The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Transgender Supremacy: Understanding the Ideology of a Totalitarian Menace

Posted on | May 5, 2018 | 3 Comments

Clinton James Crawford, a/k/a “Char Vortryss” a/k/a “Char the Butcher.”

Nobody actually believes in “equality.” No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in human history, nor is there any policy agenda which could feasibly bring about “equality” in the future. (You could read Thomas Sowell’s The Quest for Cosmic Justice, which has a chapter entitled “The Mirage of Equality,” if you are unclear on this subject, but if everyone read Sowell, we wouldn’t be having these arguments, would we?)

Everyone has their own hierarchy of values, and humans are naturally concerned for their own selfish interests, so it is absurd to think that anyone would propose a policy of “equality” with the intent that this would harm their interests, or negate their preferred values. When we see people advocating “equality,” therefore, we know that they are either deluded or dishonest, or perhaps both. So-called “social justice warriors” (SJWs) are not to be trusted, because their egalitarian “progressive” ideology is based upon false beliefs. To claim that the existing social order is inherently unjust requires the claimant to offer a feasible proposal for a more just society. Students of history know that such schemes have a sordid and blood-soaked record. During the 20th century, Marxist-Leninist regimes killed an estimated 100 million of their own citizens in pursuit of “social justice” and, if these regimes could not bring about a condition of “equality” despite exercising all the powers of totalitarian dictatorship, should we suppose “social justice” could be implemented through the less rigorous measures of democratic governments?

Cynic that I am, it is always my suspicion that those who speak of “equality” and “social justice” seek some personal advantage by such advocacy, if only to enhance their reputations by putting themselves on “the right side of history.” The question of motive always comes to mind when we encounter leftist arguments, and the title of this blog post might well have been, “Why Does Yonatan Zunger Hate Lesbians?”

In January 2017, a couple of weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, Zunger wrote an article entitled “Tolerance is not a moral precept.” This was essentially a clumsy restatement of the arguments that Herbert Marcuse notoriously made in “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), i.e., that the Left should not extend “tolerance” to the Right. Keep in mind, of course, that scarcely 10 years earlier, the Left had demanded (and liberals had defended) “tolerance” for Communists who were, after all, pawns of Stalin’s brutal dictatorship. By the mid-1960s, however, especially after LBJ’s crushing landslide re-election, the Left decided that liberal “tolerance” was now a hindrance to its ambitions, as opponents of the Left might have equal right to assert that their opinions and beliefs also deserved a fair hearing and protection against reprisal.

The subtext of Zunger’s article was, of course, that the Left should not extend “tolerance” to supporters of President Trump, and he chose to illustrate his argument with a curious photo.


This photo of a radical transgender activist with a baseball bat, Zunger captioned “perhaps the perfect summary of the appropriate limits of tolerance,” and it must be noted that the person in the photo is a member of a San Francisco group called “The Degenderettes.”

The Degenderettes slogan “Die Cis Scum” was popularized in 2012 by transgender White Nationalist “Char The Butcher”.

So says the feminist blog Gender Trender in reporting on a recent controversy at the San Francisco Public Library, which hosted an “art exhibit” put together by this bizarre gang of demented freaks:

The San Francisco Public Library unveiled an exhibit [in April] featuring blood stained t-shirts encouraging patrons to “punch” feminists, along with several installations of deadly weapons painted pink: baseball bats covered in barbed wire, axes, among others, all designed by men to kill feminist women.
The male creators of the exhibit also included a helpful manifesto, blaming lesbians, feminists and other uppity women for causing more deaths (by “harassing” men with their dastardly opinions!) than all the actual real murders committed by violent men.
The display, launched mere days after the mass murder of women in Toronto by “incel” terrorist Alek Minassian and echoing his philosophy, was funded by the non-profit Friends of The San Francisco Public Library and created by The Degenderettes, led by Scout Tran Caffee, founder of Trans Dykes: the anti-lesbian Antifa.  The group specifically targets lesbians as “oppressors” of men — because they exclude males from their dating pools. The men in the group identify as transgender and consider themselves to be male lesbians. . . .

You can read the rest of that at Gender Trender. Because I have been writing about the conflict between transgender activists and their feminist critics (“TERFs,” trans-exclusive radical feminists) since January 2014, I am quite familiar with this ideological dispute and its participants. Although I am an outspoken opponent of feminism, this is a controversy in which any sane person must agree with radical feminists. There is no such thing as a “male lesbian” and, whatever else one might say about the phenomenon of transgenderism, it is wrong for men who enjoy pretending to be women to accuse people who actually are women of “hate” for not wanting to date so-called “transwomen.”


“Would you date a trans person? Honestly? . . . Well, if you said ‘no,’ I’m sorry, but that’s pretty discriminatory.”
Riley J. Dennis, November 2016

Accusing people of bigotry because they don’t want to date you? If that’s not a textbook definition of “entitlement,” I don’t know what is. If a Chinese man prefers to date only Chinese women, this doesn’t make him a racist, nor does it make him a homophobe but, according to Riley Dennis, heterosexuality per se is a form of unjust discrimination. More to the point, however, homosexuality — specifically, lesbianism — is condemned as “discriminatory” because, like nearly all autogynephiles, Dennis considers himself/“herself” a transgender “lesbian.”

This is absolute insanity, and the totalitarianism of the transgender cult consists of (a) their effort to compel others to participate in their delusions and (b) their attempts to silence anyone who criticizes this agenda. Meanwhile, back in San Francisco . . .

Evidently, the Degenderettes “art show” generated some bad publicity, because the library was forced to make changes:

SFPL exhibits are intended to address social issues of the time. We do not endorse nor advocate the viewpoints of the exhibits. Due to concerns raised by library patrons, we are altering the degenderettes antifa art exhibit at the Main Library to remove a shirt, a piece of artwork that could be interpreted as promoting violence, which is incompatible with our exhibitions policy.

And in announcing these changes on their Facebook page, the library attached a copy of a poster for the exhibit, which included a quote from Yonatan Zunger’s January 2017 article about “tolerance.”


Why does Yonatan Zunger hate lesbians? Why does he support these baseball-bat-carrying freaks who want to inflict violence on feminists? Because they align themselves with “Antifa”? Because they don’t like Republicans? By the obverse of that logic, I should be celebrating neo-Nazis. On the contrary, however, I find myself defending lesbian feminists who, whatever their other errors may be, at least understand that the categories of “male” and “female” are biological facts, and not political ideologies or fashion statements which can be claimed as “identities” by anyone on the basis of any whim that suits them.

We must think back to 1938, when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland. The question at issue was not whether one liked Germans, or whether one thought that the lines on the map of Central Europe as drawn in the aftermath of the First World War were ideal. No, what was at issue — Churchill saw this clearly, as Chamberlain did not — was Hitler’s implacable aggression. Hitler had not been subtle in Mein Kampf about the scope of his ambitions, and his totalitarian regime was devoted to military conquest. All radical movements are like this: One is never confronted by their final demand. Give them everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands.

Chamberlain and the appeasers never understood this about Hitler, but Churchill saw it quite clearly: To appease such an aggressor, he said, was to feed the crocodile, hoping to be eaten last.

We need not speculate why the bullies with baseball bats imagine they can impose their will on us, and silence all opposition by accusing their critics of “hate.” Anyone who has paid attention to the Culture War knows very well what inspired them to this aggression, and it is intensely ironic that lesbian feminists are the ones now manning the front-line trenches against the bizarre ideology of the transgender cult. Yet it will do little good to recount the history which has brought us to this desperate predicament, or to scorn alliance with those who, in some sense, were complicit in the decades-long descent into the ungodly madness of “gender theory.” No, let us make no recriminations nor indulge any I-told-so lectures now, when we are confronted by the implacable foe. All who fight on the side of truth are our allies, so long as the battle rages.


Nobody actually believes in “equality,” and the transgender cult’s rhetoric is an implausible farrago of nonsense. “Transwomen are women” is one of their oft-repeated slogans, which no honest and intelligent person could possibly believe. Hormone injections and surgery can turn a man into a simulacrum of a woman, but this artificial creation is not actually the same thing as a woman, and everybody knows this. In arguing for “equality” based on such fraud, what the transgender cult is actually doing is asserting their own superiority. These deranged fanatics claim the authority to decide who is or is not a woman and, if you deny that they have such authority, they will accuse you of “hate.”

This non-negotiable demand of transgender ideologues — that everyone else must defer to their authority — is totalitarian, an imposition of power, as dishonest as Hitler’s claim to the Sudetenland.

If we wish to be free — to defend our liberty, including our right to speak the truth — we must reject the transgender lie of “equality.”

Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.






3 Responses to “Transgender Supremacy: Understanding the Ideology of a Totalitarian Menace”

  1. TERFs, Trannies, and Metaphysical Horror: Welcome to the Desert of the Real | Rotten Chestnuts
    May 5th, 2018 @ 12:05 pm

    […] me illustrate.  Fair warning: I want you to click on this article – a typically excellent piece of Stacy McCainian vitriol — but before you do, pack eye […]

  2. News of the Week (May 6th, 2018) | The Political Hat
    May 6th, 2018 @ 1:04 pm

    […] Transgender Supremacy: Understanding the Ideology of a Totalitarian Menace Nobody actually believes in “equality.” No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in human history, nor is there any policy agenda which could feasibly bring about “equality” in the future. (You could read Thomas Sowell’s The Quest for Cosmic Justice, which has a chapter entitled “The Mirage of Equality,” if you are unclear on this subject, but if everyone read Sowell, we wouldn’t be having these arguments, would we?) […]

  3. FMJRA 2.0: High Energy Protons : The Other McCain
    May 13th, 2018 @ 5:13 am

    […] Transgender Supremacy: Understanding the Ideology of a Totalitarian Menace The Political Hat Proof Positive Rotten Chestnuts EBL […]