Archive for April, 2018

Science and Christianity

Friday, April 27th, 2018

You always have a state religion. If your state religion is easily falsified by the empirical facts of this world, then your state religion is going to be inherently hostile to science, technology, and industry.

So, if your state religion proclaims

“all men are created equal”,

you have a problem.

And not long after that, your state religion is proclaiming all sorts of remarkable things, most recently Global Anthropogenic Catastrophic Warming. Regardless of whether this doctrine is true or false it is not a scientific doctrine for to doubt is sin, to be in favor of higher CO2 or warmer temperatures, even if you live in Alaska, is sin.

You should not confuse real science, the science of the Royal society from 1660 to 1945, with the post 1945 peer review “science” of Harvard, which has murdered science, gutted its corpse, and wears its gutted corpse as a skin suit.

The key lights of the early Royal Society were deeply Christian and opposed to the enlightenment. Science rested on a commitment to truth that was rooted in aristocratic and elitist Christianity, a value system whose elitism and aristocracy ran fundamentally contrary to the enlightenment, and whose Christianity ran fundamentally contrary to the enlightenment.

Science was possible because a gentleman and a nobleman should speak the truth, and because truth speaking was a sign of being a gentleman or a noble.

Compare and contrast with the Harvard self esteem culture, where speaking the truth shows you are a deplorable and an oppresser of the holy masses.

Judaism is inimical to science. Orthodox Jews don’t do science or technology. Judeo Christianity did not do science and technology. Christianity did science and technology. Not the enlightenment, and not Jews.

Progressivism and progressive Judaism is not inimical to science on an individual level. Individual progressives and individual progressive Jews individually do lots of good science, but their collective behavior is inimical and hostile to science and the scientific method, rewarding unscientific and antiscientific behavior, because progressivism rejects truth speaking. Atheist Jews do lots of good science, a quite disproportionate amount, and usually support the scientific method (not counting progressives as atheists, because they believe in “the arc of history), but the trouble with their atheism is that they don’t have a moral basis to defend the behavior on which the scientific method depends, and so their defenses of the scientific method address the individual, rather than the scientific community. They are disarmed before progressives, who do have a moral basis for attacking science and the scientific method, who attack it as hurtful to oppressed holy victim groups and damaging to the earth.

The proposition that our society is not religious is obviously false. The solution is to replace a state religion which has equality as its key belief, with a state religion whose key beliefs are less easily falsified by empirical data about the world.

Take Christianity, reinterpret away young earth creationism as a parable about early humans getting black pilled, and we have a religion far more resistant to empirical falsification by the facts of this world than progressivism, a state religion far more compatible with reason, science, technology, and industrialization than our current state religion.

Fortunately the Church fathers were already onto the job, sixteen hundred years ago.

Origen, writing about two hundred years after the crucifixion, tells us in no uncertain terms in Book Four of “The Principiis” that the young earth account of creation is to be understood spiritually, not literally:

let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having rea­sonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the king­doms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with atten­tion, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted his­torically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

And Augustine similarly tells us that the Bible is not a science textbook, and if you argue scientific facts on the basis of biblical authority, you are an idiot. Three hundred and seventy years after the crucifixion, and twelve hundred and sixty years before science and the scientific method was granted the prestige and authority it came to possess and had the success it came to have, he tells us that religion needs to stay out of matters in which science has its proper magistry – something that the enlightenment is in its arrogance and violence conspicuously and spectacularly fails to do.

Compare and contrast with the enlightenment. Irrespective of whether the left position on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true or false, it crushes science and replaces it with holy rolling and the persecution of dissent. Global Warming is sin. Being in favor of Global Warming is like being in favor of adultery.

Saint Augustine took various self contradictory positions on the book of Genesis, but in his final work on the topic, “the confessions” holds it to be allegorical and to contain a multitude of spiritual meanings. Fourteen hundred years before Darwin, Saint Augustine points towards Darwin’s program:

In the beginning were created only the germs or causes of the forms of life, which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course.’

This account (which is to say Darwin’s account) is, according to Saint Augustine, the “literal” meaning of Genesis, which is not very literal at all.

The proper magistry of science in religion is, for example, to confirm the doctrine of the fall with evolutionary psychology, that risen killer apes will have the human nature described in the book of Genesis. The proper magistry of religion in science is, for example, the moral character of the scientific method – that scientists are obligated to speak the truth, and use methods of evidence and argument likely to lead to the truth. And if they fail to do so (as for example in global warming science, vegetable oils, and so forth) then those scientists are sinful. Sin is within the proper magistry of the state religion.

In the argument on animal fats, and the argument on Global Warming, scientists, instead of employing the scientific method, politiced to add their doctrines to the official state religion. This should be heresy, and heretics should be denied state and quasi state employment – not heresy in claiming Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true, nor heresy in denying that it is true, but heresy in adding either doctrine to the state religion.

Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash

Fixing (or replacing) Christianity

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

High IQ species with lengthy childhood find it hard to reproduce without cooperation between males and females.

Productivity is not an issue.  In a wealthy society, a man could easily buy enough food and shelter for taking care of umpteen children, but he cannot actually take care of umpteen children. Observing variations in total fertility rate over different regions and different times, we see that even in very poor societies, boom or bust, war or peace, wealth or poverty, make very little difference to the total fertility rate. The only thing that matters is female emancipation.

Support in the sense of feeding and sheltering children is not an issue in the west, indeed it is not the major issue even in very poor countries. The problem is not feeding children, but looking after children, which requires two people. A single person household can barely look after one person, except by paying for services that are not easily obtained on the market place.  A single person household tends to eat out a lot, has difficulty with house maintenance.  A single person household tends to have no garden, because unable to manage a garden.  If you rent to a single person, chances are you will see a lot of repair and maintenance costs.

If you rent to a single person, you have to be really fascist about the condition of the house, because a single person gets overwhelmed.

So, reproduction requires two, and a two person household requires one man in charge, and the wife to honor and obey.

And the connection compelling the wife to submit to the husband has to be durable – has to last long enough to raise children.

If you have moment to moment consent, you cannot have durable marriage.  Indeed, any kind of female consent makes reproduction hard, because all women would prefer to have sex with Jeremy Meeks, and are apt to hold off on marriage till their eggs start drying up in hope of getting a booty call from Jeremy Meeks. We really should have romantic consensual marriage normal and normative only for women that can reasonably be presumed chaste. The rest should be pressured or coerced into patriarchal marriage, or a similar, but lower status and less secure, arrangement.

One helpful workaround in a society hostile to fathers, husbands, and marriage is that God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.

This works well for me as an individual. It would work a whole lot better if backed by a tribe / church / religion / social support group representing the authority of God on Earth.

Unfortunately all actually existent religious groups, with the notable exception of Mormons and some weird and unpleasant Jewish sects tend to be aggressively hostile to the authority of the husband and father. Latin Mass Catholics seem to be non hostile, but are not all that supportive.

Christian theology is that the fatherhood of God makes the fellow members of your congregation adoptive kin. (This is the Christian replacement for the Jewish Abraham). Thus “Christian” hostility to God the Father kills the Christian Church dead. A religion is a tribe, and actually existent Christianity is hostile to its own tribe, much as the US government is hostile to legacy Americans.

Anti patriarchal Christianity is a self contradiction – but it is all we have got.

Poolside is defect/defect equilibrium, the battle of the sexes.  Difficult to reproduce poolside, difficult to have a family, difficult to have an old age surrounded by children and grandchildren.  The only way to end the war is male victory, followed by some alarmingly drastic coercion.  I base this on what happened on the shore of Port Jackson, when they were working with female material far more favorable than that which we have, and were initially paralyzed because reluctant to do what proved necessary, which is presumably what fathers had been doing behind the scenes.

Obviously anyone who tries what was tried on the shores of Port Jackson is not going to be left alone by progressives.

For successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage, and durable and patriarchal marriage needs coercion.

When Black Mohammedans in the middle of Africa try overtly coercive methods similar to those used on the shores of Port Jackson, the Cathedral drones them.

So, since public whippings give the enemies of the family an excuse to meddle, need to synthesize a tribe, and primarily use social pressure rather than public whippings.  A tribe requires a religion.  And the participants in the religion have to socially support all well behaved women, and forcefully exclude all badly behaved women and their male bastards.

God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.  God’s authority on earth is manifested through the tribe.  There is something of an exemption for religions – the Cathedral will not jump you provided you stick to weaponized social pressure and observe age limits that are increasingly difficult to observe.  It is illegal or close to it to stop girls nine or older from having sex, and illegal or close to it for them to marry under eighteen, let alone be pressured into marriage, but so far one can socially enforce patriarchy.

The Benedict Option:

What I call the Benedict Option is this: a limited, strategic withdrawal of Christians from the mainstream of American popular culture, for the sake of shoring up our understanding of what the church is, and what me must do to be the church. We must do this because the strongly anti-Christian nature of contemporary popular culture occludes the meaning of the Gospel, and hides from us the kinds of habits and practices we need to engage in to be truly faithful to what we have been given. As Jonathan Wilson has pointed out about the New Monasticism movement (a form of the Benedict Option), the church must do this not to hide away as a pure remnant — the church would be unfaithful to Christ if it did so — but to strengthen itself to be the church for the world.

This assumes that actually existent Christianity is just fine.

It is not. It is cucked. Christianity has to be patriarchal, because of “God the Father”, because its replacement for biological kinship through Abraham is adoptive kinship through the fatherhood of God.

And, despite all the hand wringing by progs, actually existent Christianity is hostile to fathers and husbands. And actually existent Judaism is not a whole lot better.

Even the Mohammedans are in trouble, with Iran and Saudi Arabia gone feminazi. A big part of the appeal of Islamic State is that fighting for Islamic state was apt to get you a real wife.

The problem is not that popular culture is anti christian. It is that actually existent Christianity is anti christian.

You can have an individual relationship with God and Jesus “Jesus is my boyfriend” without patriarchy.

But you cannot have a Christian Church, except it is solidly patriarchal and goes full Pauline on marriage.  If no patriarch, then no nuclear family, if no nuclear family, then no extended family, if no extended family, then no support for actual kinship.  If no support for actual kinship, then no adoptive kinship.  If no adoptive kinship, no church.

You can have individual Christians without Pauline patriarchy, but without Pauline patriarchy, you don’t have a Christian Church.  Dalrock is not a church.  He is another guy with another blog, and taking a sane position on the problem of reproduction and a straightforward position on the interpretation of Saint Paul on marriage has alienated him from his Church, and his Church from him.

If there was a church that was willing to support me, I would support it.

Christianity without patriarchy is Pope Francis celebrating gay sex and transvestite prostitutes. Christianity without patriarchy inexorably winds up joining Heartiste poolside. Some Roman Catholics are whining about the Church supporting divorce, but if you support moment to moment consent, if you oppose “marital rape”, then you have to support divorce. I remember a time when everyone supported marital rape, when the words “marital rape” made no sense, when it was incomprehensible to most people that there might be anything wrong or unusual about a man compelling his wife to perform her marital duty. Today, I don’t think even Dalrock supports “marital rape”, but if you oppose “marital rape”, it is logically inconsistent to oppose divorce at capricious whim. If wives have a duty to honor and obey, and wives and husbands have a duty each to sexually gratify the other, then no such thing as marital rape. If they don’t have such a duty, why do you have a problem with the church service celebrating a transvestite prostitute auctioning off his body cavities?

In order to oppose both marital rape and a church service celebrating transvestism and sodomy, Christians have to be against sex generally, rather than against the war of the sexes, a position that is stupid, contrary to the bible, contrary to the survival of the species, anti Darwinian, and contrary to what the Bible tells us of God’s plan – it is the foolish and wicked heresy that Puritans were rightly accused of. Marriage in the old testament is not a magic ritual making sex magically OK. It is a man’s commitment to keep a woman and never let her go. Such a commitment is impossible and foolish today, however much a man desires it, thus no marriage any more. It is all fornication, the sacrament is in vain.

One of the major earthly jobs of religion is to promote peace and cooperation generally, particularly cooperation between members of the religion, and particularly members of the congregation, and particularly cooperation between men and women in begetting and raising children. This is intended to promote sex, not prevent it. In order to prevent the battle of the sexes, the Church needs to prohibit not sex, but adultery. And adultery is not a code word for sex. Adultery means the same thing in marriage as in beer. Improper mixing. Adultery means one man’s seed going into the same pussy as another man’s seed, because that prevents a man from raising his children.

So the Church abandons its mission of promoting cooperation within the family, and then, to demonstrate that it is nonetheless twice as holy as before, doubles down on opposing movie producers having sex with starlets, even though abandoning marriage and the family makes opposition to movie producers having sex with starlets irrelevant, absurd, and pointless.

Women gone nuts

Friday, April 20th, 2018

The Zman asks “Why Did Women Go Nuts?

Simple. When you repress bad sexual behavior by males, and do not repress bad sexual behavior by females, you get very little bad sexual behavior by males, and a whole lot of bad sexual behavior by females.

I see women behaving as if raised by apes in the jungle.

Things are going to hell because we fail to restrain bad behavior that gets right in our faces.  Male sexual behavior in the workplace is nigh nonexistent and male heterosexual rape is nigh nonexistent, but to the extent that it exists, the man is looking for a warm wet pussy.  Female sexual behavior is different.  She is trying to disqualify males, testing as many males as possible to see if they meet her exacting requirements.  This testing is necessarily stressful, for she is stress testing men to see if they break under pressure, thus necessarily more disruptive than male sexual behavior, more damaging to workplace productivity, male cohesion, and social cooperation.

In a normal and sane society, ninety percent of fertile age women would within a few minutes of behaving as they now do, be whacked hard with a stick, like a stray dog harassing a farmer’s chickens.  And then they would stop.  Their owner would be called, and they would be hauled off on a leash.

Yet everyone around be acts like zombies and fails to notice.

It is completely obvious to me that women in the workplace continually disrupt the workplace by fitness testing attractive male co-workers, and a minor and infrequent side effect of these fitness tests, when the fitness test goes explicitly and overtly sexual, is that the woman complains, and entirely believes, she was sexually harassed.  So am I insane, or is everyone else insane?  Am I hallucinating disruptive sexual behavior right in front of my face by lusty women fitness testing every attractive male they meet to see if he has the stones to beat them and rape them, or is everyone else hallucinating chaste sexless angels persecuted by lecherous men?

Slate Star Codex recently attempted to survey co-worker sexual harassment complaints by workplace type, and reviewed existing surveys.  The major result was that the more women were outnumbered by men, (engineering, mining) the less that women experienced “sexual harassment”, and the more women outnumber men (supermarket checkout chicks, actresses) the more they experience “sexual harassment”.  These results were swiftly confirmed by subsequent work by other people, who also produced similar results for rape – or at least females complaining about “rape”.

But this only makes sense if incidents of men “raping” women and men “sexually harassing” women are generally female initiated, not male initiated, which is what I see in front of my nose, and what I see everyone else failing to see.   All workplace sexual harassment cases of males supposedly sexually harassing females, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are female initiated: It is a fitness test. The chick is looking for a coworker with the stones to beat her and rape her.

If workplace sexual harassment is male initiated, we would expect females in predominantly male workplaces to report a lot of it, in particular we would expect engineerettes and female miners to report lots of it, because outnumbered approximately a hundred to one by males, while we would expect actresses and supermarket checkout girls to report very little of it, because they heavily outnumber male co-workers. Survey data is the exact opposite. The more that female workers outnumber male workers (and thus the thirstier the female workers) the more “sexual harassment” by every plausible measure, indicating that all cases of males sexually harassing female co-workers are actually cases of female co-workers fitness testing attractive males, as near to all of them as makes no difference.

In the time period of the “Rape on campus” incident, University of Virginia investigated thirty eight rape complaints. None led to disciplinary action, therefore all fake, or University of Virginia horribly biased. The fallout of the “Rape on Campus” case indicates fake. If there were any real cases, Obama’s team would have come up with better poster girls. All reports of rape by white heterosexual males are lies, as near to all of them as makes no difference.  Recollect that the University of Virginia accusation “A Rape on Campus”, was driven by female sexual lust.

And, similarly, sex between middle aged men, and girls well below puberty.  Humbert Humbert wants to creep into bed with the sleeping twelve-year-old Dolores Haze, but does not do so, in part because she is not in her own bed, she has crept into the bed of the drunk and sleeping Jeremy Meeks.  Any time you hear that an old man has raped a female child, ascertain whose bed the “rape” occurred in.

We should not “teach women not to lie about rape”. We should throw women in jail for lying about rape, or else legalize rape when done on private property that a woman voluntarily chose to enter. But, far more importantly, need to fire women who shit test co-workers in the workplace, because their disruptive behavior profoundly damages productivity and social cohesion.

To win, we are going to need a red pilled Christianity that is willing to enforce order, patriarchy, and orthodoxy.  We will need to spin the story of the fall not as a literal account of mankind’s descent from a higher plane of existence, but rather a parable or metaphor about men becoming black pilled when we realized large scale cooperation was hard, knowing good and evil, and knowing we screwed up.  Evolutionary psychology and game theory leads to conclusions that parallel the traditional Christian understanding of the fall.

Losing weight is a solved problem

Monday, April 16th, 2018

One frequently reads despairing reports that major weight loss is impossible. If you attempt it, supposedly your metabolism slows right down, making you weak, tired, lethargic, slow, and very very hungry.

I read in far right and manosphere sources anecdotes from people who claim to have lost a great deal of weight. I followed their advice and lost a great deal of weight: The short of it is weigh yourself every morning, paleo (no wheat products, manufactured foods, or sweet drinks), carnivory (adequate protein, lots of animal fat), fasting, and getting your testosterone and estradiol levels correct.

I am not going to repeat the advice on how to lose weight here. Rather, I look at the the connection between successful weight loss, and the rightosphere, and the obesity epidemic, and the endless and rapidly accelerating movement left.

Why is it that there is a connection between the rightosphere and sound advice on losing weight, and the leftosphere and bad advice on losing weight?

Anecdotally, and from my personal experience, low testosterone in men leads to weight gain, high testosterone makes it easier to lose weight. Anecdotally, high testosterone in women leads to weight gain, and makes it hard for them to lose weight. Hence the stereotype of the fat mustachioed lesbian bully from Human Resources berating males for toxic masculinity while groping schoolgirls. In other words, androgyny causes obesity. And leftism promotes androgyny.

A woman who interrupts her boss and who walks down the middle of the corridor, will be prone to getting fat because this raises her testosterone, and the man who scurries out of her way to one side of the corridor will be prone to getting fat, because scurrying out of her way lowers his testosterone, as will the boss who (because no one dares restrain uncivilized female behavior) allows himself to be interrupted in a supposedly helpful and supposedly friendly fashion.

The diet high in fat and meat is demonized because associated with masculinity. Testosterone is made difficult to obtain because masculine. Women routinely get estrogen, but mighty hard for males to get testosterone. Fasting is ignored and deemed harmful because of the connection to old type Christianity.

In this sense, everything that works to lose weight is right wing, and everything that makes us fat is left wing. The obesity epidemic is connected to leftism in much the same ways as the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic is connected to leftism. Leftists want gays to be allowed to make blood donations, fat acceptance, and don’t want us to get testosterone, for much the same reasons.

Operation Sovereign Borders

Friday, April 6th, 2018

American judges have been expanding the category asylumrefugee to open borders to the world, preparatory for rapid race replacement and white erasure in the US. Illegal immigration is now legal in the US, indeed a fundamental human right (unlike freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms) as it has been for some time in Germany and Sweden.

In response to this, Trump has promised to use the the military to defend our borders against invaders. The world is shocked by this terrible violation of human rights. The military should only be used for good nice kindly humanitarian purposes, such as bombing civilians in Libya to punish them for their disinclination to support a Cathedral sponsored color revolution.

To use the military for selfish purposes, such as keeping hostile and predatory outsiders on the outside, is a clear violation of fundamental human rights recently discovered in the emanation of the penumbra of the umbra of the great and glorious US constitution. The US military should only be used for good and unselfish purposes, such as teaching Afghan schoolgirls how to put a condom on a banana and blowing up people who are insufficiently grateful for the benefits of freedom and democracy bestowed upon them.

If Trump keeps this promise, chances are he is also going to have some wall in time for the mid term elections. If he does not, he will not.

Keeping either or both of these promises is likely to lead to confrontation with the judges, as it violates the inalienable human right of South America and Africa to move to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat.  (more…)

Trump’s ban on transgender is alive and well

Monday, April 2nd, 2018

You no doubt heard “Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Transgender Troops in Military”. But Trump’s seeming surrender was threedee chess, not surrender.

The word transgender deliberately confuses people with  very different kinds of problems, grouping unlike people together, and making distinctions without a difference.

  1. Actual transgenders:  Crazy people who clearly of one sex, but suffer the delusion that they are of a different sex in the same way that some people who are clearly not Napoleon the First, Emperor of France, suffer the delusion that they are Napoleon the First, Emperor of France.
  2. Traps: gay males who want to be screwed by manly men, and are painfully aware that other gay males are seldom manly.
  3. Cuntboys:  Lesbian women who want to screw feminine women.  These tend to be less weird, nasty and evil than traps, and also tend to be conventionally attracted to manly men as well as feminine women, usually having more sex with manly men than with women, despite their theoretical lesbianism.  Theoretically they have relationships with women and sex with males, but this is mainly because they tend to have sex with males who are not interested in having relationships with them.
  4. Cross dressers: People who get off on being mistaken for a member of the opposite sex:  These superficially resemble traps, but a trap will take it all the way.
  5. Actual transexuals: People who are mixed up physically, who are born with mixed up physical characteristics.   There are very few of these, and most of them are genetic males with androgen insensitivity syndrome.  Everyone starts off with a female phenotype in the womb, and then those who are genetically male normally develop a male phenotype starting at the sixteenth week after conception.  A few, a very few, abnormally fail.  Some of these subsequently develop the outward and inward male phenotype belatedly at puberty with no medical intervention, despite failing to develop it in the womb.

Trump’s policy in effect bars the transgenders, and most of the traps, cuntboys, and crossdressers.  It allows the actual transexuals, provided they meet the physical standards.   But actual transexuals are so rare that it does not matter.

Transgender persons who require or who have undergone gender transition are disqualified from military service.

Actual transexuals, unlike transgenders, rarely get transition surgery, because any surgery they get is usually towards their outward apparent birth sex,  which is usually congruent with their inward subjectively experienced gender, or, in even rarer cases, they are transexual in spontaneously transitioning at puberty from superficially seemingly female to unambiguously male without need for surgery – delayed testicular descent and delayed penis development.

The ban on transition surgery bans most of the crazies and perverts, and the ban on gender dysphoria bans most of the remaining crazies and perverts. But the genuine transexuals are allowed in – both of them.  As they should be.

So Trump used the Social Justice Warrior’s own doubletalk against them.

Similarly, after announcing he cares so much about DACA, …

DACA and transgender give me some hope that we will see a good start on a wall in time for the mid term elections.  By now we should know that Trump is crazy like a fox.