Nits Make Lice

The current craze for surgically mutilating troubled high school girls (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria) can be looked at another way: as a really slick exercise in negative eugenics.  Being nuts is fairly heritable: I have no doubt that many of these girls’ mothers were cutting themselves ( while listening to grunge)  back in the 90s. If you remove their ovaries, these girls aren’t going to have descendants: end of story.

Genetic tendencies to insanity in the next generation will be weaker than they otherwise would have been. This approach is far more effective than castrating autogynephilic Decathlon winners and economists, because it’s happening early in the reproductive schedule.

You might think it would be difficult to induce parents to have their daughters spayed, but apparently you can convince bien-pensant liberals of absolutely anything, as long as it’s false.  Gotta keep up with the Jim Joneses.  They even pay for it!

Generally, negative eugenics has a bad reputation.  Deservedly so: usually it was coercive, and people have a right to be left alone.  But if you can con them into damaging or destroying themselves, that’s all right.  That wouldn’t be possible if people were stuffed full of sense and agency, but of course they’re not. They don’t automatically think for themselves or come to correct conclusions, even on old, long-settled questions. Many of them are saps, really. Sad.

Apparently the real goal of the powers that be is to purge some kinds of insanity from society, rather like Oliver Wendell Holmes: Three generations of lunatics are enough.

Don’t pay attention to what the New York Times says: look at the long-term consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Nits Make Lice

  1. Skeptic says:

    Whoa. Great point. But aren’t the single moms who predominate as parents of these kids reliable lefty voters? Why does Establishment want to zero them out?

    • Zenit says:

      Maybe the “Establishment” sees that the “voting” scam outlived its usefulness and plans to wind it down anyway. Maybe there is no “Establishment” at all, and we all are raving and drooling conspiracy theorists.

    • Jan Assman says:

      It’s called tongue in cheek humor.

    • crew says:

      But aren’t the single moms who predominate as parents of these kids reliable lefty voters? Why does Establishment want to zero them out?

      Perhaps they think they have a source of new people?

      • ziel says:

        Exactly – these girls, however kooky, could have conservative kids, or maybe get born-again in a few years. Why take the chance, when we can replace them with reliable voters from here to eternity.

  2. megabar says:

    First of all, while I can readily believe that genetics is a major factor here, I can’t rule out environmental effects. There are so many things going wrong with health in Western societies, such as diabetes and autism, and the rate of increase strikes me as unlikely to be fully genetic. Perhaps our environment exposes vulnerabilities is certain genes, and so it’s a combination of nature and nurture.

    Secondly, if you want to have a mostly egalitarian and ethical society, you have to figure out the most ethical way to achieve eugenics.

    For example, public welfare or jail time (especially for violent crime) could come with some restrictions on breeding. Limited numbers, or perhaps a requirement to artificially inseminate — perhaps using stellar genetic donors from your preferred ethnic group. This way, the kid looks and behaves similar to the parents, but with a more adapted set of genes. The other side of it — paying talented women to have more kids — seems to be a delicate proposition, as that’s unfair to other women. But on the whole, if there’s a will, there are reasonable ways to do this.

    On the other hand, perhaps we’re getting close enough to a technological solution, which can simply nudge genetics in the right direction without any social engineering. I’m not close enough to the research to know if we’re close to that being plausible, in the broad sense of adaption (as opposed to knocking out single-gene diseases). And frankly, even if I’m told we are close, I’m wary of this approach. It seems risky and full of dangerous unknowns. For example, what if we breed ourselves to be so docile that we succumb to any warlike aggressor? That is, perhaps we overly optimize to fitness in this specific world. Of course, any eugenics is vulnerable to that.

  3. biz says:

    So probably you’d be reducing the proportion UMC whites prone to psychological issues in the gene pool while probably doing nothing about the proportion of others prone to psychological issues in the gene pool. Is that eugenic?

    • DataExplorer says:

      What is UMC? How many girls are getting this procedure done? Surely just a handful out of 100s of millions.

      • Cloveoil says:

        Its just LARPing… most Rapid Onsets don’t seek healthcare and defame those who do as ‘truscum’. A word that seems to mean ‘true scum’.

        Despite some people’s attempts to paint gender identity and self-identity itself as something deep and meaningful to people, this is pretty damned shallow.

        • Wency says:

          I was curious about this. I guess “truscum” describes trannies who get surgery and then assert that those who did not are less trans than they.

          The other word they have is TERF, which describes feminists who get creeped out by MtFs that show up in woman-only spaces and hit on them.

          Most of the “rapid onsets” are lesbians, so you might think they’ll be breeding less even without surgery. Though I saw a stat recently that the teen pregnancy rate is elevated among self-identified lesbians.

          • Cloveoil says:

            ‘Truscum’ means admitting they have a problem, rather than possessing an identity: matters of trans identity are secondary to absent for them. TERF just means a 1970s type feminist.

        • Cloveoil says:

          Reading the new lit it seems 1/2 common sense and 1/2 half-hearted attempt at moral panic given they draw comparisons to ‘contagious’ eating disorders – a well known myth. The authors – or peer reviewers I wager – fail to address basic problems in writing about the issue. They mention briefly – so as to avert a shitstorm? – the differences between early and late-onset GD, but speak of it as though it were merely a chronological matter. Late onset GD people typically transition after a midlife crisis: do they even feel dysphoria before that point if they desist for so long? Politics aside, the vague language use still typical of psychiatry contributes no ends to transgender nonsense. This is not about doctors or ‘experts’ versus a few mentally ill freaks who dot admit they have a problem. The field of psychiatry actually facilitates all kinds of nonsense.

          I don’t know… it certainly spreads like a meme but for that reason it has no consequence… when they grow out of it after refusing ‘transmedicalist’ healthcare and even the requirement of dysphoria. sites like Reddit and Tumblr supposedly encourage dysphoric teens to go to doctors: yes such social media pushes the concept, including the idea that nonspecific symptoms should be considered to be proof of transgender, But a quick check shows those communities eschew medicalisation and even the need for dysphoria to be present; the paper says they might encourage teens to make demands of doctors.

          Yea and they actually use the word ‘deceive parents’ – a hallmark of the shrill is the fallacious appeal to parents as knowing best despite the existence of dysfunctional families – a context in which gender dysphoria happens to be very, very common. I often wonder how often ‘trans’ people just wanted to avoid being like their mums and dads, but the spurious wisdom and authority of parents is always sanctified in any moral panic. Its like an indicator. If this seems shocking to right wing readers, read TMWWBQ to learn the family backgrounds normal of early onsetters.

          That last bit fascinates me and it has for a long time: both sides of gay debates are blank slaters, the pro-gays are (or were until very recently) anti-family along crypto-Freudian lines, whereas the naive pro-family people lionise family itself unconditionally – as though family itself prevents such dysfunction. Mmm… I think real life is more complicated than that.

          Anyway, papers here:
          https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

  4. Abraham Lincoln says:

    It’s a trial run for future initiatives.

    • Cloveoil says:

      They won’t be successful, then. What % of the population has been affected by these issues; and what % of them will experience lasting effects from it (ie. not grow out of it)? It must be a far smaller % than an already very small % (rapid onset) of a small % (T) of a small percent (LGBT).

  5. Citizen A says:

    LoL, why worry about people who are not going to count in the long run.

    Let people do foolish things, nature does not care about the bullshit.

    It just is, and will keep on going.

    After all, evolution really doesn’t get your feelingz….

    • David Chamberlin says:

      A tiny percentage of these women/girls/whatchamacallits go the extreme of going under the knife to change sexes. Females have a lot more choice in their sexual preferences than men do. That is just how it is. Men overwhelmingly are born that way, straight or gay. Women can opt to be gay.

      This completely explains the lousy science discirption “rapid onset gender disorder” or even worse “a social contagion” that spreads through a group. In any case I don’t care. Let people find love where ever they can find it, even if it leads to people not reproducing. The world is filled up with people anyway.

      • Zimriel says:

        But men aren’t born that way. Homosexuals tend to “find” their first partners when very young, and those partners are… more mature.

        • David Chamberlin says:

          My guess is you live in a world with evil lurking everywhere.

          • Your guess would be mostly wrong. There may be some genetics to gayness, and even more influence by prenatal stress. But working with sexual offenders used to be one of my subspecialties, and male offenders most often molest males at very close to the age they were first molested themselves. It’s one of the things known in the straight community and in the gay community, but it is forbidden to talk about it with each other. Both deny it when it becomes public. This from last year, just as an example I recently read. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-happens-when-men-have-sex-with-teenage-boys_us_58ab8c69e4b029c1d1f88e02?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
            I’m not sure I’d describe that as “love.”

            • David Chamberlin says:

              This article says one third of abused children will eventually abuse their own children. ttps://www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml
              Pedophiles are the lowest of the low. i am not arguing with anybody that thinks homosexuals are all pedophiles, it’s just too stupid to respond to. I know you are not a troll Village Idiot but Zimriel is.

            • Cloveoil says:

              Is it molestation if the ‘victim’ is sex-aware? I’m not bothered with legal defs of consent, which also led to those silly accusations on US campus lately: such definitions have discredited themselves. And widespread acceptance of statutory rape was what kicked off that whole stupid chain of events.

              Pro-gay? No, anti-softness. No-one dragged in the bushes so no rape.

        • mtkennedy21 says:

          A certain percentage are “born that way” and the rest are sucked in as teenagers.
          Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  6. pyrrhus says:

    Yes, I’m seeing this in my extended family. The mother is a bonkers drama queen, and her parents were bonkers academics. Three generations is enough…

  7. HenryScrope says:

    I think individuals should be 18 before any sort of mutilation, and then it should be voluntary.

    After that if they accept the radio set that’s fine.

    • Jim says:

      I wonder, would you apply that rule to circumcision?

      • HenryScrope says:

        Unless it’s a medical necessity, then yes, 100%. Neither male nor female genital mutilation should be performed on children.

        • Jim says:

          I’m inclined to agree but obviously actually implementing such a policy in the US would be quite divisive in regard to Jewish and Moslem religious beliefs.

          • HenryScrope says:

            It’s a test of our countries’ legislators, can they take on powerful minority groups to protect the rights of children? I think they will fail that test but we can live in hope.

  8. Mark F. says:

    This is horrific. However, it should be mentioned that conservative theocracies like Iran also like “sex changes” as they can’t tolerate homosexuals as well as masculine women and feminine men.

  9. Yudi says:

    Whew, Cochran rolled a 20 on this post. Bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage–he’s a biter.

  10. bob sykes says:

    Which is why I support abortion on demand: the eugenics benefit.

    • Jason says:

      Even greater eugenics benefits with infanticide and filicide.
      Heck, you could solve the problem overnight if you culled the herd to the 300th postpartum trimester.

  11. Niké's left breast says:

    GC may also have an strong ethical case here: the reduction of PAIN (Poly-Acronymic Identitarian Narcissists) has long been accepted as a moral imperative. File this under “Modest Proposals”.

  12. JP says:

    Convergent social evolution, going back to what works. Conservatives Yamnaya-American Christians and happy-go-lucky Aztec-Namnaya hybrids will inherit the (American) earth, it seems.

  13. Ilya says:

    Indeed! Purely anecdotally, a decade and half back, I used to date such a formerly self-cutting, batshit crazy, bipolar chick. She was a single mother. Her only daughter Rachel (who was around 4 at the time) has now turned out to be a “Nick.” I am not surprised: craziness does run in genes.

    On the other hand, I also have a friend with 180 IQ, whose father, after making him and another 4 or 5 babies with several other women besides his former wife (my friend’s mother), apparently decided that he had had enough, chopped off his penis, removed his testicles, and put breast implants in.

    I think that the larger point of all this is that, while before female emancipation, selection operated only on men, it now operates on women also.

    It’s going to be a hard next few centuries 😦

    • crew says:

      These days in college the advice is: Never stick it in the crazy!

      Why did you ignore that advice?

    • More likely Borderline Personality Disorder – they sometimes call themselves bipolar. BPAD isn’t impossible from your description, but they usually aren’t cutters.

      • Ilya says:

        Alternated between depression and mania. Lithium helped, when she finally began taking it, said therapy course triggered by an episode so bad, she got confined to a mental hospital for weeks, almost losing custody of own daughter. Hence: bipolar (and drank beer like a horse, at the time).

        In the early days, got her to enroll into the local community college, but she couldn’t manage to finish it, beyond couple of semesters. Was affectionate yet dumb: could not do fractions or critically analyze text; but could draw in 2D and write love letters well. Too much fun in bed and on the dining table. Built specifically for that purpose, I surmise.

  14. Smithie says:

    Probably superfluous. But if they were somehow surgically-altered into lobstermorphs…

  15. archandsuperior says:

    “Gotta keep up with the Jim Joneses”

    I giggled at that.

  16. dearieme says:

    It’s like anorexia, isn’t it? Your first instinct is to feel sorry for the poor loonies. Probably your second instinct too.

  17. Woof says:

    Kind of reminds me of the old Russian cult, the Skoptsy, that required its male members to castrate themselves and its female members to remove their nipples and parts of their genitals. Now whether it is a case of mass hysteria that most people are vulnerable to, or a case of genetic freaks that need to be culled, is far from clear. That the human brain is capable of the most stupendous stupidity is depressingly obvious, but just how universal is the urge to destroy one’s sexuality?

  18. To be honest, I think most parents of teenagers would like to spay or neuter their kids. I’ve met plenty of conservative Christians who go very hard into trying to convince their kids that all forms of sexuality or sexual attraction to others is bad, pregnancy is bad, reproduction is bad, etc. Of course they have this idea that their kids will, somewhere around the age of 30, snap out of it, get married, and produce grandchildren, but how you get from A to B has never been clear.

    • Zenit says:

      Arranged marriage? It is the old time Biblical way, after all.

    • JerryC says:

      Cool story, but don’t “conservative Christians” have a higher than average birth rate?

    • Sulpiride is effective libido reductor.

    • “I’ve met plenty of conservative Christians who go very hard into trying to convince their kids that all forms of sexuality or sexual attraction to others is bad…” You are misunderstanding. Forbidding sex outside of marriage, especially in teen years is not at all the same thing as saying all sexual attraction is bad. It was in fact the most common parental behavior until quite recently among both religious and non-religious people.

      I’m also betting you don’t know a tenth of the conservative Christians that I do.

    • anonymous says:

      I’ve met plenty of conservative Christians who go very hard into trying to convince their kids that all forms of sexuality or sexual attraction to others is bad,

      I’ve spend 33 years deeply enmeshed in the conservative Christian subculture and I have NEVER encountered anyone who thought like this. NOT ONE. Quite the reverse, the married clergy wax quite eloquent about how awesome married sex is, and that it’s better if you wait. I’ve never heard an anti-sex message, not once.

      However….

      they have this idea that their kids will, somewhere around the age of 30, snap out of it, get married, and produce grandchildren

      That unfortunately is a “thing” — usually among those who spent their 20s fornicating up a storm, either because they weren’t raised Christian, or walked away from church for a decade or so. To their credit, they generally regret their pasts and want their offspring to wait for marriage — but they also want their kids to achieve middle-class prosperity first (which means, usually, waiting til 30+ to marry.) And they haven’t really given much thought to the fact that these two goals are radically at odds with each other. Since they themselves were not abstinent til the wedding night, the implications of delaying the wedding til age 30+ seemingly have never dawned on them. They have no clue how horrible being celibate through the 20s can be, and therefore they naively imagine their offspring will just focus on career development til the time is (financially) right.

      Gone is the era when young lovers would marry with nothing, and build their lives together. Some members of the misbegotten courtship movement, even assert that a man must own a house before he can dare pursue their daughters! Sometimes i think these idiots don’t actually want grandchildren.

      how you get from A to B has never been clear.

      Dating works. Kissing dating goodbye, doesn’t.

      • the same anonymous with yet another randomized email address... says:

        Since they themselves were not abstinent til the wedding night, the implications of delaying the wedding til age 30+ seemingly have never dawned on them.

        I should add…. I was one of the few who DID wait til I found a wife in my 30s. I can explain in quite agonizing detail how awful 20-something celibacy can be.

        So when I hear this “I don’t want my kids getting married til 30” crap from fellow Christian parents, I have some things to say…. and the usual response is, “Oh, wow, I never thought of that!”

      • BB753 says:

        Most conservative Christians are removing themselves from the gene pool by delaying marriage. Muslims have it right: men marry late, women as young as 14. You can’t argue with numbers.

    • Spanky says:

      I’ve met plenty of conservative Christians who go very hard into trying to convince their kids that all forms of sexuality or sexual attraction to others is bad

      I kinda doubt that. That sounds like something you heard on an anti-theist YouTube video.

  19. Jokah Macpherson says:

    I never fall for it. A handful of folks try to shame me for liking nubile girls but I’m like hey you’ve got kids where did that come from?

  20. Nitan says:

    Re your previous Gauss conjecture: seems like Stefan Banach’s parentage was even lower down the social scale. Going to venture that these two had higher g than would be inferred from social station. Are you sure there aren’t more of these cases?

    Little is known about Banach’s mother.[8] According to his baptismal certificate, she was born in Borówna and worked as a domestic help.[7] […] Unusually, Stefan’s surname was his mother’s instead of his father’s, though he received his father’s given name, Stefan. Since Stefan Greczek was a private and was prevented by military regulations from marrying, and the mother was too poor to support the child, the couple decided that he should be reared by family and friends.[9]

  21. J says:

    From the “Moral Treatises of Saint Augustin”: “for who made themselves eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven, whoso can receive, let him receive.” Self-mutilation may have a new “scientific” name, but its roots are in Christianity.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      This sort of thing has existed on the fringes of Christianity, as with a number of other religions, but mainstream Christianity has always condemned it – hence the persecution of the Skoptsy by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th Century.

  22. Little spoon says:

    How many people fill the following conditions?

    1) get rapid onset gender dysphoria
    2) get a sex reassignment surgery because of this gender dyaphoria
    3) would have had children if not for the sex reassignment surgery

    How many people are being culled from the herd here? Like 10 maybe?

  23. AbelardLindsey says:

    The current craze for surgically mutilating troubled high school girls (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria) can be looked at another way: as a really slick exercise in negative eugenics.

    I first heard of this trend only in the past month or so. I never looked at it this way. But I should, and for some reason, it makes me feel better to look at it this way.

  24. Glengarry says:

    However, ‘changing your sex’ to male doesn’t necessarily mean getting neutered. It doesn’t even prohibit getting pregnant, giving birth or breastfeeding while a male. (One reason I consider transsexuals not very ‘born that way’ but just plain crazy.)

    Searching images with “bearded tranny breastfeeding” will show you several examples.

  25. ghazisiz says:

    Gender-confused folk are mostly gentle, harmless people. Delusional, yes, but they are not the phenotype you would most want removed from the world of your grandchildren. There are savage people in America: kids that will shoot you in order to look cool; junkies staggering around from one fix to another, and not caring how they get it; adults whose entire strategy for self-esteem is to make others fear them.

    Natural selection at one time removed these phenotypes — differential reproduction (Gregory Clark) and capital punishment (Steven Pinker) have been busy since the Middle Ages. But nowadays we subsidize the reproduction of these people: TANF, WIC, SNAP, Section 8, Medicaid, catch & release for violent crimes, etc.

    Modest proposal: castrate violent criminals. Lower testosterone levels should make it possible for them to live outside prison without causing harm, saving tax dollars and making punishment less punitive and more curative. Additionally, for most violent men, the loss of recreational sex would be a much stronger deterrent than prison time. And, of course, there would be an incidental eugenic effect.

    • catte says:

      Gender-confused folk are mostly gentle, harmless people.

      Check out kiwifarms sometime.

    • Cloveoil says:

      “Gender-confused folk are mostly gentle, harmless people.”

      That was a myth from the three types idea: a true transsexual was nonexistent, and based on asexuality. Already by the 70s it was realized this was a confusion of behavior/identity and personality traits but it formed the backbone of ideas about transsexuals till the rise of the transgender movement.

      • Aldo says:

        Trannies are harmless in the way fags, dykes, and Achmeds are: Talk about peace and acceptance and how you’re not trying to hurt Whitey/White Men/Men, then once your numbers get big enough and/or there’s enough support for you in the host population you start chimpingout (demand wedding cakes baked for you, the right to show your cock to little girl’s faces aka using female bathrooms).

        Look at how trannies and fags act: Do they act like abused children or abused animals for how much they and their cucks cry about Whitey/White Men keeping them down? Or do they act like chimps in their territory (hostile, making demands, converting kids, acting like they know Whitey/Men/White Man can’t touch them)?

      • My sample isn’t representative – psychiatric patients – but the transgender I know are disproportionately violent.

        • Cloveoil says:

          I don’t know any atm; as a whole they aren’t, but they (or Blanchard’s AGP) are more prone than usual to violent crime when viewed as women rather than men. This is of course an artifact of their ‘assigned sex’ – presumably they are less violent than other men in their demographics, owing to castration.

          Violent ‘early onsetters’ such as Tara Hudson are rarer but as a group they are more inclined to crimes such as drug use and prostitution, than they are to violence. Various TERF-y sites push the idea of violent trannies but their bias toward sexual and misogynistic crimes presumably reflects their own bias. Given those sites are compiled mostly by lesbians, there exists irony there… because lesbians (being naturally masculinised) also have elevated rates of predatory sex crime compared to normal women.

  26. Capogambino says:

    Ghazisiz: – A modest proposal: 6 months off any prison term for those who undergo an irreversible vasectomy or tubal ligation.

  27. Pingback: Insanity corner part 2981 – Orphans of Liberty

  28. DataExplorer says:

    Time and time again I hear the assertion on this blog that education has no impact on how anyone turns out. And now I read that with the right ideology you can persuade people to spay their own daughters. There is a big contradiction in there.

    • Yudi says:

      I agree. This is one of the things that right-wingers/HBDers seem confused by.

      • You can “educate” girls to apply to engineering schools, and you can “educate” admissions to accept them. But you can’t “educate” them to love engineering. A tiny number love engineering anyway; the rest hate it.

        You can “educate” people to believe that priming or other spells affect IQ scores, but nothing you can do will affect IQ scores.

        It’s not confusing unless you try very hard to be confused by it.

    • Greying Wanderer says:

      you can’t make dumb people smarter but the evil media can make narcissists do anything – even mutilate their own children

  29. MEH 0910 says:

    • Cloveoil says:

      It is good people accept (come to terms with) who they are. It is also absurd that they refuse to believe they have a problem.

      This kind of thing is a symptom of the US and its narcissistic fixation on identity, which is the culture of the self writ large.

  30. MT says:

    “Generally, negative eugenics has a bad reputation. Deservedly so: usually it was coercive, and people have a right to be left alone.” Absolutely.

    “But if you can con them into damaging or destroying themselves, that’s all right.”

    If it’s aimed at being funny I missed it. “Conning people into damaging or destroying themselves” is not “leaving them alone” – is it?

  31. G.M. says:

    To test the theory that homosexuality might be caused by a pathogen, let’s mine the likely vectors: try to develop a discriminator to distinguish between the semen, saliva & fæces of gay & straight men, & see what we can find.

    Is spelunking one cave the same as another? Let the microbiome be our guide.

  32. Young says:

    Worth looking at is ‘As Nature Made Him’ by John Colapinto and about David Reimer whose botched circumcision as an infant led to the experts convincing his parents to redesign his tubing as a girl. After all, sex and gender are socially determined so the the kid should never know the difference if he is raised as a girl.

    John Money of Johns Hopkins reported the experiment in which he played a prominent role as a success but was not forthcoming on the details.

    The details did finally come out and the opportunistic experiment was a disaster. The girl had trouble fitting in at school and was nicknamed ‘The Monster’ by female classmates. I found it interesting that the kid was kicked out of the girl’s toilet when they caught her trying to urinate while standing up. It didn’t go well with the redesigned plumbing but it is fascinating that the instinct remained and was that strong. Also out of female character was the kid’s eagerness to dive in and trade blows with boys who were fighting.

    Finally, the parents gave up and told him the truth–he was born a boy. Almost his first question was what his boy’s name was. He immediately adopted that name, male attire, and began living as a male with a female friend. Despite that, the experiment took its final toll and he committed suicide. One would think that that would finally put an end to the ‘gender is socially constructed’ thesis–or at least dent it–but that does not seem to have happened except among a handful of sane researchers.

  33. Pingback: PTT crowdsourcing effort – posttenuretourettes

  34. Rich Rostrom says:

    Further information about the Reimer case: the circumcision was a surgical procedure to correct a urination problem. The urologist used an electrically heated cauterizing knife, which malfunctioned.

    AFAIK, John Money was the expert who persuaded the Reimers to raise the child as a girl. That was entirely Money’s idea, and Money rode the case to “scientific celebrity”, presenting his purported results to enthralled feminist conferences.

    Ironically, the Reimer case proves that gender identity is fixed, not fluid (as current sex radicals claim); it also shows that it exists in the brain, independent of body form. That means it is possible for neurological and corporeal gender identity to be different.

    That apparently happens in a tiny number of cases due to misdevelopment of the relevant tissues. Because social conservatives tend to reject these cases out of hand as “insanity” or “perversion” to be suppressed, this has made these cases into a “Trojan Horse” for sexual radicalism.

    • Cloveoil says:

      Anything neurological is corporeal.

    • Young says:

      Thanks for correcting the details. It has been some years since I read the book. I do agree with you and would like to add a thought. I have read that even some people born without limbs sometimes suffer from missing limb syndrome. That suggests that at some point there is a strong mental image of one’s body that normally corresponds to the physical image. That image might remain in the mind despite the condition of the body. So many things can go wrong in development that it is possible that some transgendered people actually have the wrong software image for the body they have. That might also explain some of the cases in which a person demands that a body part such as a hand be amputated because it does not really seem to belong on him. Any complex process subject to accident can probably go wrong in interesting ways.

  35. Young says:

    Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria in girls. This looks a lot like a type of fad one sometimes sees in girls from time to time. In ancient Miletus girls began committing suicide after the gorgeous funeral of the first few. Thales, the very wise man, was consulted and he said it should be decreed that all suicides should have funerals stark naked. The suicides stopped immediately.

    To bad these families don’t have a Thales to tell them to knock it off. I do wonder if at sometime these girls might bring actions for damages against the medical professionals foolish enough to get tied up in this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s