I watched Matt Walsh’s documentary What is a Woman?—and found it deficient in certain parts. The documentary represents a typical false dichotomy in Western political debates: sex versus gender—with the right for biological sex over gender, and I have even had people tell me that they refuse to use “gender” since it was invented by the CIA. This false dichotomy is a strategy whereby the right is destroyed, for gender is real: a kilt is a man’s garment in Scotland and a man in a kilt in another country is a man in a skirt—in women’s clothes. The lie the left tells is to take these cultural signifiers—these cultural constellations that constitute “man” and “woman”—and say gender has no relation to biology; the right then flat-footedly, complicity, argues that there is only “scientific reality”—biological sex.
So Walsh talks to a doctor, Dr. Grossman (actually a woman, you see how confusion can easily arise), and she tells him that “reality” in this regard derives from hormones and genetics—objective science; very masculine, you see. Yet science is value-free and, as Groaceman explains, it is the drug companies that benefit from transitions…all those profits. However, science cannot tell us it is wrong to use technology to change our physical appearance and then rearrange the cultural signifiers around us to be the opposite gender. Science has no view, certainly no view as to the cultural interpretation of signifiers associated with various genders—so an appeal to science is null from the start, and the left will run circles round such a view; it is incoherent and illogical.
This is why I occasionally extol the postmodernists—Derrida and Foucault—since these men, basically artist-philosophers, are much closer to reality than someone who thinks they can appeal to science, itself value-free, to stop transgenderism (intentionally changed from “transsexualism” to accentuate that it is not based on an appeal to biology). Reality is not “objective science”—reality is holistic, it takes in the whole; it is a spiritual position. Notably, the documentary features no clergymen—the closet we get is Jordan Peterson, who tries to use science to justify religion. I imagine that even thirty years ago such a documentary would feature at least a token priest, even in America—no more.
The correct formulation: sex and gender are linked—the constellations found in gender reflect biological sex; further, to complete the trinity, there is a spiritual sexual dimorphism—anima and animus; and it is this higher level that organises sexual dimorphism—ironically, conservatives currently appeal to the lowest element, biological sex, as a defence. They are lower than the left, supposedly because this approach is more objective—hence more male. Really, it is the valueless scientific approach that facilitated this situation, both technologically and conceptually.
The fourth hidden element in the trinity is hermaphroditism, not the biological variety but an initiatic operation whereby male and female are united on a spiritual level in one person—an operation represented by the caduceus, the staff of Mercury, and the Hermetic staff. This operation is associated with gnosis, art, and poetry. Transgenderism is often observed to occur among “modern priests”, computer programmers and technologists—it is, in fact, a perversion of spiritual hermaphroditism; it takes literally, at the biological level, a spiritual operation. Hence the transgender craze is what Guénon would call a “counter-initiation”—a Satanic inversion of a spiritual operation, of the hermaphroditic initiation; and, indeed, paranormal events are associated with transgender people because they awaken certain powers in an inverted way.
The conservatives will lose, being gross materialists: Dr. Grossman actually made a socialist point in opposition to transgenderism—she cited drug company profits as the problem. The American conservatives are played, probably consciously. The real problem lies with Satanism and Judeo-Masonry, both of which totally control America; and indeed I doubt even church-going Americans would understand the situation as I have formulated it, although perhaps they would default to common sense—much better than science.