We knew the breasts were fake. Of course. (What’s in the bag he’s carrying?) Busty Lemieux (aka Kayla Lemieux aka Kerry Luc Lemieux) insisted that his massive prosthetic breasts were the consequence of a rare medical condition known as “gigantomastia” (breast hypertrophy) that affects females. Either he lied or this is a hoax—which is a type of lying but in this case perhaps the making of a political point. For the sake of the present essay, let’s suppose it’s not a hoax (but hope that it is for the effect that might have on the trans gender mania). It’s not as if there are no men showing up at work pretending to be women. (See Foucauldian Seductions: Busty Lemieux and the Hijab. Also The Continuing Sage of Busty Lemieux and the New Cultural Revolution.)
So, assuming it’s not a hoax, what we have here is an autogynephile who lies about wearing fake breasts allowed by Canadian authorities to work around teenagers (mostly boys) in public schools. His cover is that he’s trans gender. What do we call a man who lies about who he is and arranges his life in such a way as to gain access to children? A pedophile whose fetish is dressing in fetish gear? That sounds plausible. Even if we assume he’s trying to diminish symptoms of gender dysphoria (which I don’t for a second believe), what are we to think about a man who believes he can become a woman put in charge of a room full of mostly teenage boys? I have compassion for the mentally ill, but why should children suffer on the account of another person’s delusion?
It’s not as if the Canadian authorities don’t know what’s going on in this case one way or another. Whether he’s delusional or making a political point, Canadian authorities take him seriously. Do folks really not think the Canadian authorities have an agenda? That this is something they’re promoting? Put Lemieux in the context of Canada’s full-bore support for gender ideology. Are people really so naive that they can’t see what’s afoot?
Same thing for those authorities in the United States who allow autogynephiles to read books to children. Folks don’t think there’s an agenda in back of that? Do people really sit around and wonder why grown men dressed as women want to read books to children? We don’t have to speculate. The organizers of the Drag Queen Story Hour (recently rebranded Drag Queen Hour) publicly announced their agenda years ago: to brainwash children into accepting the presence of men with paraphilias by having clowns read sexually provocative books to them. (See my essay Clowns are Scary.)
All this is rationalized by the collection of crackpot ideas known as queer theory. Queer theory has its roots in anarchism and pedophilia. All the major figures in the development of queer theory—Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, Pat Califia, Judith Butler—advocated in one form or another for the sexualization of children and the elimination of age of consent laws. Sexologist John Money promoted exposing children to pornography. This is what they are teaching children in public schools.
Now you know why the movie about child trafficking The Sound of Freedom is so loathed by woke progressives. Now you know why the administrative state and various executive agencies (e.g., the HHS and the DOD) look like rings under the big top of a postmodern circus. Now you know why disordered youth with trans patches featuring AR15s are allowed to assault parents who insist on protecting children and disrupt women’s rights marches (From Delusion to Illusion: Transitioning Disordered Personalities into Valid Identities). Now you know why pediatric clinics are stopping the normal development of children by blocking their puberty freezing them in a prepubescent state.
This is a global elite organized project to get to children and disorder their lives for the politics and pleasure of disordered and ideologically-deranged adults. This is moreover a war waged on women, especially lesbians, fueled by misogyny.
* * *
I recently posted a story on Facebook about a woman who put out her eyes because her “authentic self” was that of a blind woman. Her one regret was that she could not have them removed professionally (she instead resorted to a volatile cleaning solution, presumably bleach or muriatic acid). A friend asked, “Where the fuck do these people get these fucked up ideas from?”
It comes from mainstreaming and normalizing mental illness. This happened with gender identity disorder, a rare psychiatric condition where an individual feels that they were “born in the wrong body.” This is not what Lemieux suffers from, I want to stress. Again, if not a hoax, Lemieux has a few other psychiatric conditions where a man derives sexual pleasure from dressing in women’s clothes. In his case, achieving sexual arousal also involves dressing like an exaggerated version of a woman around children.
Gender identity disorder, or GID, is a mental illness (recognizing that the concept of “ill” is, following Thomas Szasz, a type of shorthand), but the queer movement pushed doctors to redefine it as within the range of normality. In previous editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), GID was used as a diagnostic category to describe individuals who experienced a marked incongruence between their experienced gender identity and their actual gender, and this incongruence caused significant distress or impairment. In the DSM-5, published in 2013, GID was replaced with gender dysphoria, with the definition remaining the same. According to those who led the charge to changed the name, the new label aimed to destigmatize gender nonconformity and transgender identities. Going forward, the diagnosis was not about pathologizing being trans gender; rather the focus is on the distress and impairment that can result from the incongruence between one’s experienced gender identity (their “authentic self”) and their “assigned sex” at birth.
In other words, the medical community changed the language to put across the idea that the distress experienced by a man who wishes to live as woman is not because of his gender identity itself but rather because of the personal and societal challenges he faces as a result of the incongruence spelled out in the not-a-disorder category. This is an odd item to have in the diagnostic manual of a medical field. It’s like defining port wine stain (nevus flammeus) not as a medical condition but in terms of the stigma it produces. Those in charge of defining things declared a political move towards a more affirming and understanding approach to transgender and gender-diverse individuals.
Autogynephilia, which had been proposed as a disorder by psychologist Ray Blanchard in the 1980s based on clinical observation, was never officially included as a separate diagnosis in any edition of the DSM. Blanchard’s concept immediately faced opposition from experts (i.e., activists) in the field of gender and sexuality who argued that the proposed disorder pathologizes the experiences of transgender individuals (which, when one reflects on it, is something of an admission).
Indeed, the poststructuralists and postmodernists reject the very idea of binaries, as the distinction between order and disorder, normal and abnormal, etcetera, and these philosophical turns have corrupted science at its roots. So it was only a matter of time, I explained to my friend, before people would ask to have their eyes poked out and their limbs chopped off. And why not? You can castrate a man and split and invert his penis to make a permanent open wound between his legs (the medical terms for these procedures are double orchiectomy and vaginoplasty). Why doesn’t the rest follow?
Surgeons picked up on the fact that, while people are horrified by putting out people’s eyes or chopping off their arms (unless they’re sadistic serial killers), people seem okay with non-medically necessary castration and mastectomy, etc., so there was money to be made. Removing other body parts is either too much too soon or a bridge too far. But not so with ruining a human being’s sexual function for no other reason that he suffers from a politically whitewashed mental disorder.
What explains why so many people are not horrified by the arbitrary and in some cases elective removal of sexual organs? (Children can’t consent to being “transitioned,” so in those cases none of this is elective.) Part of the reason people don’t object to the cutting off of these body parts has to do with sexual self-loathing brought about by Puritanism. Ironically, it’s the progressive who suffers the most of sexual self-loathing. These parts are unconsciously nasty to him, which is sublimated through the Orwellian language of “gender affirming care,” i.e., mutilation and sterilization. Circumcision gives society tacit justification for genital mutilation. Circumcision became widespread in US Protestant culture as an attempt to dull sexual pleasure so boys wouldn’t masturbate. Then there is breast augmentation, nose jobs, facelifts, etc. All this normalizes arbitrarily altering the body surgically.
The reality is that all these parts are the result of natural history, and arbitrarily removing them is an atrocity just as much as a doctor surgically removing a woman’s eyes or a man’s legs to manufacture a disability. For doctors, it’s about the dollars. But I do wonder if there is another reason that draws a person into the field of trans gender medicine.
* * *
Speaking of trans gender medicine, yesterday I shared the following image on Facebook:
I asked my friends, “How old is this child? Two? Three? Does she believe in the Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? I bet she believes in both of them. Does she know that this is her one and only life and that one day she will be dead? I bet she doesn’t.” I then asked, “Why is this child the poster girl for the Boston Children’s Physicians Gender Affirming and LGBTQ web page? Was this an accident? Why isn’t the government shutting down these gender mills? Why are atrocities against children allowed to continue? Yes, I know, money. But is money everything? Does humanity count for anything?”
A friend (and former student) followed up and found that the little girl appears on various pages from Boston Children’s Health Physicians programs. I had checked this and had different results. But my friend had the receipts. This answered one of my questions. The little girl’s appearance was accidental in the sense that she is one of the images of children the organization’s web pages cycle through.
I also shared the following image:
At the very least, you’d think medical groups would have more wherewithal than to associate toddlers with the pages of a pediatric surgical unit specializing in non medically necessary castration, mastectomy, sterilization, etc. To be sure, the experts tells us children this young know their gender and can begin social transitioning; but, as of now, they tell children that they will have to wait a while before doctors can administer the powerful drugs that will block their puberty and put them on the path for mutilation of their bodies, ruination of their sexual function, and sterilization. If anything, putting toddlers in propaganda posters for the medical-industrial complex is establishing a pipeline for profits (which amounts to billions of dollars annual in this field of “medicine.”
freedom and reason 