Earlier I was writing about God, liberty and self-legislation. I wanted to add an extension to that post, because I’m writing a series, but I was sidetracked by a case with the Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia, Canada. I am unsure if Americans have any counterpart to the Human Rights Tribunal, but think of it as an inquisition for progressivism, but with dumber people. The case that sidetracked me is Dawson v. Vancouver Police Board, which is a case about a transgender “woman” who had some hard dealings with a police officer and a nurse. Here are some of the claims from the Human Rights Tribunal that sidetracked me:
The surgery, also called a vaginoplasty, involved using Ms. Dawson’s male genitalia to create female genitalia, including a vagina. The surgery is a very delicate procedure and can only be performed by a highly-skilled physician.
Therefore, it is critical to keep the surgical site clean and to avoid infection. Maintaining the vagina in its proper form requires lifelong maintenance. This includes dilating the neovagina with specially designed instruments on a strict schedule.
One of Ms. Dawson’s community home care nurses testified that dilating involves inserting a long, tube-like instrument called a dilator into the vagina and leaving it there for a period of time. There are different sizes of dilators that are used at different times during the healing process. Dilations are necessary to keep the vagina open and to help it heal with the correct length, girth, and depth. Stopping dilations can result in the loss of the vaginal canal, which would be irreversible without further surgery such as a skin graft or a bowel transposition.
Ms. Dawson admits that she refused to show Nurse Cheung her vagina. Ms. Dawson says that she was complying with very clear instructions by the medical staff in Montreal not to show her vagina to any males.
Ms. Dawson argues that Nurse Cheung actively marginalized and dehumanized her by refusing to believe that she was a woman with a vagina, and by referring to her using male pronouns. She says that she cannot imagine language being employed by a medical professional that would have a more significant adverse impact on a transwoman’s dignity than that used by Nurse Cheung.
A real vagina, eh? Hmm. Yeah, that’s some bullshit. Vaginae are natural objects developed in accordance to the human female form, with its various natural functions and telos. That’s not to say that every instance of a vagina looks or functions as it ought to, for disease or injury can impair or impede vaginal development and function, but that’s no challenge to what I just said. Similarily, the Aristotelian categorical that cats are four-legged is not challenged by a 3-legged cat, for we are here speaking about natural normativity, not a universal generalization or an average (See page 210). So a vagina, just like any other natural, bodily part of a human female, has a nature and a telos, both of which that cannot be created through the mutiliation of a penis.
Sadly, we lost sense of form and telos, understanding the world in terms of nominalism and material and efficient causality. On this philosophy, natural objects, even organisms themselves, are just configurations of matter (See the difference between classical and modern philosophy); but worse still, in the absence of a lived theism, we have come to act as if we ourselves are apt to configure this matter into our own creations. We act as gods, thinking that nature and matter are there for us to conquer and manipulate rather than something that is created, orderly, sacred, and directed to the good. We act as though we, our unbridled wills, are apart from both nature and our bodies, somehow transcendent (Read from Kalb. Seriously.) But that’s bullshit—it’s just more self-idolatrous madness typical of the modern mind.
Might I suggest to the reader that the reason why the aforementioned “vagina” needs “life-long maintenance” to retain its “proper form” is that it is not an actual vagina? Instead, the doctor merely mutilated a deluded man’s penis to look as if it were a vagina, and now this man’s body is responding to the impropriety and abuse to which it has been subjected. His body is trying to heal; hence, he has a wound, not a vagina. Similarly, I don’t obtain a mermaid’s tail upon sewing my legs together and mutilating my feet into the shape of a caudal fin. We know this. That’s reality, though we abandon our commitment to reality while dealing with some deluded people and their enabling progressives.
So then if it is not a real vagina, then what is it? It’s a political vagina. Most people implicitly know that it is not a real vagina, but many of those same people call it a vagina because our public philosophy is too lost and confused to deal with this madness, and perhaps it is also because we want to appease the sensibilities of trans-people, lest they keep committing suicide at significant rates. Or maybe it is also some other reason, but whatever the reason, it is likely tied into politics and metaphysics of liberalism. And that’s cool, really. If individual liberals want to refer to this wound as if it were a vagina because they want to be inclusive, or whatever else, then that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t expect everyone else to follow along with that fiction, or their false compassion, and they shouldn’t codify that nonsense into the law, because the conceptions of law creep into public understanding, which, in this case, only furthers public confusion and delusion about men, women and sex.
That’s a bane of liberalism, by the way. In its endeavour to liberate the individual from heteronomy, liberalism surrendered the public realm and our shared understanding of nature, the good, right, and so forth; consequently, there is now a great deal of public confusion when individuals try to speak to each other while making public policy and the sort—we speak in significantly different moral tongues. We have created so much space for individual differences that we are now miles apart, each man an island unto himself. We are thus left with a dictatorship of relativism, where nothing is universally definitive; where the mortar that builds and sustains a nation is eroded, replaced by the pursuit of one’s individual ego and will, and where we have the absurd “right” to do evil. Abortions? Sure. Euthanasia? Certainly. Same-sex marriage? Love wins. Gender fluidity? Duh. Homemade vaginas? You betcha. Disagree? You’re a bigot.
I don’t like to curse, but fuck that, because that’s not okay. It’s deluded, nihilistic and creepy. Instead, we should insist on truth, the good, right living, and yes, real vaginas. If you don’t agree, then you’re just wrong about the world and you’re wrong about what’s good. You might also be a bit weird, but that’s not my business. Seriously though, read through that Dawson case and reflect upon everything else going on in the world. Isn’t it time that we look back and ask, “What the fuck happened to us?”
- On Disability: Should We Be Ableists? - May 22, 2017
- Marijuana Legalization and the State - April 27, 2017
- GLAAD and the “Homosexual Agenda” - April 3, 2017
- Unnatural Allies: The Left, Gays and Muslims - February 23, 2017
- Self-Legislation, Obligation, Natural Law, the State, Evil and Small ‘l’ Liberalism - February 1, 2017
- There is No Such Thing as “Sexual Orientation” - January 30, 2017
- On Animals and the Pursuit of Virtue: A Rejoinder - January 24, 2017
- Our Treatment of Animals and the Pursuit of Virtue - January 8, 2017
- Hey, Non-White Guys and MTV - December 31, 2016
- Love Wins? - December 22, 2016