Counter-Currents
Leaping into Delusion, Death, & Personal Destruction
The Price of Tolerating Transgenderism
Richard Parker
Soon after the Superman movie was released in 1978, a small boy named Charles Green, after having watched this film, convinced himself that he, too, could fly like Superman.
To read this, get behind our Paywall
Leaping into Delusion, Death, & Personal Destruction
The Price of Tolerating Transgenderism
Leaping%20into%20Delusion%2C%20Death%2C%20andamp%3B%20Personal%20Destruction%0AThe%20Price%20of%20Tolerating%20Transgenderism%0A
Leaping%20into%20Delusion%2C%20Death%2C%20andamp%3B%20Personal%20Destruction%0AThe%20Price%20of%20Tolerating%20Transgenderism%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Notes on Plato’s Gorgias, Part 11
-
Take Heed, Trust Not a Reporter
-
Party Politics: Tom Wolfe’s “Radical Chic”
-
Notes on Plato’s Gorgias, Part 10
-
Who Commits “Hate Crimes”?
-
Smedley Butler’s War Is a Racket
-
How the South Beat Reconstruction, Part 3
-
Culture as Programming: A Case Study of Frau Löwenherz, aka Leonie Plaar, Part 2
19 comments
“…absolute and uncompromising intolerance…”
Indeed!
Conservatives must stop “haggling” over issues like this and simply refuse to buy.
I’m glad you took the time to write on this timely topic and uncompromisingly so.
This was a very thoughtful article, and I think the analogy is (mostly) a fair one. However, an important difference I see between the Superman delusion and transgenderism is that there is no support coming from the medical establishment for the former. I do have some sympathy for the parents of these troubled boys and girls.
Most parents have no expertise in medicine, and naively trust that the so-called experts in that field are, first and foremost, concerned with the safety and wellbeing of their children. They also that “the experts” wouldn’t dare act recklessly and suggest unproven or highly dubious treatments. But there is a long and tragic history of misguided treatments, including leaches, lobotomies, circumcisions, and the over prescription of dishonestly-marketed opioids.
I’m not going to be too harsh in judging a parent who listens to the advice of doctors when making medical decisions for their child. I don’t consider a parent who agrees to circumcise their son (which is genital mutilation), or a parent who agrees to give their child opioids prescribed by a doctor after a surgery, to be guilty of child abuse. Should they have known better? Certainly. But they didn’t know better, were only doing what the “experts” suggested, and would have made different decisions had they known the truth.
Parents whose children claim to be trans are told that they are putting their child in danger by not consenting to let them undergo “gender affirming care”. They are made to feel afraid that their child will harm or kill themselves if they don’t agree to do what the doctors say. Considering that these children often have severe mental illnesses besides their trans delusion, and are often suicidal, this is seen by the confused, terrified parents as a very real possibility.
My family is close friends with a family whose daughter is now called their “son”, and they have done the politically correct thing and “supported” the transition. Here is what happened:
Their daughter was suicidal and had mental health issues beginning in her pre-teen years. They sent her to therapy.
The daughter told the therapist about wanting to be a “boy” and the therapist encouraged this. The parents were never told.
Once she started high school, she began using a male name and male pronouns at school. All of her friends and teachers knew. The parents were never told.
Their daughter finally “came out “to her parents at 15 or 16. They were confused and alarmed at first, and weren’t immediately supportive of the “transition”
Their daughter began to cut herself and talk about suicide. She missed school, spent time in the psych ward, and was in therapy several times a week. The terrified parents made the mistake of listening to the experts, and ultimately decided to agree to put their daughter on testosterone, call her their son, and use the male name she picked.
There are countless stories like this, and some states are considering laws to take children from their parents if they refuse to play along with their kids’ delusions. The parents do deserve some of the blame for not knowing better, but a corrupt medical establishment, pharmaceutical industry, and spineless politicians are also culpable.
The psychiatrists, therapists, endocrinologists, surgeons, and drug companies that enable and profit off of these delusions have blood on their hands. To me, they’re the real criminals.
I think another aspect of this is modern parenting where parents give in to almost anything and everything the child wants. I see it in parents all the time. The kid doesn’t want to do homework, so they pull him out of any class with homework. A girl is scared to ride a bike, so they never teach her. A kid wants to tear up his book and break some pencils rather than doing his work, “but that’s okay”. My own wife, after listening to “the experts”, insists that we never force our kids to do or eat anything they don’t want. It’s all bunk, but it’s all the rage. It’s a result of the feminization of society.
A parent’s job is to give children what they need, even if it’s not what they want, and to teach them how they should act, even if it’s not what comes naturally – using force if necessary. A parent’s job is to make his kids eat healthy food and not let them eat cookies and chips all day. If you love your child, you should want the best for him, and the best comes from giving him what will bring long-term well-being, not immediate gratification.
Something tells me it’s the spoiled kids that are most susceptible to irrational craziness.
Irreversible Damage documents how it is a craze pretty much exclusively with well to do elite, white. Also Jewish but she is not explicit about that.
This article is also instructive, which I believe I included a link to.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/understanding-the-radical-gender-movement
You’re definitely on to something there. Ann Coulter wrote a good piece about the demographics of parents of transgender teens a few years ago, where she said that “All I needed to know about the transgender craze was that in a massive survey of the parents of transitioning teens, the parent-respondents were 92% female, 71% had a bachelor’s or graduate degree, 86% favored gay marriage and 91% were white.”
It’s White, educated, affluent, liberal moms who seem to be the ones who fall for this.
Or AWFL’s(affluent white female liberals) as they are called.
A parent’s job is to give children what they need, even if it’s not what they want, and to teach them how they should act, even if it’s not what comes naturally – using force if necessary.
This kind of drive for domineering behavior is a why no-one wants any ‘right wing’ solutions in their lives.
It’s also why ‘the right’ is 100% in emotional collaboration with ‘liberalism’.
To wit:
A ruling elite’s job is to give the Dirt People what they need, even if it’s not what they want, and to teach them how they should act, even if it’s not what comes naturally – using force if necessary.
Members of the Right are so busy indulging their petty sadisms, they make the arguments for the liberals for them.
‘Permissiveness’ isn’t the problem, not really. The problem is that Whites are not loved, not even by their own people. Both ‘the Right’ and ‘the Left’ are always looking for reasons to exercise their will to sadism on White people, especially White children.
We don’t need more domination, we need more affection.
Do you have children who are older than babies? Asking nicely is all well and good, but when the kids say “no”, what do you do? You can try to explain why it’s in their best interests to brush their teeth or eat their vegetables or do their homework or take a nap – and you should! – but most kids are highly resistant to logical explanations that don’t jive with how they feel in the moment. Perhaps you’ll threaten to take away some privileges, but kids will often choose immediate gratification at the price of future deprivation. Will you bribe them with treats or promises? That sets up a dynamic where they’ll expect to get paid to do things. And what if they don’t take the bribe? Sometimes there is a conflict of wills and only one can prevail. Who will it be? It should be the parent, assuming the demand is really in the child’s interest.
There’s no inherent conflict between force and affection, where using one precludes use of the other. I give most of the affection in my family and I also use force on rare occasions. It’s rare, like once or twice per year now, because they’ve learned.
Law is rules backed by force, and the government/citizen/law dynamic is closely analogous to the parent/child/household rules dynamic. Are you also opposed to law? Force and law can be just or unjust, fair or unfair. Abusive force is bad, but corrective force can be good.
I can contrast my approach to that of my wife. The kids don’t really listen to or respect her, because they know that if they’re stubborn she’ll always give in and the worst she’ll do is use words. They know she’s all bark and no bite and they act accordingly…
You call it ‘discipline’ but what you really mean is ‘punishment’. And ‘punishment’ and ‘affection’ do seem contradictory. The analogy to ‘law’ and ‘force’ is interesting as it exposes your argument to the reality of unjust laws and their relationship to unjust punishment.
Yes, and the (hopefully slim) possibility of unjust punishment does not preclude the utter necessity of just punishment. All civilization is organized around this principle.
There is no such thing as a Libertarian or Anarchist Paradise (apart from Fiction).
🙂
P.S. Although I disagree with excessively-permissive parenting, I wasn’t talking above about parenting here. That requires a completely different kind of discipline and is therefore a poor analogy with societal discipline and statecraft.
Well, it would likely be counter-productive to be affectionate at the same moment one is punishing a child, but punishment doesn’t preclude affection at other times.
“The analogy to ‘law’ and ‘force’ is interesting as it exposes your argument to the reality of unjust laws and their relationship to unjust punishment.”
Certainly parents can be unjust and abusive. Some parents are bad. But that doesn’t mean force is necessarily bad. And unlike the government which simply punishes, when faced with disobedience most parents go through a long sequence of gentle asking, explaining, telling, demanding, threatening, and finally some ultimate resolution of the conflict, whether that be giving in, bribing, or punishing. I think the problem is that many parents today give in, resulting in spoiled kids who always expect to get their way, or bribe them, resulting in irresponsible kids who expect to be paid to do things they should be doing as a matter of course. Both put the kids in charge and neither is conducive to maturing them into responsible adults.
Expectations and punishments should evolve with the child; an infant is too young to have duties or understand a spanking, and if you’re still spanking a 16-year-old something is wrong. Children should have gradually increasing mental abilities that justify gradually expanding freedom and responsibilities and rising expectations, ultimately culminating in them being a free, responsible, and capable adult. Those increasing mental abilities let you communicate and reason with them on a higher level, but there is a window of time when they’re young when reason and logic are mostly ineffective but force is highly effective, and in that window I think it’s a perfectly appropriate tool when used wisely.
Western civilization was built by adults who had endured at least the palpable threat of corporal punishment and it is being allowed to collapse by children, who haven’t. The inescapable reality of superior force is just an outdated patriarchal construct to the last generations of Europeans.
The problem is that Whites are not loved, not even by their own people.
Couldn’t agree more. I keep returning in my imagination to a world where White people cherish each other; where laughter, relaxation and well-being abound.
People who aren’t good dog owners don’t usually make good parents.
Progessional dog trainer Stonnie Dennis contends that people too often don’t make sufficient time for their dogs. No doubt this is also true too often for parents in regard to their children. As a dog owner, the main points are to make yourself an interesting person, and spend the (quality) time with the dog. Same surely holds for a child. A system of rewards and/or punishment are used only for a very brief time in a dog’s training. Same would be true with children. And on this last point, Stonnie says, if you opt for a system of reward, you’ll get others to support you and help you. But if you opt for punishment, you won’t get any help.
I guess Kristi Noem found that out.
https://youtu.be/r3irGVc-P1o?si=ppUpulS7RB4xSzDf
Sounds like you might be in the wrong pub!
The profiteers will get theirs, sooner or later. When the kids grow up and realize what’s been done to them, it’s going to be the biggest lawsuit bonanza since asbestos, or maybe even more than that.
I believe that’s true and I look forward to it, but when I see all the beautiful children destroyed, I can’t help but feel that no fine could possibly be big enough.
(edit-this was intended as a replay to the Dave Chambers comment at 12:58, this response was posted on my phone).
I address that in this excerpt:
The resolution and will — the will! — to take action against the second “candy” becomes even clearer when one merely considers that those monied interests which stand to profit off the consumption of such an insidious product are promoting it, as so-called transgender clinics and other rogue elements in the medical profession profit handsomely off propagating and peddling so-called “gender affirming care” and other services. By one account, the cost of a vaginoplasty costs between $45,000 and $65,000 for the “neo-penis” surgeries, on top of the wide range of costs associated with a lifetime of medical care to which any such person is condemned. This is, of course, on top of the well-financed LGBTQ Yuck lobby.
Indeed, people do not make money out of instances like the Charles Green tragedy.
It seems to me the thing is to build resiliency in children. That surely begins with giving them our love and our time.
There’s an old proverb that goes, the best thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother. How do we know children don’t learn disrespect for their mother from their father?
As for the larger “civilizational” questions, I would have said the most remarkable thing about Adolf Hitler was that he loved the German people. There’s nothing worth salvaging of the NSDAP if he didn’t.
Decorated WW1 veteran and the last century’s greatest Classicist, Robert Graves, once said the most sustaining thing in his life was the knowledge that his mother loved him.
Who would have thought the proposition that White people should begin and end with love for themselves and each other would prove such a hard-to-grasp and revolutionary idea?
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.