Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.”

-Angela Davis

Some of you who are familiar with my past posts, particularly “Wokeness and Its Follies,” might be surprised to see that I chose to open this post with a quote from Comrade Davis. Despite my myriad political and ideological disagreements with her, I thought that this quote captured perfectly the way I feel about tonight’s topic. So I went ahead and appropriated it.

This post has been in the works for a while, but I fast-tracked it when I learned this past weekend that Chelsea Manning had undergone “gender confirmation surgery.” This is not an Internet rumor. He tweeted about it last Saturday. This news was very upsetting to me. And it also upset me to know that the Left would rejoice over it and that many on the Right would either laugh about it or say something like, “What a sick freak!” I have news for all of you.

The “sick freaks” in this story are: 1) the Obama administration; 2) the military officials who let Chelsea in and kept him in despite his emotional and psychological issues (which went beyond gender dysphoria); and 3) the neo-Mengeles who have mutilated his endocrine system and now his genitals.

The original inspiration for this post was an interview with Chelsea that appeared in The Guardian on October 7. This article had a big impact on me because its left-wing bias is obvious, but even it cannot make Chelsea’s decision to “transition” sound like one that has made him happier or healthier.

The way that Chelsea describes (or doesn’t describe) his feelings about his imprisonment and gender dysphoria really provides an eye-opening glimpse into all the ways that hormone “therapy” is nothing but diabolical snake oil. One quote in the article that really drives this point home is:

“Some of it I haven’t been able to talk about…I’ve not been ready to talk about it. I’ve blocked it out. I just can’t…”

Let me remind my readers that this is Chelsea after hormone “therapy.”

So much for that “emotional release” that feminizing hormones supposedly enable gender dysphoric men to experience. Every time I hear someone pushing that myth, I want to yell from the rooftops:

That’s not a real emotional release. It’s pseudo-PMS.

If you are emotionally repressed as a man, you will be emotionally repressed as a man on hormones. You need to learn how to cry like a man. And there’s no wrong way to do that. Because no matter how you cry, it will be “like a man.” Because you are a man. And man enough.

Mainstream liberal women have really dropped the ball when it comes to validating male emotions. When they see a cisgender man crying over a something burger, they will typically say something like, “That.Is.So.Sweet!” But here comes a gender dysphoric man who’s crying over a something burger, and they’re like, “That woman is so brave for living her truth!”

News flash: if you call a man who is crying a “woman,” you are reinforcing the “Men don’t cry” narrative. Even if said man wants to be referred to as a woman. That very desire of his is a sign of emotional turmoil.

That’s why he’s crying.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think that a man who doesn’t want to talk about his deepest, darkest feelings in public is necessarily emotionally repressed. But everything that I have seen from Chelsea tells me that he’s not sharing these feelings with anyone in private either. And if he is, his confidantes are probably one or more of the following: 1) other gender dysphoric people who are in as much pain as he is, 2) well-meaning cis-liberal sheep who support him in all his medical decisions, or 3) the neo-Mengele who is affirming him in his belief that he is a woman (a.k.a. not man enough), because Doc really wants to go on that cruise sponsored by the hormone manufacturers.

And even if you disagree with my total opposition to hormone “therapy” and “gender confirmation surgery,” I would like to hear your thoughts on this:

Do Chelsea’s past and present levels of emotional turmoil sound like “informed consent” to you?

The Left is very fond of constantly reminding us that a woman who’s had one too many drinks at the bar is incapable of consenting to sex. And if you have sex with her (even if she seems to enjoy it and even if you’ve also had one too many), you just might be guilty of rape.

But if you advocate for the castration of a man who is (by your own accounts) suffering from depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts, you can pat yourself on the back and say you “saved her life.”

And that, dear readers, is the reason why I am completely comfortable saying that the Left’s justification for Chelsea’s “medical treatment” is their very own custom version of “She was asking for it.”

Note: The following section contains an uncensored “firetruck word.” It is Chelsea’s quote, but I admit that I originally had an f-bomb of my own in my response to that quote.

In addition to (unintentionally) showing the horrific wonders of hormone “therapy,” the article also illustrates just how shady the circumstances are around Chelsea’s leaking, imprisonment, and trial. Chelsea claims to be all about government transparency. But if you ask him about certain things, such as his trial record (which remains classified, #ThanksObama #ThanksTrump), you are outta luck. When he gets a question like that, you will see Mr. Transparency Himself start acting like someone who’s on the hot-seat in front of a congressional committee, as he says some version of “I can’t discuss that; it’s classified.” (To which Obama says, “Good girl.”)

Here’s the thing: I don’t expect Chelsea to reveal any more classified information, but I think it’s notable and fishy that he never (to my knowledge) follows those statements with something like, “Transparency for the win, amirite?”

Another maddening example of government opacity that the article mentions but fails to adequately call out involves the records of Chelsea’s online conversations with Adrian Lamo, the hacker who eventually turned him in. The author comes right out and admits that Chelsea “can’t confirm these conversations or talk about them for legal reasons” and then nonchalantly mentions that “the material was reclassified after the trial.”

And if you are looking for Chelsea or the interviewer to come right out and say how asinine it is to “reclassify” material that has already been released and is already 100% “out there,” you are going to be like that skeleton-on-a-bench meme…still waiting.

You know, I would really like to hear Adrian Lamo weigh in on this whole thing. Oh, that’s right – he’s dead. Official cause of death? Unknown. The author thought these minor details were not pertinent enough to make the final draft of the article.

The article also picks up and then drops a ball about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange:

“Some have questioned whether Assange was directing her as to what to look for, what to leak…”

In that same sentence it mentions that Chelsea dodged a question from an audience member at a speaking engagement regarding whether or not he still supports Assange. Nothing to see here. Except maybe controlled opposition masquerading as an exiled freedom warrior.

In addition to his “That’s classified” line, Chelsea also relies heavily on various versions of, “I talk about that a lot more in the book I’m writing. So I don’t wanna give away anything now.” I am really starting to think that this book is an urban legend. I have seen him use it to divert an interviewer’s attention away from #CollateralMurder and redirect it toward one of his new pet issues, like prison abolition or demolition of Confederate monuments. He has also been known to hide behind it when he gets questions about his imprisonment that dredge up painful memories. (Hormone-induced “emotional release” strikes again!)

The most offensive and thick-headed line in this article comes when it describes the commutation of Chelsea’s sentence as (emphasis is mine) “Obama’s parting gift to Donald Trump.” The author describes it as such because Trump had “railed against the ‘ungrateful TRAITOR’ on Twitter but could do nothing about” the commutation. Here’s my view:

The decision of His Royal Wokeness to commute Chelsea’s sentence was primarily a self-serving one.

Obama got to be a hero for emasculating Chelsea in the name of “compassion” and “trans rights,” and then he got to be a merciful hero for commuting his sentence. I think Obama decided that leaving office with Chelsea still in prison was too risky. Because no matter what Trump decided to do regarding Chelsea’s sentence, Obama would risk ending up with egg on his face and egg on his legacy. Consider:

1) If Trump keeps Chelsea in prison, Obama risks taking heat for being the one who put him there in the first place.

2) If Trump releases Chelsea, Trump gets to be the hero, and he beats the Left at their own game of “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

(I realize that Scenario 2 doesn’t sound very plausible. However, Trump is nothing if not full of surprises. Case in point: when I heard that he was going to meet with Kim Jong-un, I thought, “Is that code for nuke Kim Jong-un?”)

And as far as any risks associated with commuting Chelsea’s sentence, I think those were pretty well-managed. Remember those “legal reasons” mentioned as to why Chelsea can’t talk about the Adrian Lamo conversations? I’m sure that all those sealed records surrounding his imprisonment include non-disclosure clauses and other tools to promote good behavior. And they’re working.

Chelsea has, for the most part, stopped talking about #CollateralMurder and our imperialist foreign policy. As mentioned earlier, he is now focused on a whole slew of socialist non-starters, such as prison abolition (not just private prisons, all prisons) and universal basic income. Every once in a while, he’ll zero in on something that’s a real problem, such as the FISA Court or the federal Insider Threat Program. But here’s the thing:

If you hide good ideas among crazy ideas, a lot of people will think the good ideas sound crazy, too.

A great example in the subject article of how Chelsea’s newfound causes have led him to lose his perspective is when he refers to his participation in the toppling of a Confederate monument as “the most fucking inspiring moment in my life to say the least.” Hmmm…more inspiring than blowing the whistle on possible war crimes?

Then you are firetrucking doing it wrong, Private.

His rationale for that classification is the fact that the topplers “didn’t wait for permission,” but “‘by going outside the bounds, they changed the conversation.’”

The same could also be said about the leaking of #CollateralMurder, could it not?

Except for the fact that after Chelsea “changed the conversation” that time, he pretty much stopped talking about it. For reasons that he can’t discuss. Because they’re classified. (And once again my controlled opposition alarm bells are going off.)

When the interviewer asks Chelsea if he supports the use of violence as a mechanism of social change, he responds (emphasis via italics is mine):

“…violent acts are happening to us all the time. It’s a question of self-defence…any time you’re discussing the possibility of an entire group being suppressed, or removed from society, that is violence.”

Hmmm…does that include groups like “effeminate” men and “manly” women who are being taken out of the gene pool by the very people who are claiming to help them? (FYI – I think he is referring to ICE in that quote, whom he has accused of ethnic cleansing.) This week the transgender community broke the Internet over what they have labeled Trump’s plans to eradicate transgender people. Here’s the thing: none of the things I have read about Trump’s plans (which aren’t even that clearly defined yet, from what I have seen) indicate anything like eradication. They are simply a way of trying to undo some of the insanity that happens when you say that gyms can’t stop men from showering in women’s locker rooms or that schools can’t forbid boys from rooming with girls on school-sponsored overnight trips. And even more than that, I would like to call everyone’s attention to this fact:

If Trump really did want to erase transgender people out of existence, he would find that he has already been given a running start by transgender people themselves and the neo-Mengeleian quacks that they call “doctors.”

Is it a coincidence that the most popular “treatments” for gender dysphoria cause sterility? I have seen a lot of gender dysphoric men asking questions on Internet forums like “Should I bank my sperm before starting hormones?” and even “I’ve been on hormones for a year. Is it too late to bank my sperm?” The fact that these questions are being posed to the Internet tells me that their own “doctors” are not giving them all the facts about what hormone “therapy” will do to their bodies.

Now why would that be?

I believe that a husband and wife having sex (with each other) is the only morally acceptable method of human reproduction. However, the neo-Mengeles and many of their patients certainly do not. So it’s not like the “doctors” are thinking, “I can’t tell my patient about sperm banking because sperm banking is immoral.” That rules out a morality-based motivation.

What about money? I don’t doubt that neo-Mengeles make a significant portion of their money off hormones and surgeries. But I’m sure they’re also in close connection with the “assisted reproductive technology” industry, so they can probably get kickbacks for referrals to sperm banks and related entities.

But there’s one problem. Even if Dr. Quakgele can get a kickback for referring someone to the sperm bank, he probably doesn’t get money for just any sperm. An alpha male athlete like Bruce Jenner is probably a jackpot, but a scrawny video game nerd like Bradley Manning? Not so much.

So it’s eugenics for the win.

“It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.”

-C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Verso l’alto,
Megan