Philosophy

Hystericalectomy: Yes, “Trans” People Are Crazy

Gaze upon this headline from a story by the so-called Friendly Atheist. “Transgender Man Sues Catholic Hospital for Canceling His Hysterectomy.

What should be noted is that the headline is not this (don’t skim, but read, this): Man Sues Catholic Hospital for Canceling His Hysterectomy.

Let’s suppose the headline was this second version. What now jumps into all minds is that the man seeking the hysterectomy is crazy, and the hospital, Catholic or not, is sane. You cannot remove a uterus from a man for the simple and time-honored reason that men do not have uteri. The second headline is thus logically equivalent to this: Man Sues Catholic Mathematician Who Refuses To Deduce 1 + 1 = 4.

Now, in many cases, you can remove a uterus from a woman, because normal woman have uteri. Indeed, the presence of a uterus is one of the indications that the person in front of us is a female and not male. It is not a foolproof indication, for the woman may have already had hers out, say, because of cancer. Still, a uterus is normally found inside women.

Even the people—or I should say especially the people—who use the term “transgender man” know this. The prefix (“transgender”) admits the truth. If the people using this term did not know the truth, then they would just say man sans transgender.

Thus “transgender man” does not mean “man”, but “woman” or “woman who says she’s a man.” I emphasize: if the writer means man he can say “man”. That he does not say “man”, but “transgender man”, means he is admitting the person under discussion is a woman.

Further, everybody knows this, not just the people who use the prefix “transgender”. The Friendly Atheist (or whoever wrote the headline) knew the second headline would look ridiculous, but somehow he thought the first version made sense.

It does not. The idea is that women who think they are men have some sort of “right”, which therefore implies a duty on someone’s part, to whatever mutilation that crosses their minds. The woman who wanted her uterus out, the article says, was healthy, her uterus undamaged (given shoddy reporting, I could be wrong on her particular medical details, but the point remains). It makes no sense to remove healthy, functioning tissue, so the hospital—or should I say Catholic hospital—demurred.

There are two perspectives: the woman’s and the hospital’s.

The woman thought that removing her uterus would make her more like a man, men not having uteri. But men also do not have 350 small block engines cycling their innards. Indeed, there are an infinite number of things men do not have, in or out of them, almost all of which women don’t have either. Men and women are already almost identical in what they don’t possess. So the absence of one more thing is a poor indicator of manliness.

Plus, since some women are uterus-free because of illness and so on, yet they are still women, it is clear the lack of uterus does not make one into a man.

Besides all that, there will be any number of items in this women, all unremovable, that make her a woman. Such as however many trillions, or whatever, of cells in her body, which say “female”. Her brain and various other organs, if not made that way from the start, have all been altered since conception to say “female”. She was, to coin a phrase, born that way.

A carrot stuck down her shorts will never be a penis, even if the carrot is replaced by actual flesh. Wearing a lumberjack shirt or sporting a chemically induced (or glue on) beard also does not make the woman a man, just as it wouldn’t make a bundle of corn stalks, to which we can also alter in the same way, into a man.

There is thus no way, no way at all, to surgically or chemically make a woman into a man. The woman, regardless what “experts” might say, is therefore crazy to think she can become a man. No matter what changes she makes, she will always be infinitely far from her target.

It is also interesting, as widespread as this craziness is, to wonder why people do not imagine they can be other things they are not. There are a few people, it’s true, who think they are a different race, but race is “softer”, i.e. less well defined, so much so that the pretense does not usually signal craziness, unless the claim is made late and publicly.

Some think they are dogs or other creatures. Truly believing this is just as crazy as a woman thinking she’s a man. But it seems that most people pretending to be other animals aren’t really serious about it, or, if they are, they are already institutionalized and hidden from view.

Why do we accept the idea that women can “transition” into men so strongly? If society agrees with the soon-to-be-late-and-unlamented Justice Anthony Kennedy that everybody gets to both define their own existence and insist everybody else agree with their redefinition, why stick to sex?

Why not believe you are “really” a cup full of epsom salts, or a law chair, or a top quark, or wadded up stick of gum under a chair? Why limit ourselves to one measly dimension? We are suffering from severe lack of imagination.

Now the hospital’s perspective.

It is true many quacks will do anything they think they can get away with, as long as the fee is large enough. The crazy woman wanting her uterus out will surely find a certified flesh cutter who wants a new SUV badly enough. The woman just won’t receive these services from the particular hospital that has earned the Friendly Atheist’s, and, as it turns out, the ACLU’s ire.

Suing the hospital shows the real insanity is not the crazy woman, for crazy people have and ever will be with us, but the government and society insisting everybody say the woman is sane, the insistence enforced with various official and unofficial penalties. It’s not enough for the crazy woman to say “I am a man”, you have to say so, too.

Alas, even if we were willing to give up our own sanity, we have proven we cannot truly do it. Our rebellious nature and love of truth makes us say “trans man” and not “man.” For if we really believed the crazy woman, we would say just “man.” We still have a way to go to reach our Utopia.

Anyway, under the precise same reasoning, if a woman says, “I am a top quark”, you will also have to agree. Pointing out facts, such as proving she is not a top quark, as with the fact the woman is not a man, will not excuse you from being labeled a quarkophobe. The best you will get away with is writing, “She is a trans quark.”

But this is getting too far from the idea a hospital should do whatever it is a customer (I do not say patient) wants. If that is so, then only the crazy have rights, and the sane only duties, most performed under duress. If a physician has to cut out a healthy uterus from a trans woman, then a physicist would have to agree to put our trans-quark into a bubble chamber and pretend to take reading on her, or it.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here

Categories: Philosophy

21 replies »

  1. There is the third perspective, represented in the story by the ACLU: the perspective if those of the Darwin-Huxley-Fabian party. Bertrnd Russell: when you get people to say the snow is black, you won’t need police,it’s the scientific government. Or Huxley, by feeding drugs to people, controling births, and “liberating” sex, you will get the real revolution, you will get them to love their enslavement…. The you have the nietzscheans, heiddegerians, other existentialists, deconstructivists, etc. the whole community of those who say there us no reality, or that it is sin that needs to be remade according to the “model”; or some play dough……….

  2. Carlos Julio Casanova Guerra, this caught my eye:

    “Or Huxley, by feeding drugs to people, controling births, and “liberating” sex, you will get the real revolution, you will get them to love their enslavement…. ”

    This has happened right here, right now. This is what I see – people love their enslavement.

    Briggs – the frustration of this age is that I can set your article in front of one of my enslaved friends/family, and yet they will not understand. It is so clear, so obvious….like all the other common sense knowledge we have. The phrase of the day in my mind, every day, is “but they seem like an intelligent person…..”

  3. Carlos: Very good comment. So apropos now. I think of Huxley’s work often these days.

    “If the people using this term did not know the truth, then they would just say man sans transgender.” But then the person is not “special”, a victim of society, able to sue at will for their feelings being hurt, etc. This is not to “correct an error of nature” but rather to destroy society and make a bunch of horrible, vile lawyers rich in the meantime. It makes the legislators gods, their proper title in their power hungry evil heads.

    The “woman” thought going to a Catholic hospital would get her in the headlines and it worked. Maybe even a bunch of money she can use since someone other than her paid for her mutilations to date. Nothing more. I’m not even sure she really wanted the hysterectomy. Of course, leaving it in would allow her to be a “pregnant male”, one of the most asinine terms ever to leave a person’s lips. God is not smiling and this nation is not “under God”. I commend the hospital for at least trying, but we know they will be forced to comply or close. Millions of poor people are destroyed by this hatred of the Catholic Church and the closing of their charities, schools and hospitals. Your government HATES you, hates you, hates you.

  4. Apparently, given he had the surgery, what he & his attorney are calling a “ hysterectomy” was in fact a vasectomy or similar. Per the article linked…

    The legal issues are interesting:

    Where do a couple of competing constitutional rights abut? The individual’s right as taken as a cause by the ACLU vs the hospital’s right as a religious (Catholic?) organization — which in this particular case might not be so clear as that particular hospital has been acquired by a non-religious entity … does that hospital really qualify as a religious entity?

    Ranting at length about what is almost certainly semantics – a vasectomy (or similar) described as a “hysterectomy” – is itself nonsensical. Clearly the person has gender identity issues, perhaps a reflection of mental health issues. But ranting about semantics as if the label held only one possible meaning also suggests something(s), at best an inability to comprehend the lesson in the adage, “a rose by any other name is still a rose.”

    If one truly sees a threat in accommodating such as this person’s surgery (whatever that was), the battleground is in the courts and the weapons are words and logic applicable to relevant legal arguments. That can make a difference.

  5. “Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”

    Romans 13:13-14

  6. Basic biology for the sexually reproducing organism called humans. Have a Y chromosome, you’re male; regardless of what you look like. Don’t have a Y chromosome, you’re female; regardless of what you look like. Having extra chromosomes will alter what you look like, to a greater or lesser extent.

    The rest just shows how close to tyranny we are, today.

  7. This has to be linked to the madness relating to the Wuhan Flu.

    If you can believe that a man who says he is a woman is really a woman, it’s not too hard to say that people gathering for “racial justice” cannot be infected by a disease. Both are simply a belief that our words have control over reality.

  8. Ken

    “Ranting at length about what is almost certainly semantics – a vasectomy (or similar) described as a “hysterectomy” – is itself nonsensical.”

    Are you confused or am I confused? I read the story on the friendly atheist @: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/07/19/transgender-man-sues-catholic-hospital-for-canceling-his-hysterectomy/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Did you read about it somewhere else – a different story? Didn’t read anything about a vasectomy and the picture is A “dude” with facial hair (to me she was a woman now a man)

    As confused as one of us is, I think it’s ALL about semantics

  9. Briggs – yes the loss of clarity when something is a link or not is annoying

    I do see a “box” around links, could the box be shaded?

  10. See what I mean? Semantics

    A “dude” with facial hair (to me she was a woman now a man)

    YOU know what I mean A woman who is subjecting herself to drugs and invasive surgeries in order to “look” like a “man”. And she wants another surgery to “feel” like a man!

    I really can’t go on with this because by getting a hystericalrectomy, we KNOW what she wants her body to STOP doing so she can delusionally DENY she’s a woman so she can pretend she’s a man.

    Hell – way back my wife wanted a hysterectomy but her doctors wouldn’t agree to do it.
    FINALLY, doctors realized themselves that her uterus had to go. I guess my wife took the wrong tact, and should have told the doctors she wanted to be a man and start by removing her uterus.

    ALL about semantics (Just like it’s so important to use the proper pronoun)

  11. Ken: the person in question was a biological female, seeking to remove the female organ. The hospital objected because as a medical practice they won’t remove otherwise healthy organs simply on a patient’s whim. The only way that they would remove an otherwise healthy body part is as a preventative action, say if there was a demonstrated severe genetically-based risk of cancer. The patient then argued that their “transgender” state was such a risk and the surgery must be performed as a life-saving action.

  12. The constant transgender cry of “you must appease me or else I will commit suicide” rings hollow when you consider how many of them commit suicide after all their demands are met.

  13. Well, no, the operation she desired was a hysterectomy per the article and not a vasectomy as she could not have a vasectomy as she is a woman.

    Nope! Still a woman…. Did you read about it somewhere else – a different story? Didn’t read anything about a vasectomy and the picture is A “dude” with facial hair (to me she was a woman now a man)

    Every person has a choice…..God help those who are not helping, and will not help themselves and help us do our part….. The constant transgender cry of “you must appease me or else I will commit suicide” rings hollow when you consider how many of them commit suicide after all their demands are met.

    God bless, C-Marie

  14. This is all injected in calibrated doses by the MSM, ‘Remember the Bathroom Wars’
    is their battle cry. Simple but effective demoralization infect the headlines… Marx 101.

  15. ABS – I THINK I’d heard of something like that before (I MIGHT have heard about it back in late 70s early 80s

    It is more related than you know or maybe you do:

    Body integrity dysphoria (… formerly called apotemnophilia)
    Apotemnophilia was first described in a 1977 article by psychologists Gregg Furth and John Money as primarily sexually oriented.
    John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand American psychologist, sexologist and author specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender. He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of “gender” on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.
    Recent academic studies have criticized Money’s work in many respects, particularly in regard to his involvement with the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer, his forcing this child and his brother to simulate sex acts which Money photographed and the adult suicides of both brothers.
    Money’s writing has been translated into many languages and includes around 2,000 articles, books, chapters and reviews. He received around 65 honors, awards and degrees in his lifetime. He was also a patron of many famous New Zealand artists, such as Rita Angus and Theo Schoon.

  16. Crazy like fox.

    The same thing happened at a California Catholic hospital chain three years ago. The trannie got a hysterectomy refused at the hospital because they don’t provide surgery to mutilate normally healthy people. Instead, the Catholic hospital offered the surgery at the only Methodist hospital in the chain, whose ethics allowed it. All good, you say? No, that trannie sues the Catholic hospital because xhe is offended! The Catholic hospital eventually throws a chunk of go-away money at the trannie, who uses the money to pay for the surgery at the Methodist hospital.

    See? Crazy like a fox. The surgery wasn’t going to be free no matter where it was done, and was going to run six figures at least.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *