Guilty by Reason of Insanity

by David Limbaugh

  Conceding that a tiny percentage of people suffer from sexual development disorders, referred to as an intersex condition or hermaphroditism, O’Leary and Sprigg argue that the vast majority of transgender people are not “intersexed.” Regardless of all the methods, devices, and surgical procedures people use today, “no one can change his or her sex,” they write. “The DNA in every cell in the body is marked clearly male or female. Hormones circulating in an unborn child’s brain and body shape his or her development. Psychiatrists and surgeons who have served transsexual clients know surgery does not change sex. Georges Burou, a Moroccan physician, admitted: ‘I don’t change men into women. I transform male genitals into genitals that have a female aspect. All the rest is in the patient’s mind.’ ”2 “A person’s sex (male or female) is an immutable biological reality,” say O’Leary and Sprigg. “It is unambiguously identifiable at birth. There is no compassionate reason to affirm a distorted psychological self-concept that one’s ‘gender identity’ is different from one’s biological sex.”3

  In this chapter and the next we’ll trace this assault on the sexes and the various manifestations and consequences of the modern left’s militant gender activism.

  INVADING WOMEN’S SPACES

  Not long ago, feminism was center stage, characterized by the slogan, “I am woman. Hear me roar!” Feminists sought equal rights—equal job opportunity, equal pay for equal work, and redress for sexual harassment. In some ways feminism pitted women against men, fostering suspicion, distrust, and competition. But at least the movement acknowledged differences between the sexes. Today, gender politics has descended into intellectual and moral anarchy. Though they claim to champion science, leftists are science deniers when it comes to gender. They promote “gender ideology”—the notion that gender is a social construct and that one’s biological sex is independent from one’s gender identification. Gender ideology advocates maintain that gender is more a matter of choice than biology. Gender is not biologically determined at birth but merely “assigned,” remaining fluid until a person identifies as male, female, or something else.

  The left has strived to normalize these ideas in our culture: men and women are not different; a man can be trapped in a woman’s body; a person can be both male and female; some people are neither male nor female; there are numerous genders; one may have an infinite number of genders inside oneself; and people may choose their own genders.4 It’s one thing to say there is genuine gender confusion in the world; it’s another to accept the foregoing assertions as undeniable truths. But in today’s society you challenge them at your own risk.

  The advent of gender ideology and intersectionality has in some ways left the gay lobby in the lurch. The idea that one can freely swap genders is troubling to gay activists, who have long maintained that some people are born homosexual. “The LGBT lobby is dead set against anything that smacks of conversion therapy—the idea that you could convert someone who has a primarily homosexual identity to someone who has a primarily heterosexual [identity],” notes psychologist and author Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto. “But if there’s complete independence between the biology, the identity, the expression and the sexual preference, then there’s no reason to assume that it can’t be changed.” Peterson likens modern laws recognizing gender as a matter of subjective choice, independent of biological realities, to destructive laws in the Soviet Union based on utopian fantasies.5

  Before further examining gender ideology, let’s look at the left’s ideas on feminism, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity. Feminism too is taking a hit from gender ideology and intersectionality. Until recently feminists could “roar” about the glories of women, the horrors of discrimination against them, and their campaign to rectify these historical injustices. But as we’ve seen, today they might run into the buzz saw of militant transgenders or the intersectionality police if they focus on injustices specifically against women, if they rally only women to their cause, or if white women don’t acknowledge their racial privilege.

  Furthermore, transgender men are now entering women’s spaces, including their locker rooms, bathrooms, prisons, beauty pageants, and sporting events. Some feminists, like tennis star Martina Navratilova, have been denounced for objecting to these encroachments by biological males. Freelance writer Selwyn Duke notes the irony in feminists having laid the groundwork for ideas that are now backfiring on them. Feminists essentially argued that aside from certain superficial physical differences, men and women are the same. Transgender activists then came along, claiming that if you change these superficial physical differences (and in some cases, even if you don’t), you can transform into the opposite sex.

  The transgenders’ assertion, argues Duke, logically follows from the feminists’ viewpoint. For example, feminists traditionally argued that they were fully capable of competing with men in sports, and now transgenders are increasingly making them do so. Feminists for years elbowed their way into exclusively male spaces—from locker rooms to men’s clubs—and even into the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel. But now, biological men identifying as women are forcing their way into women’s spaces. Many feminists have been bullied into submission and don’t dare object. Others complain that transgenderism is really a “men’s rights movement.” What they miss is that these are all leftist developments—the intellectual, moral, and cultural chaos naturally flowing from their abnormal ideas. “It apparently eludes them,” notes Duke, “that women currently have greater complicity in advancing transgenderism because they tend to support the leftists pushing it.”6

  “THE WILLFUL OPPRESSION OF WOMEN”

  Feminism is not only facing assaults from outside forces but is struggling internally as well. It seems to be unsure even how to define itself anymore. In A Guide to Gender: The Social Justice Advocate’s Handbook, Sam Killermann acknowledges that feminism has many different meanings, but “what matters is that feminism, distilled down to its absolute core, is about gender equity. The goal of feminism is to create a society in which individuals’ genders don’t restrict them from an equitable shot at success and happiness.”7 Actor Emma Watson expressed these sentiments amid criticism for doing a topless photo shoot in Vanity Fair. Defending her decision to display her feminine biology, Watson declared, “Feminism is about giving women choice. It’s about freedom. It’s about liberation. It’s about equality.”8

  But this is simply no longer true among many leftists. In their mind, that view upholds the patriarchy. Thus a writer identifying as “RadFemFatale” instructed Watson, “When feminism is defined as becoming equal to men, it is a clear admission that men are the default by which we ought to measure ourselves, and therefore, no longer feminism at all.”9

  RadFemFatale rejects so-called “neoliberal feminism,” which focuses on the sexist behavior of individuals rather than on the systemic effects of sexism. Just as a person, by virtue of his race alone, can be considered racist without having a racist bone in his body, someone can also, by virtue of his gender, be considered sexist. The leftist march toward dehumanization transcends the multiple categories of victimhood.

  RadFemFatale contends that we live in a patriarchal system in which “the mistreatment of women and girls is intended to keep us in a subordinate position to men.… Any definition of feminism that removes ‘women’ or ‘patriarchy’ is inaccurate and is pandering to the idea that male rule doesn’t exist; such definitions erase the willful oppression of women by men.”10 The writer continues, “In every aspect of our lives we are policed: existing in public is enough to invite harassment; female sexuality is robbed and used to sell products for which men largely see the gains; we are treated as reproductive chattel; when we are raped, it’s the perceived sexuality of females that is blamed, rather than male entitlement to our bodies.” RadFemFatale’s unfavorable opinion of men, male rule, and the “patriarchy” aside, ironically, she does emphasize the differences between men and women, an idea that modern gender ideology rejects. “W
e do not need to be seen as equal to men: we need to be seen as worthy and valid not in spite of, but because of our differences,” she writes.

  RadFemFatale exhibits some of the bitterness that characterized traditional feminists, who claimed to advocate equal rights but often seemed to be primarily motivated by animus against men. We still see that hostility today, especially in the pro-abortion movement and at women’s marches, replete with angry women wearing vagina hats while strenuously decrying the patriarchy. Perpetually furious at men, they constantly invent new transgressions to denounce such as “mansplaining,” which is when a man explains something to a woman. Yes, they claim the term refers to explanations offered in a condescending or patronizing way, but even the most innocuous remarks are now condemned as mansplaining since, of course, patriarchs will be patronizing. Sorry, feminists, but men explain things to other men all the time, and in fact women do as well.

  Feminists seem determined to suck the joy out of every occasion, turning the most trivial interaction into a grim hunt for subtle oppression. New York Times columnist Jennifer Weiner, for example, is not a big fan of Christmas parties because of—you guessed it—men. “It’s the least wonderful time of the year,” she whines, begrudging all the agonizing clothing choices that confront women while men can get ready in five minutes. “Whatever the reason, you have to navigate the journey from professional to party, choosing clothes that signal that you are polished without being boring, attractive without being provocative, and that you’re looking to be promoted, not propositioned. For women, it’s never easy.”11

  “A REPREHENSIBLE IDEOLOGICAL REWRITE OF HISTORY”

  Let’s consider the feminist concept of villainous patriarchy. In Key Concepts in Gender Studies, Jane Pilcher and Imelda Whelehan define “patriarchy” as “rule by a male head of a social unit… over other… men, all women, and children.” They explain that since the early twentieth century, feminists have used the term to describe the social system of men’s domination over women. Radical feminists regard patriarchy as the fundamental social division in society. Men achieve domination through the family unit and their control of women’s bodies. Some, called Marxist feminists, argue that patriarchy is an outgrowth of capitalism, which relies on women’s unpaid labor in the home.12

  Charlotte Higgins, the Guardian’s chief culture writer, maintains that the patriarchy oppresses women on multiple layers, including inequalities in the law, the home, and the workplace. It is upheld and reinforced by cultural norms, tradition, education, and religion. Some argue that it is so pervasive that it seems natural and inevitable, to the extent that even if women were to gain equal rights in society, patriarchy would persist “because institutions—political, legal, educational, cultural—are themselves, in their bones, patriarchal structures.”13 Higgins claims the idea of patriarchy has ebbed and flowed over time but is resilient, having “survived its biggest theoretical challenge—that of intersectionality, which argues that ‘patriarchy’ universalizes and oversimplifies the realities of oppression.”

  Once again, we see how leftist cliques turn on each other, with the politics of transgenderism and race stealing the oxygen of feminism. Intersectionality, as we’ve seen, requires feminism and patriarchy to be folded into the larger hierarchy of oppression. Additionally, the feminist worldview must expand to recognize the gender identity confusion now in vogue. Nevertheless, Higgins maintains that despite the advent of intersectionality, the ideas of feminism and patriarchy have survived and are thriving, aided to some degree by online global campaigning. These causes also are fueled by the presidency of Donald Trump, the quintessential symbol of the evils of patriarchy. Higgins acknowledges that “the eradication of patriarchy looks like a task of enormous complexity; when it is smashed it will take a lot down with it. And so the patriarchs—from the bully in the White House to the bully in your workplace—are still in charge. For now.”14

  Jordan Peterson challenges the concept of patriarchy as well. The notion of patriarchy, he argues, “is part of an ideological worldview that sees the entire history of mankind as the oppression of women by men, which is a dreadful way of looking at the world, a very pathological way of looking at the world.” Human history, he says, has been a cooperative endeavor between men and women, and to portray it simply as centuries of oppression is “an absolutely reprehensible ideological rewrite of history. And it’s what’s taught in the humanities at universities and increasingly in the public education system. It’s taken as an unassailable fact.”15 Peterson has stern advice for parents whose children are being taught white privilege, equity, diversity, inclusivity, and systemic racism: take them out of the class because they are not being educated but indoctrinated.16

  Peterson argues that lessons on patriarchy tend to demonize boys, suppressing their natural competitive drive. “Our culture confuses men’s desire for achievement and competence with the patriarchal desire for tyrannical power, and that’s a big mistake,” he says. When an interviewer asserts that men own the vast majority of wealth and that women do more unpaid labor, Peterson responds that it is a tiny proportion of men. “A huge proportion of people who are seriously disaffected are men; most people in prison are men; most people who are on the street are men; most victims of violent crime are men; most people who commit suicide are men; most people who die in wars are men; people who do worse in school are men. Where’s the dominance here, precisely? What you are doing is taking a tiny substratum of hyper-successful men and using that to represent the entire structure of Western society. There’s nothing about that that’s vaguely appropriate.”17 Peterson says the feminists’ labeling of the entirety of Western civilization as a patriarchy just because it contains some corruptions and imperfections that might be called “patriarchal” is irrational and unjust.18

  TURNING OUR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION OVER TO IDIOT IDEOLOGUES

  Another concept polluting the national dialogue is “toxic masculinity.” Formerly a subject mostly for women’s studies classes, it has been mainstreamed today, along with so many absurd leftist ideas. Experts describe toxic masculinity as a set of behaviors and beliefs that includes suppressing emotions or concealing distress, maintaining an appearance of hardness, and equating violence with power. “In other words,” writes New York Times columnist Maya Salam, “toxic masculinity is what can come of teaching boys that they can’t express emotion openly; that they have to be ‘tough all the time’; that anything other than that makes them ‘feminine’ or weak. (No, it doesn’t mean that all men are inherently toxic.)”19 The idea is that our culture grooms men to be more aggressive and violent, which puts them at higher risk for school disciplinary issues, academic challenges, and health disparities such as cardiovascular disease and substance abuse.20

  Psychologists and psychotherapists suggest that men are under cultural pressure to live up to these masculine stereotypes—that men should be strong and stoic, emotionally and physically.21 In addition to the problems of academic discipline and achievement, violence, and health issues, societal pressure on men can keep them from seeking help because that signals weakness. Some experts insist that in calling attention to “toxic masculinity” they aren’t demonizing men or all aspects of masculinity. Leftists must have missed the memo, because they have exploited the idea for that very purpose. It’s just one more hook they use to solidify man’s top rung on the infamous hierarchy of privilege.

  Leftists are clearly demonizing most of the qualities that make men different from women. Some argue that men aren’t inherently evil but masculinity itself is, and because of these acquired traits a high percentage of men become evil and violent. If they can be reprogrammed at a young age to shed their machismo and tap into their inner woman, they will be better people. Consider, for example, the title of a prominent book on the subject: The Mask of Masculinity: How Men Can Embrace Vulnerability, Create Strong Relationships, and Live Their Fullest Lives.22 Leftists cleverly have it both ways with this line of reasoning: men and women aren�
��t that different biologically, but men are evil anyway.

  “After decades of study, I deeply believe that men are not naturally violent,” writes Colleen Clemens, a director of women’s and gender studies at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. “But in a culture that equates masculinity with physical power, some men and boys will invariably feel like they are failing at ‘being a man.’ For these particular men and boys, toxic masculinity has created a vacuum in their lives that can be filled through violence: through the abuse of women and of children in their care, through affiliation with the so-called ‘alt-right’ or ISIS, through gun violence or any other promise of restored agency that those parties wrongly equate with manhood.”23 Here we see how leftists have weaponized toxic masculinity to villainize men and then link the concept to right-wing politics.

  In an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson also challenges the leftist notion of toxic masculinity and questions why we are even talking about it, considering that the crime rates in the United States and all of North America have fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty-five years, including every category of violent crime. “So, where’s the crisis, and why in the world would we turn our children’s education over to idiot ideologues? Even the academics are waking up to this. There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education just two weeks ago excoriating the faculties of education for their appalling standards and their absolute ideological obssession. And this idea that we should address toxic masculinity from K to 12 is just an extension of that.”24

  “The term [toxic masculinity] itself is terribly defined,” observes Peterson. “I think it’s appalling that faculties of education are pushing this sort of nonsense and I think that if your kids are exposed to that type of idiot social justice, pseudo education, you should pull them out of the schools. Everything about the idea is ridiculous.… They are not being educated; they are being propagandized. There’s also no evidence that we construct our identities as masculine and feminine by being expressly taught them by teachers. Almost all that is learned by example, to the degree that it’s learned, and a tremendous amount of it is a consequence of biological inclination.”25 Peterson’s assertion on biological inclination, of course, radically differs from the leftist notion that men and women are not that different biologically.