Doctored Subjects: The Trans Self-Delusion of Sex and Gender (I)
As your mother will one day explain to you, there is not such a thing as a sex-change. But then, maybe your mother will someday explain to you that gender, as the bio-cellular bio-physiological networking that it is, is an end is in itself: something which cannot be transcended. We always remain within a sex; and we always remain within a gender, and there is no way out. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “trans-gender” person, either. Even though some people continue to be referred to, and to refer to themselves in either of these terms, that might be for lack of better words, or because the words that would most fittingly reflect the thing itself have been deemed “offensive,” practically banned and extirpated from the language, a policing operation that metaphorically reflects what goes on in the surgical-medicating process called “transitioning.”
If nonetheless you keep hearing about “trans” this or that, your mother would tell you, it is the result of a collective self-delusion fabricated and fed to you by the liberal democratic “order,” the officialdom of the media comprehended therein, and by the college you went to, where you obtained the film-making skills and the indoctrination that keep propagating such self-delusion to the whole of society. But this you will learn on your own someday.
And along the line, you will maybe grasp that such engineering was initially started by applying certain shaky philosophical theories on sexuality, sex, and the body put forward by Foucault which, conveniently tailored to the ethos of homosexuality, was wholly co-opted by the “gay liberation” movement around the 1970’s and 8o’s, last century. Those shaky philosophical theories, uncritically taught in colleges around the nation, is what came to eventually be taken over by Big Pharma and the medical establishment in general, subsequently perpetrated on society as an industry of delusory make-believe, to which by now anything “trans” has become subjected to— in the strict sense and with as much hierarchical pervasiveness as the “subject” concept has in the writing of the French philosopher in reference.
So, we have now as society chosen to believe that not only the sex but also the gender of those of its members who would choose to, can be changed at will. If you were to go, for instance to Wikipedia, to learn the criteria that guide the medical decision for doctoring the sex and/or the gender of someone who would request it no matter how old, you would give your mother credits. You would soon conclude that, since not matter how unrealistic the “transitioning” achievements, the difficult and long-lasting intervention of the medical establishment into the human body cannot be dispensed with— the liberal democratic order that allows and promotes what is demonstrably a delusion, has been fostering a society of sexually motivated “medical subjects.” And yet, in so doing, the liberal democratic establishment has gone even beyond the scope of the Fuocaultian subject. That is, if you would keep up to the discourse of this Frenchman, this grouping category is to be both questioned and endorsed, and endorsed merely for the plaisir discuorsif de le interroguer, which is how the allegorically bi-logic in the philosophical double-speak of Foucault proceeds.
Now, recalling that Foucault himself was a pedophilic homosexual— isn’t it here where you ironically ask yourself, “‘Isn’t this ironic?’” Go ahead then, ask. Yet, however you would choose to move on afterwards, this should be bore in mind. Every bit as much as you keep hearing about “transsexual,” you are to discarded such term. And you should do that on account of its conceptual meaninglessness. For, one cannot "transition" from one's sex into another. And, if those who would try to retain the term in use would maybe argue that “non-binary” sexuality is a valid “genderqueering” strategy by which the transitioning from one sexuality to another is “demonstrably” attained, there is an answer to that. Which is: first, that’s far from being demonstrable. Second, even if we were to admit "non-binary" as a legitimate sexuality (obviously not the same as “sex” and which you do not), the case remains that transitioning from one sex into another is a practical and functional impossibility. For no one can "transition" in-and-out of their "non-binarism," lest it come into a sort of mathematical contradiction with itself. Every time that a “successful” jump from one of the terms of the non-binarism state is attempted, one finds oneself caught up in the other term, and vise-versa. Thus, claiming to have a non-binary sexual status is very much the same as claiming to be living trapped in an identitarian revolving door: you are going nowhere fast and will always go back to where you started from.
Furthermore, the genderqueer ideology, which presupposes that uniquely, nature outfitted leftist sexualities with something alike the college-acquired superpower it calls "gender-fluidity,” discloses something deeply troubling in the collective psychology of the liberal democratic “order.” Such claim does not more than to reveal a troubling mental incapability to identify with and to become one with any of the identities of the sexualities that according to the claim, are permanently “flooding” the libidinal energy of the medical subject. Thus, the claim to sexual “fluidity” is a new psychological, but likely psychiatric phenomenon, never before encountered in the cultures of the West until the “gay liberation” ethos took hold on the college campus, later catapulting itself to Hollywood and through it to the American household, in due time reaching official status through to the Democratic Party— first with Obama, and presently and most decisively with Biden and his transsexual gay lobby.
As for the role of the American Conservatives in this development— you will see for yourself that nobody from this front seems to have ever raised even, if you will, the pedestrian argument that “fluidity” in sexuality goes against some elementary laws of physics. For, by definition, bodies that are in a permanently fluid state cannot possess definitive, stable identity. Thus, the claim to "fluidity" as a sexual identity stands against reason and against the human experience of sexuality. And so, on that basis alone (without a need to get involved with understanding a refuting Foucault, which American Conservatives have no flair for), it could have from its very beginning be addressed as the mental and cultural fiction it is. Which would have gone a long way in preempting the “genderqueering” of American schools and the America family.
Alas! Mothers do not know everything, including yours. To be sure, once you have gained some clarity of the “trans-sexual” delusion, you will still be left to deal on your own with the self-delusion of gender germinated by the “gay liberation” assimilation of the Foucault truculent rhetoric on sex, sexuality, the body, and gender now being perpetrated by Big Pharma and the liberal democratic medical establishment on their medical subjects, and on society.
To begin with, you will ask: what does then the trans-delusion of gender itself, consist of? And just as you are done asking, you will immediately see that in the short version of this explanation, such self-delusion consists in, a) the acquisition by a prospective (Foucault-ian) medical subject, either overt homosexual or nominal heterosexual, of the psychological capability to become convinced that from birth they were “meant” to be in possession of the physical attributes, and the physiognomy, of the gender they admire the most, which they idealize they could be the happiest being like. This has to do with having first acquired a never-questioned admiration, bordering on reverence, of the biological, physiological, social as well as cultural attributes of the gender they believe they were “meant” to have been born in. In short, this consists on the deep-set conviction (irrational form of feelings, indeed) that “my life would have been far better for me if I had been born male.” And ditto of having born female. That is what compels the prospective (Foucaltian) medical subject to, as common language puts it, “go for it,” as if to correct the “mistake” Nature made them into. And so, the prospective becomes the actual.
But, to that first acquired psychological capability a second acquisition follows. It consists in, b) the transformation of the irrational form of feelings sketched above into an unshakable belief by the Foucaultian medical subject that the attributes of sex that could and would be given to them, but as a matter of fact, purchased by them, could have and would have always been theirs. Here, the “could-have-would-have” formula is the grammatical equivalent of the prospective subject as they become actual medical subjects. And this psychological motion and transformation of the subject is market by the incapacity or refusal of a given subject in each case to acknowledge that they are doing not more than effectuating a purchase, and willingly subjecting themselves to the laws of the market, in addition to already being Foucaultian medical subjects. It is through this purchasing effect that an actualized medical subject gets in practice validated, although at the same time, never recognized as such by the medical establishment, and by the trans-activists themselves, who offer the “counseling,” or rather, the priming of the prospective subject. For, it is them who determined that the highly complex surgical and endocrinological intervention, along with the theatrical-therapeutic treatment for speech-gendering will be designated as a "sex-realignment." Or, in both instances grounded on what is nothing but marketing whimsical thinking, as a "sex-reassignment."
You will notice the euphemisms. It is pure marketing technique and manipulation of language. First up, “re-assignment.” On the one hand, it is to be doubted whether the same results could attain from an operation, even if not necessarily surgical, in which something whatever gets "reassigned" to somebody, instead of for example "realigning" somebody to something, or something whatever unto somebody. In other words, "reassigning" and "realigning" are not two non-differentiated operations, especially if this operation is surgical. But for the medical establishment and transactivists both procedurals are one and the same and can be addressed by either name. And that is telling.
On the other hand, “re-alignment.” While "realigning" suggests setting back on a line something that originally was, but with time became "dis-aligned," a motion that cannot be true of any sexuality, "reassigning" in this case suggests medically giving back to a subject the sexual attributes that a sexuality would have gotten atrophied or extirpated, or gone into "remission" somehow, or which the medical subject would have gotten deprived of, stunted by life, or for example, through iatrogenic intervention—that is, medical/psychological malpractice. However, since any combination thereof is functionally impossible, any proposition to that effect would be false.
But that any proposition to that effect would false is not the same as saying that the euphemisms we are dealing with fail in all counts. It is through the deployment of these euphemisms, politically facilitated through “trans” agency activism, that the medical professions accomplish with an almost clinical precision the legitimation of the sexual and gender delusions of the Foucaultian medical subject. Thus legitimated, the subject is barred from ever realizing, or from doing so in due time, that they are or have been literarilly operated on the psychological predicaments of a socially acquired capability for delusion. And that is then followed by the palpable medical, and yet, doctored results that confirm such delusions as the opposite of what they are, thus fortifying the resistance of the subject to acquire consciousness of the self-delusion manifesting itself in them, in the first place.
Such resistance expresses itself as self-denial, and at the same time, at the level of rationalizing capability, it expresses itself as a never-coming-to-accept or to internalize, on the part of the Foucaultian medical subject some factual, basic rules of spatial logic encrypted in the language. According to the logic ruling things in space, only something that was always "there" can be "re-aligned." (To re-align literally means: "to align again; that is, to put something back on the line it belongs"). And likewise, only something which we were already in possession of, can be "re-assigned" to us. (To re-assign literally means: "to assign again; that is, to again put something up to its mark on a surface," or even, "to put something back where its mark is on a surface").
Trapped in the prison of their own self-delusion, the mind of the Foulcaultian medical subject become firstly unwilling, and secondly, unable to relate to these basic physical notions attested by their own language. That is a mental condition, which could in theory be related to the one psychiatry names aphasia. Except that, if aphasia is an inability to relate or understand spoken language, the permanent “trans” mental state is characterized by a tendency to deny or reject the universally accepted meanings of certain words or to substitute the semantics of words to linguistically accommodate their “transitiveness.” That is what the genderqueering of language consists in.
Now, me knowing you as your mother does, I know you would want to have the above made more starkly transparent still. Since that is so, you will see the truth of what follows. If what the medical subject were purchasing from the medical establishment under "re-alignment" and/or "re-assignment" consisted of medical procedurals to somehow "unlock" the atrophied or stunted biology, physiology, and the physiognomy of the sex or gender the medical subject could reasonably be claiming as theirs once the treatment would be successfully completed, we would be having an entirely different conversation.
But the data available cannot bear such conversation. That leads to the conclusion that "transsexuality" is not more than the name the Foucaultian medical subject themselves give to their transitioning delusion. Too bad then that "transitioning" is an intransitive, as opposed to an autotelic process: the medical subject cannot transition on their own. Instead, the subjects depend on the medical establishment to effectuate "transition" on them; that is, they “transition” through being literally doctored. Which, even at the grammatical level further reveals the delusional character of this phenomenon.
In a last reflection, in accordance with the etymology inscribed in the Latin prefix "trans," if somebody is truly a woman the need could not be felt by them to transition into one; and ditto if somebody is a man. You cannot transition into what you already are. Thus, only if one is neither man nor woman could a need, desire, or wish be felt to "transition" into either. Apart from that, and ironically as a confirmation of that, nobody can "transition" into a "binary" sex.
As your mother would advise you, better to leave it here for now. Not that we are done; for the discussion concerning gender, gendering, and genderism is still pendent. But, since you have given yourself so much to chew in one go, come back next week after digestion. You will then tell me more about whatever other “trans” things your mother would have tried to “unkink” you from.