For the mainstream media, every angle of an awful event is a programming opportunity. When mass shootings and attempted assassinations occur in the era of the 24-hour news, one expects wall-to-wall coverage, and that every last, lurid detail of the perpetrators will come into clear view. Thus, the media’s conspicuous lack of curiosity when such perpetrators are involved in, or adjacent to, the transgender ideology is telling. Wouldn’t any particular connection to this novel and vocal community be newsworthy—to say nothing of what seems to be the obvious pattern of violence with which its members are associated?
The widespread and recognizable cultural phenomenon of “trans” burst into public awareness about 10 years ago; until that time, the “T” in LGBT was hardly visible. Behind this sudden wave was a specific set of technological preconditions that facilitated this movement’s incredibly rapid spread: the pathways of social media and the intense indoctrination available in online communities combined to create the possibility for the unprecedented communication of confusion. This should explain the prevalence of this phenomenon among vulnerable adolescents whose mental health had already been adversely affected by those same dopamine-exploiting digital platforms. Put differently, the real reason Western culture was unexpectedly convulsed by questions about bathrooms, pronouns, and gender identity was because tech companies in Silicon Valley had created a social contagion superhighway.
Unhappily, to the confusion of gender dysphoria, the same cultural template of homosexuality was immediately applied, and since that movement was itself heir to civil-rights era themes of tolerance and acceptance, “gender identity” was soon accorded the same deferential status as “sexual orientation.”
While this technological and cultural context might help to account for both the rise and the force of the trans phenomenon, neither one fully explains its close association with violence. This link—and a more revealing genealogy of the trans phenomenon itself—needs to be traced back to the practices of abortion and contraception, as both employ surgical and pharmaceutical means to alter the female body: the former uses violence to make the body “un-pregnant” while the latter employs synthetic hormones to induce an artificial state of prolonged infertility. Thus are the methods of abortion and the regimens of oral contraceptives the true precursors of transgender practices and paradigms. The surgical and pharmaceutical power exerted to transform pregnant women and fertile women into their opposites has been wielded against the reality of gender, shaping and twisting it in precisely the same way.
This, then, is why the media shies away from the truth of transgender violence: because the line between what they do to others and what they have done to themselves is too easy to draw. If violent interventions are needed to liberate the true self trapped in the wrong body, why should violence not be the means of “solving” other political and social problems, too? Why should one’s opponents in the ongoing culture war—whose very words are construed as being violent—be spared of actual violence themselves? And why, finally, should these opponents not be involuntarily transitioned from being alive to dead?
We should hardly be surprised that people whose mental illnesses entail self-destruction are prone, in turn, to inflict various forms of outward-directed violence; but we cannot allow the media to obscure the telling connection between the trans-ideology and violence. The transgender ideology both depends on and deploys violence to contort reality. If the media does likewise by under-reporting vital facts, it renders further acts of violence inevitable by making their underlying cause invisible.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.