“And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them.”
Isaiah 3:4
Most translations repeat the prophesy that God will curse Israel by placing it under the rule of children, but the Douay-Rheims translation specifies that a faithless nation will also be placed under the rule of “the effeminate.” The context of the verse makes clear that a government of unmanly men is part of a comprehensive moral revolution in which all natural hierarchies are inverted. Somewhat later in the imprecatory chapter, Isaiah tells us this government by children and wimps will be equally a government by women.
Women obviously covet masculine power, and have therefore dressed as men far longer than men have dressed as women. Bloomers and pant-suits were really just harbingers of men in fetching frocks. The square-jawed, ball-busting, glass-ceiling-shattering feme-exec was the first transexual, and Hillary Clinton is, in a spiritual sense, no different than Dillan Mulvaney.
Women “wear the pants” just about everywhere nowadays, so we should not be surprised that men have begun to “wear the dress.” Not all men have been formally deposed, but those who retain some semblance of authority are effeminate, not to mention terrified of the women by whom they are surrounded. One can hardly blame then for being terrified, since so many of these women are terrible.
Rule by women and effeminate men is pornocracy, and Isaiah rightly identifies it as a curse. You may object that our octogenarian governors hardly qualify as “children,” but I invite you to consider the appetites and passions of these wrinkled infants. And I particularly invite you consider their infantile appetite and passion for female fascination.
This infantile appetite and passion is essential to the pornocracy.
Pornocracy means rule by pornē, which is to say prostitutes, which is to say women (and men) who use sexual desire as an economic and political tool. The word is most frequently applied to a period in the early tenth century when the Papacy was controlled by three infamous and we must suppose fascinating women. From this we may generalize that pornocracy is rule by women and childish and effeminate men.
We may also observe that pornocracy always infects the society it rules with the license and slavery of a brothel.
Feminists covet masculine power, and therefore do what they can to ape masculinity. Transgender males covet feminine power, and therefore do what they can to ape femininity. As with everything connected to envy, these apings are always more or less ludicrous, grotesque, or pathetic. In the case of transgender males, the feminine power they covet is the fascinating erotic power of the female body. Some of these men are homosexual and envious of the power that the female body has to attract males. Some of these men are heterosexual and feel, relish, and covet the power the female body has to attract themselves.
This is, at least, how I understand autogynophilia, and my understanding of autogynophilia is supported by a new and interesting essay that you can read here. In the cases described in this essay, autogynophilia sprang from a morbid fascination with the power of pornography, and it sprouted when these men felt, relished, and coveted that power of feminine fascination.
When a man attempts to exercise the power of female fascination, the aping is normally ludicrous, grotesque, or pathetic. This is why crossdressers were until very recently said to be funny, disgusting, or sad. Now we are told that such apings are actually sexy, and that all honest men know deep down that crossdressers really are hot. In other words, we are told that we should respond to this usurped power of female fascination, join in the license and slavery of the brothel, and take our rightly degraded place in the inverted hierarchy of the pornocracy.
The Orthosphere 
> The square-jawed, ball-busting, glass-ceiling-shattering feme-exec was the first transexual
That’s why I did not expect female->male sexual mutilation to take off like it has. If a woman can already do anything a man can do, why bother cutting your boobs off? I thought male->female cases were a consequence of society’s contempt for men. Any man who really, deeply believed Leftist dogma would have at least some desire to cut his dick off. Maybe that’s how it started, but then the female fashion craze phenomenon guaranteed that when it spilled over into women, F->M would dominate over M->F.
From what I can tell, many F>M transitions are driven by sexual horror and not sexual desire. Status seeking and social contagion are also at work, but I think many F>M transitions are of a type who would at one time gone into a nunnery. If anyone bothered to ask where all the nuns have gone, I would answer, “where indeed?”
I don’t know, in the article you linked from Substack, many if not all the young men who are said to be autogynephiles are horrified of their own given sexuality. At least it is not obviously the case that they are principally driven by an obsession to possess feminine sexuality. Motivations are always difficult to discern though, and the article is quite short on details that would confirm this one way or another.
The therapist quoted in the article says that the underlying cause is shame, which in the jargon of therapy usually means the belief that one is unlovable. I think therapists rely too heavily on the concept of shame, but can see that a man who believes he is unlovable might develop an obsession with loveliness. One interesting thing about shame so defined is that it would almost certainly spread through a population as that population dechristianized. Until quite recently, many people who were “poor in spirit” were consoled by the assurance that Jesus loved them.
In the interest of frank discussion, the autogynephilia model has struck me overall as a generational product, and not a very sound philosophical idea. To put it crudely it seems like it has been thought up by certain boomers who think all men really just want girly magazines and to lech out. The craziest cases want women so bad they become them. Meanwhile many of the pure specimens of the fairer sex are forced to flee and defect from their own womanhood out of fear of the lecherous animals that are men.
Men who like girly magazines are a subset of men, and altogynophiliacs are a subset of men who like girly magazines. The first subset is fairly large, the second very small. So when we say, under certain circumstances some men will become autogynophiliacs, we are saying something equivalent to, under certain circumstances some men will become alcoholics. The theory is not proven, but I’d say it is philosophically better than the official theory of a mismatch between body and soul. I don’t think anyone supposes that autogynophilia explains all transexual behavior, even all M>F transexual behavior. There’s also more than one thing at work on the M>F side of things.
I’d encourage you not to think in terms of “the fairer sex” and “the lecherous animals that are men.” Don’t just flip the binary and think that all women are vamps, but accept the reality that some females are as lecherous as the most lecherous males. Other women are chaste and modest, but so also are many men.
The chain of causation is actually pretty simple.
->I hate me
->Everyone else hates me
->I don’t like men
->They make me feel bad
->because I am an effeminate man, not a real man at all
->and maybe I was bullied
->or maybe I hate my father
->I like women
->(or, at least, I sexually desire women)
->(but I can’t admit that desire \= liking)
->If I were a woman I would “like”/not hate myself
->Genitally mutilating oneself does not and cannot turn one into a woman
->Self-hatred increases
->Suicide
Also one cannot underestimate the power of the spirit of fornication, which is the spirit of the age.
I think this is one trajectory, but not the only one. I wonder if the age of fornication may be passing away. Reported sex among young people is down. We seem to be moving from the age of a sexual act to the age of sexual identities. There is often little or no “sex” connected with “sexualities.”
I’d encourage you not to think in terms of “the fairer sex” and “the lecherous animals that are men.” Don’t just flip the binary and think that all women are vamps, but accept the reality that some females are as lecherous as the most lecherous males. Other women are chaste and modest, but so also are many men.
Thanks. I tried to make it clear that I see the autogynephilia model as assuming something of a binary woman good/desirable; man bad/lecherous frame. Not that I assume that.
The model seems to assume that women have “the goods” that all men want. There are healthy ways for men to go about getting “the goods” and there are unhealthy ways (autogynephilia). But it is nonetheless resolved that women are lovely and desirable while men simply desire and want.
Of course it’s true in some aspects, but in other very important aspects of reality it doesn’t make sense. Not theologically or even biologically.
So to try to summarize my clumsy speak for clarity’s sake. It doesn’t seem even generally true that men as a rule do the trans thing because they desire the feminine. It seems they do so at least as a rule because they do not recognize the goodness in how they were made male.
Here’s an analogy that illustrates my understanding of autogynophilia. All men naturally desire food, although some are gluttons, some are gourmets, and some desire food in a natural and healthy way. Now imagine a man who not only desired food, but also envied food for being desirable. He might start wearing mouthwatering scents, so that everywhere he went he was accompanied by the aroma of a sizzling steak on the grill. The Old Testament tells us that it is a sin to covet a desirable woman, but it seems to me a deeper sin to covet the desirability of a desirable woman. As I understand it, envy and covetousness are sins because the envious and covetous man rejects the gifts God actually gave him and says God should have given him different and better gifts. I think we should feel considerable pity for the envy and covetous of truly pitiful men and women. I can’t think too hardly about a man in a wheelchair who envies men who walk. But it is grotesque when a man gifted with manliness–in some cases superlative manliness–envies and covets the gift that God gave to women.
That’s a good analogy and I think I get it. But let me approach from another angle. I wonder whether you have in mind a different subset of women imitators than I do, perhaps the loudest, most active, and somewhat coming from a “leisure class”
The typical woman imitator I encounter is a pathetic looking creature who seems to have no idea what desirable feminine beauty is. He’s typically timid, with stringy hair and garish makeup and nail varnish. He’s usually 20 years old or younger and I encounter him working a minimum wage clerical job at the dollar store, or behind the fast food counter. He’s clearly terrified, and doesn’t strike me nearly so much as one who desires to possess something unnaturally as he does one who is running and hiding from something. It seems clear to me he is principally afraid of masculinity, but is clearly unskilled in how to hide himself from it by passing him off as a woman. If he is motivated by wanting to experience desirability in feminine fashion I think I can at least be forgiven for thinking it doesn’t appear to be that way.
I know the type you describe but see it as an escape into androgyny and not an appropriation of the feminine. I’m sure every individual’s story has its peculiarities, but the general cause seems to be a bad reaction to feminist propaganda. These are young men who swallowed the feminist myth of the patriarchy and are trying to escape judgment. I expect this is in many cases mixes with an inept attempt to make themselves interesting by being bizarre. I actually have a not-so-distant relative who first this bill: narcissistic, kind of boring, pickled in leftism. The outward presentation is unkempt androgyny and has no aspiration to feminine allure.
I wonder if the age of fornication may be passing away.
Whatever other implications this may bring on, its passing away would be a welcome thing. With few exceptions in this age, a man’s only currency is groveling and simping in an enslaved effort to “get some” of what “riches” women have to give. If he refuses this currency he is incomprehensible to most people. Truly a pornocracy…
As for M->F transes, I have a simple test for whether it’s autogynophilia or social status boost. Do they want to be known as women or as trans-women? Do they preface their thoughts with “As a woman…” or “As a trans-woman”? A guy who is turned on by the thought of being a woman will want to pass as a woman. A status climber will find some way to make sure you know he’s holier than XX-chromosome/uterus holders.
Another test might be, is he trying to make you horny or afraid.
I don’t think autogynophiliacs want to make men (other than themselves) horny.
It seems to be very much a case of what D.H. Lawrence called “sex in the head.” So they don’t expect to make men horny, but the make themselves horny by imagining they are making men horny.
Dylan/Lizzo 2024.
I’m still puzzled as to why our elites have chosen gender dysphoria/twinkhood as the line in the sand. One theory is the Dalrymple thesis: the purpose is not consensus but humiliation. Getting the bourgeois to accept the bizarre and irrational kink of 1% of the population fits this bill. But this implies a level of calculated evil I really don’t see. Our elite frankly seem more stupid than evil.
Some of this is just liberals’ insatiable desire to be liberators. I believe that every liberal deeply regrets that he was born too late to strike the manacles off the wrists of a negro slave, or even the heads off a king and queen. So they consul themselves with liberating increasingly marginal sets of social pariahs. Another part of this is that blue Americans mark themselves with status symbols that red Americans find disgusting or ridiculous. This actually goes both ways. In the eighteenth century men signaled their politics with a red or black cockade in their hatbands. A conservative wore a black cockade and may have hated what the red cockade stood for. But he was not disgusted by red cockades as such. Our political shibboleths are more like the shibboleth of the Old Testament. They are marks of membership that the enemy would find it very difficult to wear, and would certainly never wear by accident.
As Christianity stands against the rainbow Mafia it is becoming one of these costly signals. This distresses the liberal Christian, who responds by trying to dilute the message of Christianity. They fear and loathe the idea of Christianity becoming “tribal” or “political.”
The rightist Christians are pushing for biblical standards to be upheld within Christianity regardless of the fact that it will make Christianity into a costly signal. It will either be a costly signal or completely meaningless, depending on who wins this.
It is becoming a costly symbol, but the cost is in many cases inescapable because the distaste is natural. As in the Bible story, the best shibboleths are shibboleths the enemy cannot copy, whether craftily or accidentally.
Although they do insatiably desire to be liberators, they also don’t want to have to do actual work or embrace actual danger. There’s still plenty of slavery, for instance, to fight, but to fight it, you’d have to leave your cushy life in academia or nonprofits or publishing or HR…. To fight actual oppression of women, you’d have to go volunteer for a Christian agency helping women escape prostitution and how cringe would that be? Better to donate to the Third Wave Fund (look it up). They’re now basically down to making stuff up in order to protest it.
PS – an LGBTQ activist was recently complaining to me that a proposed law regulating drag, if enforced in its plain meaning, would require all women to wear dresses at all times they were out of their own homes. And my immediate but unspoken thought was I’d be delighted to burn my own collection of jeans if that would keep one girl from being raped in the restroom. But that’s just me. Given what I see of most people, both left and right, most of them wouldn’t give up anything to save their own kin, let alone a theoretical stranger. Anyway, giving up jeans seemed like such a minor price to pay … but LGBTQ guy expected me to be absolutely incensed by the very idea. He seemed mystified that I changed the subject. And here’s another troubling thing about that conversation — he does background checks for entry to a certain LGBTQ support group precisely in order to keep out “straight men in dresses.” They understand the problem. They don’t want to hang out with those creeps for a Zoom call, but they want all women to have to put up with them in the locker room!
I don’t think any of us know how many women might agree with me. I don’t think it’s sinful to wear slacks, necessarily, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near a hill to die on. If that’s what it takes to live in a sane culture, well, okay. I’m quite ready.
Most of us are just laggards in the sexual revolution, so there are a ton of women yelling about men in dresses while themselves wearing blue jeans. Nowadays more likely “yoga pants,” the wearing of which is for most women a humiliation ritual.
Hm. I won’t deny that most people are modernist, especially about sex, but as C.S. Lewis pointed out modesty in particular is defined more by local custom than by universal constraint. Sure, skirts are more traditional, and probably superior, but given the state of things nowadays can’t pants on a woman be considered modest?
Perhaps they are modest, but they are still and most certainly crossdressing.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this position. Women’s pants are not men’s pants. Heck, women’s t-shirts aren’t men’s t-shirts! Wouldn’t cross-dressing be, like, men’s slacks/jeans and shirts, or men’s suits?
They had to change the cut to fit the shape of women’s bodies, but women in the West did not wear pants until the twentieth century, and they did because they coveted the masculine power. Consider this passage from 100 years ago.
Pingback: Eschatological Polygyny | Σ Frame
Put-ler seems to be at least attempting to resist the western pornocracy. Am I the only nutter here who’s kinda-sorta rooting for the Rus on a moral level, not so much against their fellow Slavs but against the western pornocracy? Have I been fooled by the Rus? Notwithstanding that they’re eastern schismatics/heretics (apologies to our friend Joseph A.).
Yes, I know their abysmal social statistics (the usual response to those of us who don’t hate the Rus) but that’s not the point. Put-ler seems to be at least trying even if the whole thing is one big KGB LARP or whatever.
I think a fair number of Americans are silently rooting for Russia. But this is evident only on the internet. I have yet to see a Russian flag flying or a woman’s fingernails painted red and blue (I recently saw Ukrainian flag fingernails). The proxy war has become a proxy for our domestic culture war and everyone who hates the globo-homo GAE pornocracy is silently rooting for Russia.
Apparently, Cardinal Sarah (if they make him Pope, I will kiss the ring on his black hand with joy – zero sarcasm) wrote:
“In Russia, the Orthodox Church has to a great extent resumed its pre-1917 role as the moral foundation of society. This arouses political opposition, but also a deep hatred on the part of the post-Christian elites of the West, not only vis-à-vis Russia, but also against the Russian Orthodox Church and, by extension, against Orthodox Christianity itself. The overtly political attack that aims to pit Ukraine against the Russian Orthodox Church under the authority of Patriarch Cyril of Moscow is a dangerous, stupid provocation.”
I work for a big defense contractor so I have to listen to the pro-Uke, anti-Rus stuff every day because the self-licking ice cream cone that is the defense industry allows hundreds of thousands of contractor-employees to live an upper-middle-class lifestyle (I’d rather see that money go to you and Professor Bertonneau – God rest his soul). I’m about to the point where I am going to just tell them what I think about Russia and the West. Our government is now, explicitly anti Christian and a “force for evil” (remember the Navy tv commercials a decade or so ago about being “a force for good”?). We have a Russian (and a Chinese) flag at work – it’s common in intel agencies to display the opposing forces flag in the work area. Some harpy-woman took it down and it’s now stashed away. Before they fire me I plan to grab it.
Maybe they won’t fire me. As a U.S. citizen am I required to root for a particular foreign country against another foreign country?
I already pushed back against the tranny thing. A creepy looking guy transitioned into a creepy looking woman. They called us into a meeting to tell us not to call him “Mike” anymore. Everyone said “I don’t have a problem with it.” I just had had it. I said “I won’t do anything to start a spectacle but I DO have a problem with it. It’s loony and mental illness. If I have to call him a woman name I won’t use a name at all.” Well I didn’t get fired. People are timid sheep. Look at all the “me too-s” who popped up after Trump said illegal immigration from Mexico and Guatemala sucks. Someone’s gotta lead. I hate my job anyway – it makes me feel slimey – I’d like to do something that’s real work like my blue collar dad did. “Garbage Man” is a much more dignified and useful occupation than “Defense Contractor.”
“Have I been fooled by the Rus?”
Concerning social statistics, Putin’s accomplishments are clear when you look at a timeline. The 1990s were a disaster for Russians; millions died owing to the post-Soviet transition/experience. Putin has helped reverse that trend. Consider the various stats. available on this site: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/fertility-rate. From 1999 to 2014 (Maidan era), you see many positive developments. Putin did not accomplish this alone; there are many forces for good in Russia, but having those in power’s support goes a long way (that “iron triangle” rings true).
“not so much against their fellow Slavs”
I’m not a Duginite (I’m suspicious of anyone who talks like a Hegelian), but I’m fond of his characterization of the SMO: “Russia is not at war with Ukraine; it is driving the devil out of Ukraine; this is a geopolitical exorcism.” I won’t exculpate Ukrainians (J. de M.: “each people has the government it deserves”), but they’re clearly the chief victims of the wicked vampires who have taken over their state. If the folly of our leaders ever leads to the senseless slaughtering of Christian boys from the American Midwest, I’d feel similarly. Oh, wait, that’s not a hypothetical. Rather, it’s pretty much the last 30 years of American foreign policy. And each people has the government it deserves.
Those statistics are very helpful. The naysayers keep pointing out Russia’s bad stats WRT abortion, drug use, etc. and (dishonestly IMO) saying that we are painting a picture of Russia as a land of devout, reactionary Christians. In reality, I am just glad that Putin seems to be TRYING. Our leaders are Satanic. Even if it’s for reasons of personal ego – he’s the neo-Csar or whatever. The naysayers miss the point with their red herring. The stats you point out help my argument even more. “Geopolitical exorcism” I love it.
Cameron, you summed it up with “people are timid sheep”. What is it that makes Americans afraid of their own shadows? Is it the desire to become part of the group of immigrants that came to this country? Or is it the fear of the Federal gubmint ruining their lives and the lives of their families? Americans are not to be trusted, at all.
I think your last sentence nails it. Supposedly conservative institutions cannot be trusted to back a conservative individual who gets in trouble for acting otherwise than as a timid sheep. Conservative politicians, prelates, celebrities–forget it. Most of the conservative hoi polloi act on the principle, “no friends to the right.”