As a young boy, I was fascinated by the power of the switch in the tracks of the Lionel electric train I got for Christmas. It moved the tracks only a tiny fraction of an inch, but sent the roaring monster in my imagination off to a whole new world. The gender explosion flipped a conceptual switch, and the sex train went roaring off into an ancient world of pagan mutilation and self-imposed harm that seemed to be the breakout of a new freedom. We found too late that the train was not only switched, it had gone totally off the rails.
When someone said there could be more than two genders, that mental switch seemed like an insight, like a breakout into a deeper truth. But it was a breakdown of science into a pagan religion that eventually would mutilate precious young bodies, confuse minds, and break hearts. It was a parallel of the error that led to Woodstock, April 1969, where the “free love” abstraction took center stage in the minds and hearts of thousands of young people.
Both movements were energized and excited by the permeating feelings of SEX with its tacit connection to sexual intercourse. But the nut of the matter, the real switch that enabled the unfolding debacle of transgenderism, was extremely subtle, so subtle that no one could put their finger on it. Many of us knew it was wrong, that the science, the reality of the matter, was plain to see – there were two genders and the same two sexes. So what happened?
The meaning of the word “gender” was switched from a label of observable truth to an abstraction that seemed the same but was fundamentally detached from reality. Abstractions are powerful tools for thinking and comprehending, but dangerous ghosts that represent truth from a distance and blur reality. Let me explain how this has worked for the corruption of gender, freedom, and love.
The Forest and the Trees
There can be a tree without a forest, but there cannot be a forest without a tree.
That simple statement reveals the logical thinking that must be used to detect and correctly label an abstraction. It cleanly separates the abstract from the physical reality, a distinction that can separate logically deluded activists from their emotional agendas, but only if they are sufficiently open-minded to consider it. The truth is that trees have rights that are not inherited by their abstract label. That’s because abstractions are concepts, ideas, or even notions, not hard reality. Ideas don’t have rights, but the people holding them do. That is the distinction.
The Stereotype Delusion
To make a judgment that a girl is living in a boy’s body requires that a stereotypical girl must first be contrived as a standard against which a boy can be measured. There is no other way to make such a decision.
But who dares to engage in such an enterprise as to say what that standard girl shall be? As we look across the mass of humanity, we see a wonderful variety of amazing characteristics. When I drive across western deserts with their endless miles of sagebrush, I often think that people are like that, all alike but all different.
So what shall we hold up as a standard “girl”? That question has no answer. Period. Whatever characteristic you may want to assign as a measurement fails when viewed within the vast variety of body types, shapes, weights, colors of skin and hair, of proclivities, instincts, preferences, responses, experiences, perceptions, and tendencies of all girls. Any decision, any description purporting to be a “standard girl”will be profoundly wrong in multiple dimensions.
The idea that a girl is in a boy’s body is a trip into an imaginary world where endless variety can be collapsed into a nonexistent “girl”. The process crushes womanhood into a faceless robot. Finding a standard in a realm of endless variety should not surprise us; it is the same problem Plato had with his “forms”.
How Transgenderism Became “Gospel Truth”
When gender was redefined as a set of several realizations, gender was pushed out of the realm of physical reality (where gender and sex were synonyms) into an abstraction. This occurred without any recognizable logical consequences, except that we all felt that something was wrong. It was a particularly subtle sleight of hand.
The sophistry of the rich and/or “educated” enabled them to become excited about this new “insight” into gender, and so it was turned into a fad. Fellow sophisticates, who seemed to know nothing about objective reality, gleefully adopted and promoted the false idea facilitated by this new abstraction. The result has been a return to practices that mirror pagan sacrifice and bodily mutilation. It should not surprise us that this profoundly erroneous new perspective on something so absolutely fundamental as sex is wreaking havoc in the mental processes of its adopters. It has created a deep but invisible dissonance that is nearly impossible to identify and overcome.
I think the following process describes what happened.
How Abstractions Overpower Reality
- Gender was redefined as [60?] members of an abstraction set called gender. This redefinition was automatic because sex has two genders, and when the number went beyond two, it had to become an abstraction.
- Moral weight was shifted from the sexes to the new abstraction of gender. (the excitement)
- Individual sexes became subject to the advancement of the abstraction called gender (the fad).
- Dissent was reframed as harm to gender owners (this is typical for abstractions as we shall soon see)
- Authorities of gender claimed exclusive competence.
- Power was centralized (A major political party puts its eggs in that basket.).
- Logical “violence” became justified in order to protect the abstraction.
Fortunately, the word “gender” is making a comeback as people sense that it really didn’t change its connection with the word “sex”, but only became corrupted by “free thinkers.”
How Freedom is Converted to Communism
Just as an aside here, I want to point out that the process that gave the gender explosion traction, is the same one that corrupts the thinking of free societies and makes them vulnerable to the tenets of socialism, Marxism, and Communism.
Attention is first diverted by constant public media dialogue that transfers attention from individual rights to the “needs” of society. Needs are then converted into the rights of society, thus transferring moral value from people to their aggregate abstraction. The process mirrors that of the legitimizing of multiple genders.
- Individuals are redefined as members of an abstract set (“the people,” “the masses,” “society”).
- Moral weight shifts from people to the abstraction “society” (good/bad judged at group-level).
- Individual rights become conditional and subject to benefits for the abstraction “society”.
- Dissent is reframed as harm to society, not as disagreement among persons.
- Authorities of society claim exclusive competence to interpret society’s interests.
- Power centralizes to enforce those interpreted interests.
- Violence is justified as necessary to protect and perfect society.
- Individual deaths are discounted as statistically or morally negligible in comparison to the morally huge weight of the good of society. (A tiny person is invisible when held up to a huge “society”.)
- Dictatorships stabilize society by continual reference to societal necessities and the elimination of opposition.
