Trump’s ban on transgender is alive and well

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.

36 Responses to “Trump’s ban on transgender is alive and well”

  1. Dan says:

    Richard Dawkins on Twitter (this from a man whose life work included attacking Christianity):

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins · Mar 21

    Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme:
    “Always keep a-hold of nurse
    For fear of finding something worse.”

  2. I think it fighting a symptom. In any military worths it salt, not only transgenders but basically everybody who isn’t a tough masculine man is bullied out. Out of necessity, you want your flank to be covered by high morale troops.

    Then again the modern military isn’t all hooah, it has everything from a million paper pushers to mechanics to kindergartens.

    Which may be necessary, but it lacks the necessary Schelling points. If there are good arguments why people doing essentially civilian jobs should be considered part of the military – there likely are, you don’t want them to go on a strike or do other civvie stuff – they should be somehow clearly separated in concept, terminology, uniform etc. from actual troopers.

    • jim says:

      Camp followers.

      Starting with Florence Nightingale, they reclassified camp followers as soldiers in order to lower the status of soldiers.

    • Inquiring Mind says:

      I am not arguing for women or even the transgendered in the military.

      What I am arguing for is the pencil-necked ethnic East Asian Army surgeon who operated on a wounded soldier with an unexploded RPG shell lodged in his pelvis.

      The surgeon explained using medical jargon that the standard procedure for that situation would be to leave that soldier outside the operating tent to die of his wounds. He asked for volunteers from the assisting nurses and other OR personnel and then made the decision to operate in contravention of procedure, saving this soldier’s life by risking his own.

      The surgeon in question was certainly a tough masculine man, but in his area of contribution to the Army’s mission. From the video and interview of they guy, I couldn’t see him running for any distance with an 80 pound pack on his back. But he was as much an “actual trooper” as anyone else.

      • jim says:

        Nonetheless, in a sane society, he would be classified as a camp follower, not as a soldier. Soldiers engage armed enemies, therefore are more worthy of honor, and should be subject to a harsher form of military discipline than camp followers.

        Classifying camp followers as soldiers dishonors our soldiers and undermines military discipline.

        And the business that started with Florence Nightingale was intended to dishonor our soldiers and undermine military discipline.

        Women are fine as camp followers. Camp followers should be predominantly women. Camp followers should be subjected to a lesser form of military discipline appropriate to women and camp followers.

        Wives of soldiers should be subjected to the strongest form of marital enforcement, to show that our society honors soldiers, and to compensate soldiers for the harshness of the discipline that they should be subjected to, and wives of taxpayers a stronger form of marital enforcement than wives of non taxpayers, but a lesser form than wives of soldiers.

        • Inquiring Mind says:

          In the rush to keep the transgendered out of the military, you are going to demote pencil-necked East Asian men?

          I support the transgender ban — think of the damage done by that Manning person. But a military needs brains as well as brawn. Sometimes you get both in the same person, but the whole point of the human HBD “movement” is to accept that these qualities are present in different persons from different groups in different proportions.

          I mean, how many East Asians let alone Caucasians are in the NFL these days? If the metric for being a soldier is brawn, do you want a military reflecting the composition of the NFL?

          • Q says:

            Found the chwink.

            • Inquiring Mind says:

              Talking about ethnic stereotypes, isn’t the late You-tube shooter the ugliest “sexy” woman ever?

              You are asking, “what about Angie Merkel” and my reply is what about her? The German Chancellor isn’t even trying to be sexy, or at least to white hetero cis-gendered men.

              Look (if you dare) at the “belly dancer” photos where she is showing some leg, or where she is on the exercise mat showing the reinforcement bands on pantyhose meant to be worn with a below-the-knees hemline.

              I mean she (was) thin, and she wore makeup and Persians are Caucasian rather than Semites or other race, and until now, at least, I had thought Persian women were kind of cute. But there is some kind of uncanny valley aspect to her trying to look hot, a kind of “women of the Soviet Army” kind of look, only there are some truly hot babes working “honey pot” ops for the GRU/KGB/FSB?

          • ilkarnal says:

            Plenty of pencil-necked East Asians fought for Imperial Japan. I don’t know if Jim will agree or disagree with this, but in my opinion the high-school jock nature of the US military is a great weakness. It would be much better to have something like the Prussian gentlemanly militaristic elite. Naturally our elites are the opposite of militaristic, so better to have good old jarheads running things – but that does lead to problems, to weakness.

            There is a small elite core of the US military, basically the smarter variety of jarhead. But it is small. There are gargantuan drops in quality from SOF to 11Bs to Guardsmen, reflecting the relatively shallow talent pool of this part of the white male demographic.

            I agree with Jim’s camp-follower distinction. I don’t agree with you that this leaves no place for men who are slight of stature to distinguish themselves in battle.

            • peppermint says:

              The intellectual is dead. Military service, not scholarship, is what men will brag of being somehow associated with.

            • jim says:

              > Plenty of pencil-necked East Asians fought for Imperial Japan.

              Before and during World War two, Japanese were the most manly of men. After McArthur emancipated Japanese women, Japanese became the least manly of men, defeated and emasculated.

          • jim says:

            The military needs manliness. Officers must be smart enough to lead men, and manly enough to potentially go into combat with them.

            History is that whites beat blacks because smarter, therefore better able to cooperate. Because better cooperation. When one white goes up against one black, the black is likely to win because more manly. When a hundred whites, or indeed three whites, go up against a hundred blacks, the whites are likely to win because of better cooperation, because smarter.

            When whites go up against asians, as in the colonial wars, whites win because more manly and more prosocial. But white male cooperation on the battlefield has its roots in manliness. Women don’t cooperate, and asian males cooperate less than white males.

  3. EdensThaw says:

    The caravan is a shit test.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Indeed and it’s just so obvious. Janissary invaders have been cucking Don since Day One. But NOW, THIS time, they’re gonna do it on Pay Per View in front of the entire world in HD.

      And Don’s WAY too natural a PUA to not smell this coming from a mile away.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      It’s not strictly a shit test because the caravan members actually do want to emigrate to America.

    • Q says:


  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    Question for you Jim:

    You use a very surgical, spergy and machine-like grammar in your posts here.

    Is that because you spend all day programming computers, so that’s how you think now?

    Or rather, is it to throw-off identity-matching algorithms that are trying to figure out who you are by comparing your posts here to your emails to your friends Gmail accounts?

    (Asking for a friend.)

    • jim says:

      Just naturally spergy and machine like.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        There is no accounting for taste. I find Jim’s syntax refreshingly clear and free of the needless highfaultin’ tone that is all too common around the reactosphere.

        On the other hand, I spend all day programming computers…

      • Inquiring Mind says:

        The Faculty Senate of a major public university just held its ceremony honoring exemplars in its ideals among The Humanities, the Biological Sciences, the Physical Sciences and the Social Sciences.

        The Humanities award was granted for feminist/gender studies (am I making any of this up?) into the immigrant/ethnic East Asian experience in the Jim Crow South, dichotomizing the fantasies (held by both white and black males) against the realities of the multiple (I guess I heard this right?) genders of this community outcast from both white and black Southern social groupings.

        That, my fellow blog.jim readers, is surgical, spergy and machine-like in grammar. Jim’s 5 groupings of the transgendered explained all of this in plain English, and Jim didn’t even get an award from a major public university for his clear writing on this topic.

        • Ron says:

          They write like that to confuse people. The grammar and words used not meant to convey meaning, are meant to convey status. Same way beards convey muslim gang status in english prisons. Or low hanging pants among gangster blacks, etc.

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    Don’s turning up the heat!

    As they scriptwriters say: Chase your hero up a tree, and then set it on fire!

  6. lalit says:

    Jim, I hope you are not letting your desires and wishes get the better of your usual cold-steel analysis. This auto-coup business seems to be a persistent blind spot. You are up against Moldbug on this one. You might have decimated all lightweights who were your opponents up to this point without breaking a sweat, but this time you are up against a heavyweight, the incumbent no less, with the weight of history on his side. This is a prediction with a very low probability of success with possibly no precedent in history. I’ll repeat the comment I made on Alf’s blog (with some creative modifications)

    “Jim blind spot was his hope for a trump auto coup in mid 2017 which has not happened until now and now not likely to happen ever. He is only human not a God. Had he got the auto coup right, I would have consecrated an idol of him (with brown skin and black eyes obviously), offered it holy water, chanted sacred mantras while lighting incense before the idol, declared him divinely inspired Sage/Seer/personal friend of Kek (First name basis of course) and threatened to behead anyone who dared to criticise him. I would also attempt to trace a genetic lineage proving the Jim’s ancestors migrated from the Indian Punjab at the end of the last Ice age.”

    I’m only half-joking

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      I think Jim is basing his view on the fact that even if that isn’t Trump’s plan to start, the left will escalate things to the point where Trump is forced to seize power or die. Right now we have the caravan headed to the border. He either stops it with physical force and swats away the lefts shaming and law fare or he fails. And if he manages to diffuse this without things going hot, the next case will be more extreme, and the next.

      For things not to go out of control, Trump needs to fit into the status quo. However building a border wall and refusing to elect a new people means he cannot fit into the status quo. Something is going to break.

      • lalit says:

        The weight of History points to Trump meeting the fate of Gracchus. I just can’t see Trump pulling a Sulla or a Caeser. The next guy might though, the operative word being “might”

      • jim says:

        > the left will escalate things to the point where Trump is forced to seize power or die.

        Yes, was never Trump’s plan to make himself God Emperor. He wants to restore the Republic. Sulla wanted to restore the Republic also.

        But Trump, though he has some characteristics in common with Sulla, has a more in common with Gracchus than with Sulla. A Sulla could never have been legitimately elected in Rome.

        • Glenfilthie says:

          Gracchus? Sulla? What characteristics, Jim? I am not seeing common characteristics in any of them.

          Trump is a businessman and a negotiator. America has not seen his like in the last century, and these qualities make him. So far he is doing exactly what I would do in a situation where your enemies commonly strike from behind or from the shadows: you goad them and provoke them into exposing themselves with low key taunts. The issue of perverts in the military was just one such prod. Once you know who the bad guys are, you know where to bury your blade when THEY get sloppy. The swamp creatures are shitting bricks, I have never seen them so scared in all my time on this earth! Trump picks and chooses his battles.
          There is no question: one way or another, that inbound caravan of shitskins is not going to pass. THAT will be where he makes his stand, and I think that is the hill the democrats are going to die on if they get stupid about it.

  7. Reziac says:

    I’ve often thought that most M-to-F transwhichevers are simply androgen-deficient, and would benefit a whole lot more from a course of testosterone than they ever will from an infusion of estrogen. Would probably greatly reduce the number who wind up as psychotics or suicides, too.

  8. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    You know i was thinking about the latest ‘chaos in the white house’ meme tv news was pushing the other day in the wake of His Majesty giving lots of people the boot, and it seemed to me that there was a more esoteric (limbic) dynamic at play; Trump looking at borderline cases and deciding to fire them rather than keep them on, reenforces the “You’re Fired” meme; so that if or when he decides he wants to fire someone much more egregious or entrenched, people will already be ‘pre-cued’ to go through the motions, trained to play their parts in the theater.

    You know, kinda like a magic trick.

  9. […] Trump’s ban on transgender is alive and well […]

Leave a Reply