Guest post: Bulldozers and siege engines
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The obvious rejoinder.
Maybe the trans people aren’t getting enough recognition after all, so let’s create trans athlete divisions…. Give them what they want; proper divisions with little sexless statuettes for the winners.
But that’s not what they want. Having a separate trans division would deny them their validation as “women” in exactly the same way that “third space” toilet facilities would. Trans activists don’t want a solution that’s “fair” that does not give them the hit of affirmation they crave. They don’t want to put a spotlight on their “transness”, they want to be centered, celebrated, and rewarded for their “womanliness.” The idea behind TWAW and “NO DEBATE” is to bulldoze over the fact that they are not women. The point of institutional capture was to use the power of these institutions like so many medieval siege engines to breach the boundaries of women’s spaces quickly and quietly, without discussion or consultation, so that TiMs’ presence in them would become a fait accompli. Somehow, this was disguised and passed off as a progressive, compassionate movement. Only one thing stood in the way. Women. Women’s resistance is painted as bigotry and hatred, instead of the defence of women’s rights and safety. To put this struggle in another way, it’s aggressive, “colonial expansion” vs. spirited, self-defence of the “homeland.”
The TiM argument that “we’ve been in women’s washrooms for years” is more gloating than anything else. The denial of a conflict of rights is hard to maintain without the strenuous denial of women’s legitimate needs. Proponents of this supposedly “progressive” position are forced to publicly defend more and more indefensible things, Thomas’s blatant cheating among them. Add that to prisons, hospital wards and women’s shelters. It’s amazing how much some of them are able to stomach with a straight face. Without the collusion of the media, it would be much more difficult. Ophelia has highlighted so many stories where the denial of the material reality of sex completely transforms the meaning and import of headlines and entire stories, with ideological positions passed off as “politeness” and ” journalistic style guides” rather than an active taking of one side (and one side only) at the hearts of these very stories. Actual, unbiased neutrality would not do this.
That’s exactly it. They were never just looking for a place in society to safely be themselves, because they were never unsafe to begin with. Trans activism in its current manifestation is about ego and nothing but ego: a complete and utter conquest of solipsism over the entire world outside one’s own mind, to the point of callously obliterating everyone else’s safe place in society: namely children, gays and lesbians, and especially and above all else, women and girls.
not Bruce: A good summary of why that wouldn’t work. So we have to recognize trans people who see themselves as trans people, yet see themselves as the opposite sex of what they are and not really trans at all? So confusing…
Arty @1 Agreed. It really does look like the toddler mentality, the me-me-meness of it all. Developmental biology describes this phase in detail.
I had someone say exactly this, that separate trans categories shouldn’t be created because it would deprive trans girls and transwomwn of the opportunity to socialize with girls and women, i.e., be affirmed.
@twiliter
Interesting. I’d like to read more about developmental biology and the me-me-me neediness phase in infants. It’s struck an interesting thought in me. And this is just off the top of my head and just the germ of an idea that may or may not merit further development…
I wonder if we look at this through a combined lens of three things — attachment theory, developmental biology, and Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory — if we can find an interesting psychological insight, at least into the minds of some of the men who identify as women, if not the broader community of activists who fuel this movement.
Attachment theory posits that the human pair-bonding mechanism, a beneficial survival trait for adult humans, actually evolved out of the instinctive pair-bond between mother and baby. First, the pair bond instinct evolved to keep a baby and its caregiver closely tied for survival purposes, and later the instinct evolved and became related to adult human sex-drive, to solidify adult humans into (sometimes short-term; sometimes long-term) “romantic” couples. This is why when couples talk all lovey-dovey to each other it sounds like baby talk: they’re tapping into the evolutionary vestiges of the vulnerable infant mindstate. The lovey-dovey cuddly-wuddly couplehood phase can produce very infantlike behaviours.
OK, so the romantic pair-bonding instinct makes people regress into an infantlike mindstate when their “attachment mechanism” is activated…
Ray Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory posits that some men have an introverted kind of heterosexuality: they’re attracted to females, but their “erotic target location” is situated internally, in themselves. So they become attracted to themselves, and because they’re straight, and attracted to women, some of these men pursue a fantasy that they are or can transform themselves into women. Erotic attraction leads to “romantic” coupledom — attachment theory’s pair bonding mechanism.
OK, so autogynephilia can cause some men to essentially pair-bond (activate their attachment mechanism) with themselves, and when people’s attachment mechanism activates it cause humans to behave like infants…
I think you can see where I’m going with this. As if that in and of itself wasn’t already arguably a disorder that’s closely related to narcissism, to be so sexually self-targeted one becomes romantically involved with himself. But if such a state of mind can literally revert a man to a cuddly-wuddly baby-like mentality, that could lead to other infantlike psychological behaviours emerging: such as a self-absorbed me-me-me kind of neediness that is prevalent in toddlers.
So maybe, at least some of the time, this complete and utter self-absorption (and infantilism) I see sometimes so infuriatingly in these men is rooted in that?
All of that crazy rough sketch of a theory I’m laying out still tells us nothing about the broader problem with society at large being swallowed whole by gender identity ideology. But still, maybe there’s some food for thought in there.
Oooh that is interesting. I don’t think I’ve seen the pair-bonding as development from mother-baby bonding idea before, but if autogynophilia is also regression to babyhood…yes that’s interesting. I await developments.
Arty, yes I think you’re on to something. Even in young adolescence there develops a certain humility and awkwardness about social situations that further develops into recognizing one’s place among others, and that others exist and matter. Then adulthood, with the ability to see consequences of one’s actions, personal responsibility and the like, along with a mature form of empathy, etc. The more outgoing (indulgent? heedless?) trans people really don’t appear to have developed beyond a certain level in a lot of areas. They remind me of philosophical zombie types who exhibit behaviors and appear as mature or maturing adults, while inside they have not left the childhood stage. They have learned to emulate some of the behaviors and have adultish bodies, but don’t possess the actual inner qualities of adulthood or approaching adulthood. Not sure about all this, but when I see some of them I see overindulged child mentalities for the most part. Narcissism has to surely be part of the mix. Some possibilities anyway…
Very well put, not Bruce. Excellent observations.
@Ophelia,
You’re in for quite a treat, then, if you decide to delve into attachment theory. It’s really fascinating stuff.
Wikipedia’s page on adult attachment is a pretty good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults
And the book Attached is a really fascinating deep dive.
I love attachment theory. Some people cope with a difficult breakup by diving headlong into cheesecake and reality tv; I’m the type to dive headlong into the science and psychology of what the hell just happened?
My brain tells me: if I can understand it scientifically it doesn’t feel so personal or so difficult to endure.
I have delved a little bit in the past, via Martha Nussbaum, who draws on Winnicott for, I think, her book on disgust. Also, come to think of it, something by Margaret Drabble. I did indeed find it interesting.
Fun fact I’ve just discovered: all three of Margaret Drabble’s children have their own Wikipedia entries. I knew Adam Swift was a name, I have a book of his, but I didn’t know they all are. Anyway Google confirms, Drabble cites Winnicott in more than one place. She’s interested in the good enough mother.