Monday, June 08, 2015

The Prancing Unicorn of Bruce Jenner


No matter where I turned on the Internet today, I encountered the Vanity Fair cover of Bruce Jenner pretending to be a woman. I got so sick of encountering that cover that I decided to write about it.  

Note: The link to the Vanity Fair cover story has been removed by Vanity Fair; I was able to print the story just before the URL was scuttled; substituting for it will be New York Times and Washington Post stories (virtually identical in text) which highlight the Vanity Fair and Diane Sawyer interviews of Jenner, complete with the Vanity Fair videos. (I refuse to reproduce the Vanity Fair cover here.)

Transgenders, apparently, are the new privileged minority. Just as Muslims are. A Muslim baker or photographer refusing to serve gays or have them as customers -- frankly, they don't even need to have a reason -- doesn’t make the news. Only Christians, Jews, or atheists refusing to validate homosexuality by accepting gays as “normal” clients make the news, and then they’re excoriated for hurting the feelings of gays (or Muslims). How dare they row against the stream of insanity?

Gays, lesbians, transgenders, and creatures great and small in between those parameters as a whole are the new protected group, patronized by the government and by the MSM, just as Muslims are, celebrated in especially the news media for their cultural or gender “diversity.” You can’t offend them without risking a lawsuit and the smears and sneers of their allies in government and in the mainstream media. (Even Merriam-Webster, the online dictionary, got into the act.)

Homosexuals and lesbians can be viciously nasty, and even violent, if one rejects them as “normal” persons. If they don’t get their way, they’ll make time to attack anyone who doesn’t submit. Lately, they’ll farm out  their nastiness by proxy and invite  the heavy guns of the government coercion and the skewed wisdom of suborned courts and judicial twits to enforce their whims. They don’t necessarily seek recognition as “normal” persons. They seek obedience by normal heterosexuals. Just as Muslims and Islam expect non-Muslims to accept Islam as the one true religion, or else. See Daniel Greenfield’s masterful article of June 3rd, “How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion” for similarities between how the LGBT movement has adopted the same tactics as Muslim “civil rights” groups use to impose Sharia Law on the country and its institutions.

What lit my fuse was stumbling on an ESPN press release announcing that Jenner would receive a special ESPYS award on July 15th, the Arthur Ashe Courage Award.  Courage for what? For “coming out” and allowing himself to become the center of a media circus freak show? Well, yes. After all, freaks have “rights,” too, and it should be against the law to denigrate them. According to Jay Jay (not a typo) Nesheim on June 1st:

Jenner’s unyielding resolve and hard work enabled him to win a gold medal in the 1976 Olympics and break world records. He then parlayed that success into a variety of roles across different areas including television, film, auto racing and business. Although Jenner first captured the attention of the nation for his athletic prowess and determination, the same strength of character shone through this past April when he sat down with ABC’s Diane Sawyer to come out as a transgender woman.

…Executive producer Maura Mandt: “Bruce has received many accolades over the years for being one of the greatest Olympians of our time but The ESPYS are honored to celebrate Bruce becoming Caitlyn. She has shown the courage to embrace a truth that had been hidden for years, and to embark on a journey that may not only give comfort to those facing similar circumstances, but can also help to educate people on the challenges that the transgender community faces.”

….The Arthur Ashe Courage Award is presented each year to individuals whose contributions transcend sports. 

What has Bruce Jenner “contributed” but the capacity to reveal just how much of a narcissistic, attention-hogging fool he is in parading his mental illness, pathological selflessness, and emotion-driven fantasies before the whole world and claiming that his “womanly feelings” transcend the reality that he isn’t a woman? Wishing will make is so? What has he “contributed” but becoming the willing “poster person” of the irrational as an approved mode of living, approved by the government, academics, by the LGBT movement, and by especially the MSM?

J.E. Dyer at Liberty Unyielding gropes for an explanation in her June 5th article, “Bruce/’Caitlyn’ Jenner and the Collapse of the Western Mind,” but doesn’t come up with a conclusive one, handicapped as she is in that quest by mixing elements of altruism (“compassion”) with objective reality. She does, however, make this important observation:

I think what’s remarkable today is the profound sense of divorcement between the ordinary people, many of whom still carry the stamp of the traditional West, and the cultural elite.  It’s not just that the elite tends to exploit and despise the ordinary people.  That happens in every age.  It’s that the ordinary people and the elite aren’t even pulling in the same direction.  The elite is so estranged from the people, and so paralyzed by its own hostility to coherent metanarratives, that it makes the West effectively leaderless.

Where today’s elite does have metanarratives – e.g., the metanarrative of “climate change” – they are chronically inconsistent and anti-empirical.  They are useless for any constructive purpose…

For the first time in a very, very long time – perhaps since the Dark Ages; perhaps even since 2,500 years ago, or virtually all of the West’s arc of existence and prominence – the West is without a functioning, traditionally Western leadership.  People who still bear the stamp of Western civilization are frustrated and worried, because there seems to be no way to organize to promote and defend it.

This is true, and while there are some valuable, thoughtful points made in Dyer’s essay, I much prefer Daniel Greenfield’s the-gloves-are-off approach to Bruce Jenner and others who wish to become poster persons of all kinds of pathologies. In his FrontPage article, “Transgender, Transabled and Otherkin” of June 2nd, he wrote, focusing on the Otherkin movement:

I would have assumed that Otherkin, mentally ill people who think they’re really animals, would have been next in line for legitimization after the trannies, but, no, it’s apparently going to be the transabled. Transabled refers to mentally ill people who have parts of their bodies amputated because that’s how they identify. Basically they’re like trannies, but without the pretense of changing gender. They just see themselves as disabled and try to make it happen.

It’s an obvious mental disorder, but in these days of identity as subjective reality, mental illness is just another identity group.

The media shrilly insists that Bruce Jenner, a mentally ill man, is now a woman. It makes sense that people who want to be disabled would follow after tranny civil rights since both involve amputation and the expansion of victim groups. But the Otherkin, people who identify as wolves or housecats, are on the horizon.

One is now allowed – nay, encouraged, under penalty of some form of ostracism – to disregard objective facts about one’s gender (or even species), and that meme is now being partnered with a smorgasbord of “lifestyle” options. Greenfield concludes:

We’ve already tossed away the biology textbook and are busy pretending that anyone can change gender with a little mutilation, or even just by willing himself to identify as a member of a different sex.  Why not species? Just like the question about why gay marriage and not polygamy, there is no actual dividing line. Once you deconstruct a basic paradigm, anyone can play.

Once you insist that mental perception is valid and biology isn’t, there’s no reason to draw the line at men who mutilate themselves to pretend to be women.

Failing that, one can always move to California and send one’s confused child to a public school where he (or she) will have the “right” to choose which bathroom and locker room to use based on his (or her) feelings.

Pretending? Wishing it were so?  If a reader has the stomach and fortitude and wishes to read portions of the Vanity Fair and Diane Sawyer interviews with Jenner, he can read the New York Times version of June 1st, “Caitlyn Jenner, Formerly Bruce, Introduces Herself in Vanity Fair,” or the clonish Washington Post version here. It’s all cotton candy cogitations, Jenner riding side-saddle on a unicorn gelding, prancing merrily through the groves of fruits and nuts. These interviews include portions of the time a cross-dressing aficionado, Buzz Bissinger, spent to prepare for the Vanity Fair article with Jenner during his alleged “transition” from male to female. In the Washington Post story, Soraya Nadia McDonald reveals that Jenner has not yet taken that final step.

Jenner did not have genital surgery. Bissinger cited the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s “Standard of Care” recommendation that those who transition are encouraged to wait at least a year before proceeding with genital surgery.

That is, Jenner has not yet been neutered, spayed, castrated, or “fixed.” So, at the moment, until he takes that final step to irrevocable self-mutilation, he could be called a faux hermaphrodite -- with the catch that, unlike hermaphrodites in nature, he won’t be able to reproduce.

Which, I guess, is a blessing.

Blogger and author Ron Pisaturo has written extensively on the subject of male and female identities, and has recently published a book, Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage, made these observations in a recent blog posting about Bruce Jenner, “Bruce Jenner Case Reveals Absurdity and Evil of LGBT Movement”:  Pisaturo begins by quoting from his book:

Of all the hoodwinking perpetrated by the LGBT movement, the worst has been to hoodwink decent people into believing that there are no important ideas underlying their sexual orientation. But there are.

He moves on to Bruce Jenner.

This same kind of hoodwinking—this time, in regard to a person’s sense of self—is occurring in the case of Bruce Jenner, who made these statements in his interview with Diane Sawyer on April 24:

“My brain is much more female than it is male. It is hard for people to understand that, but that is what my soul is….

It’s just the way I am, the way I was born.”

This pair of statements is absurd.

Jenner is not claiming that the physical composition or structure of his brain is more like most female brains than most male brains. He is claiming that his soul—his thoughts, values, and emotions—are more like those of a woman than of a man. Then he is claiming that he was born that way.

That is, he is claiming that the contents of his mind are determined by his genes. He can't help it. Nature makes him think that way.

Pisaturo makes a very important point:

But emotions come from values, which come from thoughts, and so Jenner is claiming that some of his thoughts—indeed, very important thoughts—are innate. That is, he is advocating a doctrine of innate ideas, which is absurd.

I don’t think Jenner is advocating any kind of doctrine – I don’t think he possesses or ever developed the necessary intellectual equipment to formulate a doctrine, except in a pedestrian, haphazard way, as is evident in his various interviews – but he is, on one hand, a product and victim of René Descartes’s famous assertion, “I think, therefore I am.” (“Cogito ergo sum”). On the other hand he also believes that, as Descartes implied, reality is created by the mind. If one doesn’t care for the reality handed one by reality (of being born male or female), one has the option of discarding the evidence of one’s senses of perception and metaphysics and epistemology and be guided by one’s emotions. Pisaturo writes:

Here is something that someone should have [been] explained to Bruce Jenner when he began going for therapy for this issue decades ago. No one feels that he is a man, and no one feels that he is a woman.

A man knows that he is a man, as a boy knows that he is a boy, by a combination of perceptual observation and conceptual thought. A boy observes perceptual differences between men and women, boys and girls, and thereby forms the concepts ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘boy’ and ‘girl’. A boy also perceives physical characteristics of himself, and conceptually identifies himself as a boy who will grow into a man.

A man may feel emotions about his being a man, or about his not being a woman. For instance, he may feel happy that he is a man, or he may feel fear about being a man; or he may feel a desire to be a woman, or he may feel a kind of comfort or relief or excitement when imagining that he were a woman. But no man can feel that he is a woman, or a man, or anything else for that matter. Emotions are responses, not identifications. A man’s claim that he feels that he is a woman is a claim of revelation: it is a claim that some consciousness other than his own has attached identification to his emotion.

But if one abandons reason – and the evidence of one’s senses – then the new, acceptable, not-to-be-judged-or-else-we’ll-sue madness is that if one is dissatisfied with one’s sexual identity, one can pretend in earnest to be either Greta Garbo (once a favorite icon of homosexuals) or Rocky the Flying Squirrel or Albert Einstein in a tutu.

Pisaturo concludes:

Many of the “thousands and thousands of people” who allegedly “know with certainty that their real gender is not the same as their anatomy” are children who have been reassigned to the opposite sex based on thoughts and feelings described by the children themselves.

A case can be made that the LGBT movement is the single most evil ideological movement in the history of Western civilization, because this movement advocates and practices the purest form of mindless indulgence of emotion.

I beg to differ. At this point in time, I regard Islam as the single most evil ideological movement in the history of Western civilization, and Islam doesn’t tolerate the existence of Bruce-cum-Caitlyn Jenners or just ordinary run-of-the-mill homosexuals. They’re thrown to their deaths from rooftops to the entertainment of run-of-the-mill Muslims in the Mideast (in Shi’ite Iran, they’re hanged to cheering mobs). Ayn Rand, the novelist/philosopher, delineated the true forces of evil that are assaulting the West: the mystics of the mind – in this case represented by the LGBT Movement – and the mystics of muscle (Islam, ISIS, the EPA, the TSA, the DHS, etc.).

And now I can return to writing a novel in which the hero, the detective Cyrus Skeen, possesses the courage to be an unabashed, virile, and thinking heterosexual.

3 comments:

Edward Cline said...

Just a note: Transgenders are the new privileged minority, and Bruce Jenner is their pin-up “girl.”

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

The angrier and more violent a group is, the more the left is likely to embrace them as partners in the destruction of civilization, whether it's Muslim or trannies.

Michael Neibel said...

It looks like Kant and Hegal have won. X can be X and non X at the same time as long as they can appear to be. After all, as Kant said, our reality is just a bunch of appearances.