Discover more from Adventures of Bad Hijabi
Gender Self-ID as a State-Enforced Religion
Defining Religiosity—the Nomenclature
I wrote this a few years ago for my website and it’s worth republishing here, nothing has changed, the Gender Affirmation Fascists are still waging their hate fest against female people and the same sex attracted and the Grand Mufti Rape Cult Leader Twins Biden + Trudeau are all in for their hate-on for women, taking their place beside Ayatollah as awful state leaders who hate the people they lead and loathe women.
Stefano Fait describes religion as careful observance of a binding divine rule. What if we extended this definition to the concept of civil religion—in which the state serves as binding divine rule through legislation and enforcement? What if we viewed the cult (cult in the sense of the Manichaean approach—good vs evil, us vs them—to group think) of western secular nationhood as akin to civil religion? As materialism grows and theistic thinking shrinks from public life, the dopamine hits we receive from engaging consumption culture make us more fragile and impede our capacity to build resilience—we live our lives externally and make everything a currency. Secular institutions and visions of human organisation have become objects of cultish devotion and, in a global reality, nation states do resemble religions. We can idealistically see civil religion as a uniting ethos which mobilises people in a society to achieve common good. We can cynically see civil religion as a means of conferring legitimacy to particular communities, viewpoints and biased rules—i.e. a mechanism of control and, in its extreme, oppression. We can realistically see a hybrid existing somewhere in between these two polarities.
Adventures of Bad Hijabi is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Essentially, civil religion imposes a narrative upon the society it shapes and governs. Islamic republics and French laïcité are each examples of civil religion. On the surface God governs and contains one society whereas in the other society God is governed and contained. Really though these are two different flavours of a Rousseauian government—and so both control and contain and become God. Each imposes a narrative upon society and each represses and controls through this narrative, shaped by a distinct epistemic history. Think of the human brain as a believing machine and religiosity as the human experience with and relationship to belief—a lens through which we view ourselves and our world. If beliefs are the mental lenses through which we perceive our exterior, religiosity is the shape, and strength of those lenses. Humans seek certainty, often through religiosity when chaos and struggle prevails. Extremist, fundamentalist, and orthodox religiosity develop as responses to trauma, on an individual and a collective scale. For example, history tells us that both French laïcité and the current Iranian Republic are each collective responses to imperialism.
Gender Identity as Civil Religion
What if we could see identitarianism as an expression of religiosity? The cultish devotion to and also vilification of socio-political identities and the hive-mindedness of the communities legitimising them make sense in this context. Put another way—identity politics is a collective response to trauma. Being behaviours rooted in the reptilian and mammalian brains with the prefrontal cortex inaccessible/offline and therefore less subject to self-modulation, trauma responses will by definition appear over-corrective and hyperbolic to the observer. Collective over-corrrectiveness looks to the observer like cultish behaviour and spawns excessive and misplaced devotion—religiosity. What if we consider societal evolution in Hegelian fashion? Thesis the status quo meets antithesis the collective trauma, and through synthesis a new thesis emerges. Repeat the cycle ad infinitum—with each cycle, we collectively unlock a new level of the human condition.
We can safely say that genderism developed in response to sexism—sexism being an umbrella term which includes the persecution of female people as well as of heterosexual males who do not conform to society’s machismo expectations—and the persecution of homosexual people, and gender self ID emerged as a part of that over corrective response. Did our collective sexual repressivity render western society more willing to embrace and assimilate the concept of gender? Did we fall into this gender trap because it seemed like a harmless convenience to use sex and gender interchangeably? Did genderists redefine familiar language while we weren’t looking? Society failed to take notice, and those who did were quickly dismissed as nitpicky. We are here because of the distortions cast by the sexual revolution.
Where did gender self ID originate? It seems baffling to me that any rational individual would ever be convinced that a human male can change his sex because he feels so inclined. It seems equally baffling to me that any rational individual would become so desperate to belong to the tribe they would deny what they know to be material reality, ie sex/reproductive class, and parrot the creed drilled into them by social justice evangelicals—trans women are women: any male human is a woman when he says he is a woman. Trans women are women sounds to me like and the word became flesh and dwelt among us, from John 1:14. Have trans women come to liberate womankind from itself in some queer messianic rapture?
Recently English Historian David Starkey wrote a piece in which he compared the trans women are women conundrum to transubstantiation–the ritual portion of Catholic mass in which the priest recites a particular incantation, Hoc est Corpus, over the wafers and wine and supposedly transforms them into the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation symbolises the death and resurrection of Jesus and the sacrament of the eucharist is seen as a necessary way of communing with God. The priest’s utterance of the incantation has transformative power, in the same way that a male human’s utterance of his gender identity as women transforms reality and makes him a woman. Trans women are not women! Why does society expect me to believe something so patently false on pain of punishment? Just as the Council of Constance condemned Jan Hus to burning at the stake for heresy and posthumously condemned John Wycliffe for heresy because these men challenged and disavowed transubstantiation, the modern day council of woke–gender social justice advocates–target, harass and go to extreme lengths to destroy the lives of female people who challenge gender identity and assert their sex based rights.
Point of fact–humans are not sequential hermaphrodites. Therefore to state that any male human becomes a female human simply by a self declaration equates to making a false statement. Why does the state require me to believe something so patently false as any male who declares himself a woman is one? It’s a mockery of the concept of hatred to cast dissenting to self ID as a form of bigotry—mammals are hardwired to know the difference between the sexes and sex never changes. It’s psychologically abusive to expect individuals to override their hardwired perceptions of the opposite sex to validate an imagined identity. It’s also contrary to every psychological and psychiatric principle to validate a delusion—when a male human identifies as a woman it’s an untrue self perception he expects those around him to validate. Why? Why must I validate anyone’s untrue belief? And how are women to know the difference between a harmless transsexual male and a predacious interloper using gender identity to gain access to female bodies? It’s an insult to the intelligence to suggest that no antisocial male would take advantage of such a system—of course they would and do!
Gender Has Introduced a Conflict of Human Rights
Advocates for gender self ID insist We are certainly not suggesting that anyone should be able to claim, temporarily and frivolously, any gender identity that takes their fancy in order to access identity documents, spaces or opportunities that they should not be entitled to. That’s patently false—a dangerous convicted male sex offender in the Canadian prison system simply makes a statutory declaration he is a woman and he can gain access to female prison—defacto Canada has no female prison system anymore since Bill C-16 came into effect. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to house female prisoners of war with males—international POWs have more rights than do Canadian female prisoners.
Bill C-16 and its provincial equivalents have created a serious conflict of rights that governments seem uninterested in addressing and the media pretends not to notice. Meanwhile, SOGI123 proponents continue to repress any dissent about this psychologically abusive propaganda schools currently distribute to children under the guise of SOGI education. In fact a Vancouver activist lawyer threatened to sue a concerned parent who vowed to take the BC SOGI123 curriculum door to door in his neighbourhood. Consistently the local trans and gender identity lobby has sought to deplatform all gender dissenting individuals, in particular feminists—sex based feminism has been rebranded as divisive by a Vancouver city councillor and this is exactly the opinion hardline Islamic fundamentalists have about feminism! Vancouver has descended into Woke Wahhabism, no longer old school socialist, Vancouver activism now serves the bougie queer sector of society—identities before humans.
The case of Jessica Yaniv has demonstrated the practical failure of gender self ID. How can the law solve the issue of conflicting human rights? What, exactly is gender identity, objectively and legally? Why should we forgo sex, our biological basis, for gender, a subjective abstraction of how we feel about our sex? Why must women validate men’s gender identity? Why does the proverbial wolf dress up as a sheep? Certainly not because he feels like a sheep. Gender self ID has become Canada’s oppressive state religion. The mainstream media participates by pretending not to notice and refusing to report what’s happening to women and children on the ground as a result of Bill C-16.
Yet, the case of JY barely scratches the surface when it comes to humans rights conflicts created by gender self ID. When the state unilaterally imposes a new way of defining humanity, in secret, without consultation from the public which it serves–how can this spell anything but utter chaos and devastation? Sex segregation exists for a very valid reason–safeguarding. What’s the purpose of locking up violent male sex offenders in prison if they can simply decide they identify as women in order to be housed in female prison? Female inmates have nowhere to escape from violent males placed in their quarters. Housing female and male prisoners together violates the UN Geneva Convention. Why do POWs have more rights than female inmates in Canadian prison? What’s the purpose of building safe shelters for women seeking refuge from violent males, if any male who wishes can identity as a woman and receive a place in the women’s rape shelter? How can any self declared feminist activist expect a victim of male violence to allow male humans into her safe refuge spaces? What does consent even mean, and what was the point of the MeToo movement if we now have decided male humans can rewrite the rules and erode sex based boundaries whenever they feel like it?
I want to ask all the liberal feminists who chant TWAW who also circle-jerked Harvey Weinstein is a bad man and believe all women how they would react if Weinstein decided tomorrow he identified as a woman and demanded to be housed in a female prison? And where are all the believe all women groupies now, when women are telling you their sex based rights are being violated, when they are telling you what’s happening in those prisons where self ID reigns? Where is the believe all women crowd now? What happened to all those women who harped on about consent? Suddenly a man feels like he’s a woman and we all have to drop our own hard wired perceptions and capitulate to the woke delusion of self ID? Who’s consenting to this? Women said no, get over it. Humans cannot change sex–we are not sequential hermaphrodites, period. The trans radical mob can get as upset as they want, can pull out all the rhetorical stops they wish–none of this emotionally manipulative engagement changes the facts. Calling me a bigot doesn’t solve the issues I raise here, in fact it only serves to dehumanise me and those who think like me, and this obscures progress.
Why has liberal feminism and the translobby decided to make female people responsible for the inability of certain male humans to accept their physiologic status vis a vis reproductive class? Why does a men’s rights movement which clamours for and does violate my sex based rights and freedom of belief get support of every major international human rights NGO right now? What on earth does a straight male human who watched sissy porn and now says he’s a woman have to do with gay rights? How does indulging this paraphilia advance gay or lesbian rights? How does gaslighting and DARVO of lesbians–lesbians are female humans who are only sexually attracted to female humans, remember, and it’s homophobic to suggest sexual orientation can change–and forcing them to validate the identities of straight male humans who identify as women and claim “transbian” as a status advance the rights of lesbians? Let me put this another way. Eroding lesbian consent, forcing them to convert their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and calling them nazis and white supremacists and religious fundamentalist freaks when they protest or refuse–how does any of that add up to equality, gay rights, women’s rights, tolerance, honouring boundaries, promoting safeguarding?
Why is liberal feminism calling sex based rights transphobic? And how in the hell have human rights organisations jumped on that trans train?The only rational conclusion one can draw? Trans rights are anti female, trans rights means the right of male humans to override sex protection in law and policy so that female people no longer have sex protection or sex based rights. Rape and domestic violence victims who state they feel unsafe with a male presence in their shelters (even if that male identifies as a woman) now face accusations of bigot, nazi, abuser, white supremacist, violent, transphobic, among others. How did we get to this place, where female people fleeing from male people have lost the right to their own hardwired perceptions and to setting sexual boundaries? How did we get to this point where the state forces rape victims to honour their rapist’s pronouns, should their rapist decide to identify as a woman? How did we get to this point where Statistics Canada no longer collects or reports on sex as a characteristic, only gender–meaning a violent male offender who identifies as a woman gets classified as a women by Statistics Canada? How does this skew criminal data? How can we trust the state to keep female people safe, to afford us sex based rights promised by the Charter, when it has decided it doesn’t have to monitor or analyse data based on the sex characteristic? Wouldn’t it make more sense to collect both sex and gender? Collecting both would enable the capture of a true picture of transgenderism.
Instead we pretend sex doesn’t exist by making it a hate crime to mention it and we try to validate the trans sociopolitical identity by pretending that trans people don’t exist–I mean, if sex isn’t real, what’s anyone transition to or from? Why does it take mega sex hormones and unnecessary and experimental surgery to emulate the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex if sex is a colonial construct whypipo made up to take over the world? And why is sex suddenly not real in the industrialised world, while in India it’s the reason no female children are born in some locations, the reason why 49 million female children are missing, the reason Manisha Valmiki is dead, the reason many Indian families struggle to marry their daughters to families which have plumbing in their homes, the reason female people still die in period huts?! From the beginning of time female people have faced mistreatment and downright torture simply because of their female anatomy, ie their reproductive role. We simply cannot separate out the reproductive roles of male and female from the experience of human existence. The evolutionary purpose of life is to procreate–that is species survival. This doesn’t mean we all must breed, it does not mean human = breeding machine. This doesn’t reduce us to our genitals. It simply acknowledges that sexuality and reproduction belongs to each of us as a basic human experience. To try to remove sex, sexuality, and to try to deny reproductive reality demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of humans, human nature, and the human condition.
Ireland, Norway, Malta, Argentina, Portugal, Belgium, and Canada have all passed legislation allowing gender self ID. How has self ID impacted female people in these countries? Specifically, have female people retained the right to single sex toilets, change rooms, prisons, rape shelters? Have adolescent girls with a history of trauma who feel ill at ease in their bodies now been brainwashed into believing they are boys trapped inside female bodies because gender self ID rules above evidence-based medical care? Have girls and women’s sports teams suffered from the infiltration of males who identify as girls and women? How many female people have lost an opportunity to compete or to win because a male who identifies as a girl or woman wishes to compete with his unfair advantage against female athletes? How many muslim girls and women will be forced to give up sport entirely because males are allowed to compete on female teams when they self ID as girls or women?
Trans woman Kristina Harris wrote about the Gender Recognition Act, the UK ‘s gender recognition law, describing the movement as a quite extreme gender ideology … and effectively amount[s] to a comprehensive redefinition of what it is to be female, or male. These [legal] changes, after thousands of years of sex-based definitions, are happening with a minimum of political scrutiny. Public debate about them is deliberately impeded by a toxic and authoritarian atmosphere in which serious, repeated attempts have been made to silence and sideline dissenting voices, particularly those of women. This is despite huge implications for women and transsexuals, as well as for democratic politics and everyday cultural pressures. Bill C-16 has surreptitiously enshrined into Canadian federal law an extreme religion—men are women if they say they are and women are evil for dissenting to this infringement upon their physical, bodily reality. Many provinces already had gender identity in their human rights laws prior to C-16. Unbeknownst to ordinary citizens, the lines were already redrawn quietly.
Remember hearing everyone accuse Jordan Peterson and Meghan Murphy of fear mongering when they raised concerns about Bill C-16? It’s a formality, nothing will change, said the gender apologists. Yet, here we all are, and the UK government has officially dropped gender self ID, whilst the gender lobby on this side of the pond continues to pound away at sex based rights with it’s horrific sequel to Bill C-16–Bill C-6.
Why is this happening? How did this happen? Why did we sleep through this?
The history of gender and gender identity
John Money coined the terms gender and gender role. Robert Stoller coined the term gender identity. It’s important to note that Money did not have a dualistic conception of humans. Gender emerged from his desire to elevate the discourse of sexuality above nature vs nurture, socialising vs biological determinants—to a more phenomenological vision of sexuality. Money’s treatment of gender and Stoller’s invention of gender identity seemed to provide a perfect fuel for postmodernist thinkers who infiltrated and built distortions they called feminist and gender studies. The word gender also appealed to the sexual repressives who could not bring themselves to say or write the word sex and so began using gender interchangeably with sex. As Orwell warned in 1946, when humans become lazy with language, the level of chaos in public discourse and, hence society, increases. Such is the case with sex and gender and the jagged intellectual and ideological terrain that lies between these two.
If Money had a holistic conception of the human psyche, Stoller had a nuanced conception of gender identity. In his 1964 paper he mentions core gender identity, which is one’s inner sense of one’s own sex category, and in fact states Thus there is ascribed to any person at birth an absolute position as one sex or the other, with the result that one develops a sense of only belonging to one gender. It is obvious that proper ascription of sex is extremely important. In fact, Money knew this based on his work with David Reimer. Reimer’s parents took Money’s advice after a botched circumcision and raised him as a girl, when Reimer began to report feeling dysphoric his parents told him the truth and he proceeded to detransition. Reimer and his twin suffered severe psychological damage from Money’s experimentations and they committed suicide in adulthood, a few years apart. The lesson learned—every individual has a core innate sense of their own sex even buried under trauma and dysphoric feelings—has been dashed by present day genderists. The terms gender and gender identity grew within a clinical research setting as very nuanced concepts which queer theorists and social justice activists have bastardised and hijacked for their cultural agenda.
The cultish sect of gender self identification
When and how did gender self ID become so mainstream? As mentioned, the concept of gender emerged from the field of sexology. In fact The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) was formerly the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. The name change enabled the trans lobby to distance itself from its origin story—the harmful medical ideology of Harry Benjamin. Harry Benjamin was an unconventional psychiatrist, and among the first to treat gender dysphoria—he rejected psychotherapy in favour of invasive treatment such as hormones and surgery, he championed transsexualism. His apprentice Charles Ilhenfeld has written critically about Benjamin’s approach, which was seen as contrary to the principles of psychiatry by his contemporaries.
Transsexualism, a medical disorder, had strict criteria for treatment which many found oppressive, as though gatekeeping their identities. In the late 1980s Ray Blanchard introduced the term autogynephilia, a new typology for transsexualism which addressed crossdressing heterosexual males. As the term autogynephilia gained recognition and acceptance so the number of autogynephiles seeking treatment rose. Blanchard doesn’t believe social factors contribute to the rise in autogynephilia, he believes it’s more a case of autogynephiles feeling comfortable enough to disclose their paraphilia. I disagree, there can be no denying the deleterious effect of pornography and the sexualisation and near pornification of media and popular culture on men and society in general. The sexual revolution cheapened sex by commodifying it and making it a casual currency for hedonistic transacting. Of course what followed was the objectification of humans, particularly the female body. When we compartmentalise things we dismantle their essence and commit a kind of epistemicide. We became divorced from our nature—disembodied—in the grips of a new, woke neo-creationism.
So began a new movement of humans rights activism, driven by crossdressing heterosexual males seeking to elevate their sense of gender identity to special status, and challenge the sex based rights of women. In essence, transgenderism and gender activism seek to gain access to female spaces and to remove the category called sex, under the guise that it’s a restrictive western categorisation which doesn’t accommodate the wide spectrum of humans. This sounds like wokus rhetoric for we want to enshrine male entitlement to female spaces into the law and gender is the trojan horse to every woman who has fought for sex based rights or is aware of the lengthy history of this ongoing fight.
Throughout the 1990s a group of elite crossdressing males drew up The Transgender Bill of Rights, a document which set the course for the trans rights movement and laid the groundwork for its successor, The Yogyakarta Principles. From the beginning The Transgender Bill of Rights makes it clear this is about male humans gaining access to female spaces because they feel like women: It is fundamental that individuals have the right to define, and to redefine as their lives unfold, their own gender identities, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role. This innate right to self determination is a dog whistle for dismantling women’s rights—the gender movement is a men’s rights movement masquerading as a minority rights movement.
The entire document contains outrageous demands and the last two, particularly laughable, reek of incel and fetishistic entitlement. Number 9, the right to form relationships sounds like a demand for sexual attraction—ahem, lesbians currently face this demand for sexual attraction and for participation in lesbian circles by heterosexual males who identify as women, ie trans women. There are no more female only lesbian spaces, cross dressing males have infiltrated them all in the name of gender. In fact, in many cities, lesbians have been kicked out of Pride Parades, and the pride movement has come to service the trans and gender movement. It’s homophobic and this speaks to the conflict of human rights I mentioned above. Number 10, the right to procreate raises alarm bells—rent-a-womb dehumanises women and children and introduces trauma into the child’s early life by separating it from the mother—a highly unnatural act which history has repeatedly shown causes long lasting trauma to mother and child.
It’s chillingly clear many of these male cross dressers fully expected unfettered access to and accommodation by female humans—yes these men fully expected women to surrender control over their bodies and spaces to grant them carte blanche under the guise of gender equality. The Yogyakarta Principles effectively continue this men’s rights movement masquerading as the right to self determination and cleverly galvanised support for this men’s rights movement by inexplicably tying gender identity to sexual orientation, thereby making it an LGB movement. The queerifying of human rights happened in secret out in the open.
The Yogyakarta Principles and Yogyakarta Plus 10
Initiated by the Allied Rainbow Communities International, the Yogyakarta Principles were developed at a meeting of the International Commission of Jurists, the International Service for Human Rights, and a group of international human rights legal experts in 2006 and expanded in 2017. This consortium of human rights legal experts sought to develop a body of principles to guide the promotion of gender ideology and self determination as human rights. It’s fairly clear that Yogyakarta is an attempt to queerify human rights legislation at the expense of sex based rights. I reject the notion that a group of bougie human rights lawyers is qualified to remove the sex based rights of female humans, and I reject outright Yogyakarta Principle 24 which asserts the right to procreate—no it isn’t any human being’s right to produce progeny and that a group of queer theory-indoctrinated lawyers and wokified international human rights lobbyists believes it is terrifies me, to be quite frankly. Female humans have no voice nor representation at this discussion, which effectively redefines us and removes all sex based protections.
Let’s take a look at some of the signatories, shall we? An Irish human rights lawyer, a former catholic priest—Michael O’Flaherty—is among those feverishly working to dismantle women’s sex based rights and protections. The rapporteur of the process, O’Flaherty believes in the sovereign right of the individual to self identification. Another signatory, Robert Wintemute, has argued for sexual orientation as a fundamental choice and not an immutable characteristic. Stephen Whittle has worked tirelessly to erode sex based rights in the UK. The blog of Essex Human Rights Centre, affiliated with signatory Judith Bueno Mesquita, criticised India’s recent transgender law which revoked self identification, citing ‘biological essentialism’ as discriminatory.
Phillip Alston seems aware of the reality of sex and of the very real impact it has on female people—they cannot identify out of their sex based oppression—yet he’s happy to erase sex as a protected category to promote the rights of male humans to ‘self identify’. Similarly Elizabeth Evatt, the first female judge of an Australian federal court and a woman with an illustrious career, who spoke out in 2004 that Australia was falling short on women’s rights, surprisingly seemed okay with giving those rights away at the Yogyakarta table. That’s just it—‘experts’ emerging from their exclusive ivory towers to redefine humanity through a series of postmodernist-tinged emotionally based rhetoric doesn’t to me equal human rights. It equals elitism, a new aristocracy stacking the deck against female people and the poor and trauma-stricken.
The Yogyakarta Principles of 2006 state the following: Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom. Essentially these principles call for the dismantling of all precautions and protections which existed to protect the public from frivolous and malicious self declarations of gender self ID under the guise that such protection which exists to fulfil the charter rights of Canadians (in the case of Canada) are discriminatory to transgender people, transgender people now being essentially anyone who decides they are the opposite sex, including dangerous sex offenders serving prison sentences.
The YPs call for the suppression of sex based feminism, which it considers discriminatory. The Plus 10 Principles of 2017 essentially add to the eradication of female rights with the creation of new language—sex characteristics, and the removal of sex. This effectively designates single sex spaces as discriminatory, since males who self identify as women would be discriminated against by being denied access to female only toilets. By inserting gender the architects of YP and Plus 10 have basically called for the elimination of all protections against women. Gender essentially grants male humans unfettered access to female spaces and services and casts females as bigots for dissenting to these changes made without their consent. The CEDAW defines discrimination against women based on sex—if the sex category is removed then women can no longer talk about discrimination or even fight against it.
The United Nations General Assembly, and Human Rights Council, and other UN bodies have consistently rejected the YPs. Though the principles have no legal weight they influence the development of LBGT legislation across the globe. Women’s rights organisations lack access to the kind of funding which the YP LGBT lobby groups have. In fact, in a sick and twisted move, the so-called feminist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau changed the name of the Status of Women to Women and Gender Equality and has given $30 million of status of women money to LGBT advocacy groups—the very same groups heavily promoting gender and the YPs! LGBT groups can easily get money for transgender activism and so they concentrate their efforts on genderism, at the expense of gay and lesbian rights. The genderists have begun to choke out female rights and gay and lesbian rights—gender self determination is at odds with each of these and yet the so called feminist championing legislators pretend not to see.