By Robert Arvay
When radical leftists oppose transgenderism, conservatives should listen — and learn.
Jennifer Bilek is by no means a conservative. Quite the opposite — she is a feminist leftist with whom I agree on as close to nothing as I think one can get — except for the contents of her video titled “Who is Behind the Trans Agenda?” (For example, she refers to Rachel Levine as a “he.”)
Make no mistake: despite what we are encouraged to believe, there is an organized, systematic agenda that, if one does not do the research, is easily dismissed as yet another right-wing conspiracy theory. Bilek has clearly done the research, and her video is a comprehensive summary of the facts.
Bilek is not the first leftist to recognize this. Camille Paglia and J.K. Rowling are two of the better known so-called “Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists — TERFs, which has become a pejorative among “trans-activists” who promote such things as irreversible surgical mutilation of young children who, however temporarily, express gender confusion.
Bilek asks the question that has puzzled many of us on both the (mostly) right and left: from where did this trans phenomenon arise? Why is it that ten years ago, it was not on the radar, but after that, it was abruptly dropped on us, “fully formed,” as Bilek notes?
Bilek points out that, historically, human rights movements have not exploded on society like that. They come gradually, over many years, through grassroots forces challenging the institutions of power. Instead, the impetus for “trans rights” came from the top down, suddenly, from powerful establishments in the medical-industrial complex, motivated by profit and employing the law — the law! — to force compliance. This is unprecedented.
There is more. The tech giants did not invent the trans movement; they adopted it for profit. It was presented to them by an even weirder movement, known as transhumanism. Putting aside the more spectacular reports about this movement, it is based in technologies such as computer chips that can be implanted in the human body, even in the brain, to modify and control human behavior. Pharmaceutical and surgical developments also promise huge profits.
As with all technologies, there are unforeseeable complications, often tragic, if one moves too swiftly in implementing them.
Transhumanism, except for its most radical fringe, advocates for not the extermination of humanity, but rather for its modification.
Transgenderism, like transhumanism, is in conflict with human nature, and in particular, it denies dimorphism, the binary reality of the human species, which is divided into two complementary sexes, equal but not interchangeable. The sexes are, in humans, absolute, not relative, as absolute and asymmetric as are protons and electrons in the atom. Transsexualism denies this reality, and transhumanism seeks to eradicate it.
Bilek’s video is a wide-ranging tour de force, to which I cannot do justice in this compressed commentary. Anyone, conservative or otherwise, who would advocate against transsexualism needs to be armed with the information contained in it.