Culture Wars/Current Controversies

Hags v Trannies: Which Side to Support?

By Stefano Fallokratis

Anyone who wants to cut his penis off and wear a dress is, in my view, insane. The operation hurts. Its results continue to hurt. It shortens life. Most men who have it never manage another orgasm. Loss of genitals aside, men do not and cannot look like women. The best approximation a Tranny can make to femininity is the lower reaches of ugliness. Since they are eunuchs, many achieve gross fatness as well. Not surprisingly, they are often driven by disappointment to Peter Tatchell levels of hysteria in their exhibitionism and sense of grievance. Of course, if a man wants to ruin himself, who am I to stand in his way? We should all have the right to seek happiness in our own way – even if some ways are plainly bound to fail. Then there are the external benefits. Compulsory sterilisation of the unfit has been seriously out of fashion since 1945. By removing themselves voluntarily from the gene pool, the Trannies are doing their bit to offset an otherwise universal degradation.

Talk of external benefit, however, brings me to my chief point. Trannies evidently want to be women. After, and sometimes before, castration, they claim they are women. Not surprisingly – and not at all surprisingly where the uncut are concerned – there are women who are less than accepting of their new sisters. These are the Hags who have spent the past few generations whining about rape and misogyny, and shouting for legal and administrative privileges over men. They now have most of what they wanted. Men are at a formal disadvantage is many kinds of legal disputes with women. Men and boys face systematic discrimination at work and in education. The sudden emergence of the Trannies as perhaps the most demanding and ruthless community of the oppressed may be a complete and wonderfully funny knock-out blow to the Hags.

Now, I repeat, the average Tranny is mad. Most of them are unpleasant. Some are dangerous. Though I am already guilty of hatespeech in several jurisdictions including my own, I feel some obligation to avoid libel suits, so will not mention names. But there are Trannies who take an obviously predatory interest in menstruating girls. There are others who use every trick of the woke jargon to get themselves into positions of authority over very young children. Do I want these creatures sniffing round my children? The answer is no. If I found one of them touching up a daughter of mine in a ladies toilet, I would spend £200 on getting his right arm broken.

But this is an entirely personal response. I would not want even one of the less unpresentable Trannies near me or any of my women. Even so, the qualities that make them repulsive to me and mine make them very useful allies against the permanent enemies of civilisation.

Kathleen Stock is a lesbian and a feminist. She also made a nice career for herself at a British university. Because I have resolved not to libel anyone, I will make no comment on what I believe are her objective intellectual merits, or by what means she became a professor of philosophy. But here is an extract taken at random from one of her books:

Despite near-universal opposition to it, at first sight, at least, extreme intentionalism has several things going for it. It is more streamlined and less ad hoc-looking than ‘modest’ versions of intentionalism. On these latter sorts of view, an author’s intentions are determinative of fictional content only in certain circumstances, but not always (Carroll 1992, 2000; Stecker 2006; Livingston 2005). For instance, they are determinative where they do not violate conventional sentence meaning (Irvin 2006: 119), or where they do not otherwise fail. Where they do these things, some other feature determines meaning. Extreme intentionalism eschews such inelegant caveats. [Only Imagine: Fiction, Interpretation, and Imagination, Oxford University Press, 2017, p.14]

You will see that Professor Stock is a standard examples of the leftists who have captured and destroyed higher education in England and America. She can turn out thousands of sentences like these – all equally dreary, all equally meaningless, all equally hostile – at least by implication – to originality and the freedom to be original. All that separates her from the other totalitarians making us into slaves is that she saw what the Trannies were about, and opened her mouth too wide.

I am a man. I have a functioning penis. Ten thousand years from now – assuming it will be about – archaeologists will look at my skeleton and say: “Those are the bones of a man somewhat advanced in years.” Thanks to the Trannies, though, I only need say “I am a woman,” and all the privileges that Professor Stock and her sort have been heaping up for themselves since the 1960s are at once shared with me. Ticking the right box got me a job – a nice job of the sort I had long been trying in vain to get by ticking the wrong box. Were I so inclined, I could get my picture onto a lesbian dating site. I might win a few prizes for throwing and lifting by joining the ladies sports team. There was a time when the Hags allowed us no places we could be free of women to nag us and to fuss about and ruin everything. We had to open our clubs and other organisations to them. We even had to put them in charge, and then sit through their silly preening. Well, we can now do just the same to them.

Yes, it does mean that the occasional pervert will lay hands on a teenage girl while she is adjusting her tampon. As said, though, this is best sorted by informal and extreme violence. There is much to be said for violence intelligently directed. Its gradual suppression since about 1900 correlates well with the progressive feminisation and corresponding decline of England and America. On the other hand, the Trannies are a challenge to the feminist project to neuter men and replace them.

Conservatives, on the whole, are stupid. Even the minority, who are not putting up a Potemkin resistance to the leftist advance, are barely fit for purpose. Ever since the Trannies went after her, conservatives have been defending Professor Stock. You go along to any of their meetings about freedom of speech, they will bring her name out as a martyr of the leftist terror. I hardly blame her if Professor Stock has welcomed the support and begun parroting the more obvious conservative arguments. See this, put out on Twitter and quoted in The Times:

Universities aren’t places where students should just expect to hear their own thoughts reflected back at them. Arguments should be met by arguments and evidence by evidence, not intimidation or aggression.

All very nice. But would she say that about me and people like me if we said what we thought and put our own names to it? I think not. If I put my own name to this article, I have not the faintest doubt The TES would soon have an advert for my replacement, and Professor Stock would say nothing, or would find some exception to her J.S Millish argument about herself.

The same Times article reports a group called Anti Terf Sussex. Its spokeswoman said: “We’re not up for debate. We cannot be reasoned out of existence.” Bravo! Bravissimo! Is all I say. These people, I say a third time, are mad. But they are an insignificant minority. If they go to the trouble of having their penises cut off, they fall silent sooner rather than later, and they leave no issue behind. Feminists like Professor Stock are the real enemy. They form a large army of activists, and sometimes find allies in half the population. Their present discomfiture has not led them to a reconsideration of the old liberal arguments. Whatever they say now about freedom of speech is a purely defensive response while they can find some new front to open in the war on men.

The Hags are the enemy. The Hags will always be the enemy. The Trannies are objectively our friends. They used to be men. Some of them still are. Those who have had the cut are shock troops in and martyrs for the patriarchal reaction. They have given up their penises so that we can keep ours.

Leave a Reply