under the First Amendment. 


Those transgenders attracted to heterosexuals easily live a normal family life from all appearances, with their odd aspect often undetected by others for a lifetime.  For the majority of transgenders, seeming to be gay or lesbian is no longer much of a social stigma, no different from the experience of the many others who are gay.


Only the open protestations of recent years from the LGBTQ movement has brought this human condition to common knowledge.  Even now awoke, no criminal prohibition against being or acting transgender is being considered anywhere.  There is no campaign to identify transgenders.  There is no forced therapy.  There is no lost privacy, no unequal protection of the laws.  There is no victim beyond the misfires of biology.


Simply put, the government is not dictating nor invading on this subject of transgenderism.

The Presentation Tells this Tale


Where the idea of official victimhood meets its logical end is the loud way this new thing transgenderism is presented to the Western public.  This is unavoidable because nothing is getting in the way of transgenders doing what they wish to do, just as others do. Tales of true oppression are almost impossible to come by.


Therefore, claims violating natural sensibilities are resorted to instead of pursuing calm reason. The sine qua non for this campaign is demanding the use of the bathroom incompatible with your natural gender.


This is not to be done by the choice of the bathroom owner, but by the mandate of wokester new laws.  There is to be no beneficiary of this right forbidden because of the absence of proof of one’s need for this other bathroom.  To suggest the examination of other possible motives for wishing to enter the girls’ bathroom is proof enough of gender bigotry, somehow.

It is important to say here, in the 75-years of the gay pride movement, no such far-reaching, jarring demand has ever been made in a noticeable way, though the same general bathroom and shower conundrum generally applies to them.

The other way transgenderism is forced into people’s thoughts is by sexually reassigning children through hormone treatments or even surgery.  Nothing riles the public more than what is seen as a dire threat to children.

These shocking issues are slammed in the face of the public by the Left as a choice between being civilized or being tribal.  Even the corporate side of the Left is fully on board.


Of course, the unity of expression here from the legacy media is nothing novel, indeed something to be expected when a new political narrative arrives on US cable news.  Consequently, something to be automatically suspected to be a marketing campaign for the designs of billionaires or of the Deep State or both.

This unity of expression also explains why people never before outward with their deep-seated conflict are pushed now in the media as wanting to be on center stage suddenly.  That simply seems to be untrue but for the outliers the media can engage to appear in their sought-out coverage of transgenderism.


But it is not the wokester fringe that is dictating coverage to the media.  Not a chance.  Only big money talks in that way.


This is the globalists scheming again.  The Soros-Clinton- Obama crowd is the originating center of this seemingly crazy narrative.  The campaign employs the wokesters as their ground troops.  The Soros pay is not bad either.  The media will be there no matter how bad the production becomes.  That is the point, after all.


Since transgenders themselves have little reason to engage in the overdone hype, why though would even woke Leftists choose to make a huge public scene that is entirely unneeded?

Breaking Apart Culture to Break Down Borders and Sovereignty


There exists an even grander scheme by globalists than to subjugate nations to billionaire exploitation.  It is, of course, to begin wiping out nation-states altogether as independent power structures.  Globalism is to end with a tiny parasitic unelected elite running all of the important affairs of the world.

The scenario of identity politics in general, Leftist fashion, is to create warring factions within nations in a way that wholly distracts from the thefts and other crimes of globalists at the top.  This is progressive politics by its nature, too, but twisted here to an extreme in order to shock people into revulsion. 


Identity politics is not to win new votes particularly.  It is to make the factions within the nation so combative the cultural bond weakens to the point where the State can simply fade away while being replaced by global institutions, if not forcibly divided by outright revolution and breakup.


The top Leftist power narratives for globalism’s enhancement are open borders immigration, the global warming hoax and humanitarian intervention foreign policy justifying launching wars against nations that resist globalism’s yoke.  There is also the free trade misnomer.


The media’s push in your face with transgenderism is an offshoot of this general globalist mission.  By its audacity, it seeks to shock conservatives while inducing outrage at the kinds of remedies being proposed.  Conversely, it seeks to awaken the progressives to yet another group being mistreated by evil white men, thereby expanding the Leftist rainbow further. 


The absurdity of having to tolerate cross-dressing in the workplace by law is designed to ignite fear and hostility, especially when it seems the establishment itself is suddenly imposing the craziness.  The cognitive dissonance soars when conservatives learn they will be paying for sex-change surgeries for prisoners and welfare cases and illegal immigrants.  When it becomes evident the now specially privileged person seems able to change their gender at will, the pressure builds exponentially.  Then you learn that children as young as 9-years old are undergoing physical sex-change.

It should be enough in theory to make anyone break away, or even grab a pitchfork.  The Soros fairy tale calls for the deplorable rabble to simply explode at the bathroom invasion and at the entire idea of exotic extremes within humanity.  The racists and fools and rednecks are scripted to be banning transgenderism in Red America right now.

So, the generally tolerant response of even conservatives to the fake media’s transgender campaign is another one of the long list of failures when it comes to Soros-Clinton-Obama reality shows.  Some shows are so odd, they only incite puzzlement and laughter mostly.  How many people like this can there be?

As the many false media narratives implode, it becomes ever more certain that, should a world revolution come, it will be a sharp return of the nation-state to sovereignty instead of the triumph of globalism.  Editor