HOW does a self-respecting feminist bow to a “transgender” idol such as Bruce Jenner? The “transgender” celebrity must be celebrated and adored. The “transgendered” are the vanguard. At the same time, in his latest publicity stunts as “Caitlyn” Jenner, the former Olympic athlete resembles a high-class call girl. In other words, he represents female oppression and the classic objectification of women.

Rhonda Garelick, a visiting professor at Princeton, tries to skate through this serious ideological dilemma. Princeton professors always tackle the most important issues of the day. In an editorial for The New York Times, she writes:

We have known for months that Bruce Jenner was becoming a woman, and we rejoice if this brings her happiness. But were we prepared for this woman?

We have also known for months that Jenner was involved in a fatal car accident in which he was driving while smoking and apparently distracted and rammed his car into another. It has not affected his image in the least. It is not a serious issue.

One thing is certain: “We” would not have rejoiced if Jenner had found happiness denouncing Hollywood and news outlets as purveyors of porn and mental illness. Jenner would have fallen into obscurity. Jenner’s happiness would be considered hate. Instead, he is a hero. But there are limits:

While the fanfare around the emergence of Caitlyn may advance our acceptance of transgender individuals, it does so, in this case, at a price: the perpetuation, even celebration, of narrow and dehumanizing strictures of womanhood sustained by the fashion and entertainment industries. True liberation of gender’s vast spectrum should ask more of us than that we simply exchange one uncomfortable, oppressive identity for another.

Professors generally pride themselves on being scientific. And yet today they can promote the very unscientific idea that a woman can emerge from a man without being stripped of all of their academic credentials and sent to a psychiatrist. Science is most definitely out of date in the humanities. Never before in Western history has the intellectual elite been in the grip of such wild superstition, which must be bolstered by the destruction of careers and governmental tribunals. Jenner was oppressed as a man. Now he is oppressed as a woman. A man is an oppressed woman. Just in case you thought the revolution was over, carry on.

“We” can approve the idea that sexual identity is fundamental and defining. It’s okay for a man to want to be a woman. But it’s not okay for a man to want to be a man. It’s not okay for a woman to want to be a woman. (Well, it is okay, as long as the woman is powerful. It’s okay, for instance, for Nancy Pelosi to use Botox because she is otherwise advancing the cause.)

“True liberation of gender’s vast spectrum” asks that we embrace mental illness and constant suspicion that we are being dehumanized. Our identity can only be secure when it is a put-on, when it promotes the modern superstition, so in accord with the interests of the powerful and the happiness of those making money off confusion, that human beings can transcend nature.

— Comments —

JD in PA writes:

Your Princeton professor is, to borrow a Newspeak expression from George Orwell, a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

Edward writes:

I thought you might find this graphic amusing.

June 7, 2015

Dan R. writes:

It’s difficult to think what the point of a free press is when you realize they’re all speaking in one voice.  It’s not Pravda, but the mainstream media right here in the once-land-of-the-free, as Brent Bozell and Tim Graham write.

We seem to be having our very own version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

Laura writes:

Except the Chinese didn’t use sexual perversion as a means of political control.

Dan R. writes:

The Communists, whether they be Chinese, Soviet, or Cuban, all did terrible things to homosexuals. The times we live in apparently required a more creative, post-modern approach to controlling the masses.

Frankly, my head is whirling with all this Bruce Gender stuff (by the way, one of the TakiMag writers came up with that one–I find it impossible to call him “Caitlyn.”).

At what point will the American people speak, or are we so thoroughly intimidated on a matter so basic? Even Rush Limbaugh issued a call to Republicans to speak out against the madness, despite Mr. Gender having described himself as a Republican. It couldn’t have been but months ago that you would have
had a resounding NO to transsexualism in any poll of the general population. Apparently one is no longer permitted to state what is obvious: these “transgenders” have deep and serious disorders, reflected most notably in suicide statistics.

Laura writes:

Actually, many people have stated the obvious, but it’s not part of the official party line that is played over and over again, inducing mass hypnosis.

The media seems to be taking the idea that there are no natural sex differences to its logical conclusion, except that “transgenderism” is an affirmation of natural sex differences because the “transgender” would not have to change himself if there were no natural differences.

The media is so invested in sexual perversion at this point, it can’t possibly stop and so it plays along with the whole “Caitlyn” schtick. If a federal employee does this (and in the not-too-distant future, any employee), his coworkers will be required to refer to him as “she.”

Please follow and like us: