Sins of the Fathers

Here’s one upshot of the Anunnaki theory.

The first point is that it was not the heavenly Father but Enlil, battling against Marduk, who actually nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, and other cities besides.

The second point is to understand why it does not belong to the heavenly Father to devastate cities, such as by miraculously materializing a bomb in the air above them, why it is ungodly for Him to do so, why His nature does not permit Him to commit atrocities like this.

This question has been obscured by lack of information: if the Old Testament is the word of God, and the Israelite Lord is not Enlil but the Father of All Beginning, then we have no choice but to attribute waging nuclear and biological warfare with “weapons of terror” to Him. This is the beginning of the mountain of ugly and fake theology: the Sodomites must have been evil, and God hated their guts, and He took righteous revenge on the cocksuckers, glory be to God.

This is yet another way to make atheists of decent people. Finally, we are freed from the necessity to impute Enlil’s barbarity to the Almighty Father, the Source of all existence, goodness personified.

The Anunnaki poisoned our religion for millennia, possibly the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. They treated us badly. Zecharia Sitchin, Tellinger, all these guys are our heroic liberators and deserve all the praise we can bestow on them.

Children of the Gods

Michael Tellinger’s “Slave Species of God” is one of those very rare foundation-exploding books. I agree with him that it is unhelpful to dismiss the records of ancient civilizations as hallucinations of stupid and gullible savages. Most of the book is a prelude to Chapter 16 called “Story of Humankind” which is one of the most astonishing and marvelous stories you’ll ever read. And it’s apparently all true, over 400,000 years of history told in loving, lucid, and coherent detail! Among other things, the book forces a complete reevaluation of most major religions. E.g., it is permissible to suggest that though God the Father has rested from creating the universe, He still does an occasional miracle to remind us idiots that He lives. But the Source of all existence does not rain nuclear weapons on cities as the Anunnaki did on Sodom and Gomorrah. Could it have been angels? This is outrageous. Angels are incorporeal. They live in heaven. If you sin, an angel can give you an evil dream in which you suffer. An angel will not, in response to your sin, wipe out the town you live in. The Anunnaki theory is supported by evidence and requires no fantastic theological somersaults to explain, e.g., Genesis is a very incomplete, garbled, and epicly misunderstood version of Anunnaki adventures fully described in the Sumerian scriptures. At the same time, I do not buy his twisted 4D chess discussion of Jesus in Chapter 15, indeed this is a case of Tellinger having a hammer and seeing everything as a nail. There is no trace in Jesus of Enlil or Marduk. (Of course, as a Christian, I may be biased.) Still, the problem of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments must now be answered anew.

Here’s a bit of the story: the Anunnaki found the work of mining gold on Earth to save Nibiru very hard. To quell the discontent, Enki announced: “A primitive worker shall be created” by combining the DNA of Homo erectus and their own. “Our command will he understand… Our tools he will handle… To the Anunnaki in the Abzu relief shall come.” Enlil objected to Enki’s human project: “Creation in the hands of the Father of All Beginning alone is held.” There is no doubt the Anunnaki knew theology. There was a moral debate among them but finally the affair was greenlit. So here we are: bastard children of God, conceived in Enki’s perverse recklessness (and Enki was the nice one), made in the Anunnaki’s debased image and likeness, and born to be slaves. A bad beginning. But such is life.

Mars was an important outpost for the Anunnaki in shipping gold from Earth to Nibiru because of its lower gravity and thinner atmosphere. After Mars’ atmosphere was harmed as a result of a celestial disaster when Nibiru came close and disturbed the asteroid belt, they investigated the moon as another waypoint. Here’s what Enki recorded while on the moon: “The Earth like a globe in the void by nothing is hanging… Are you not by the celestial dance of Earth and Moon and Sun enchanted?… With our instruments we can scan the distant heavens… The handiwork of the Creator of All in this solitude we can admire.” These guys were no gods, but no atheists, either.

Maybe the most ironic thing about this is that “smart” people have denied that Genesis is a literal historical account and proposed all manner of tricky theological interpretations of it. (I admit I once had one myself.) In fact, as Tellinger makes clear, Genesis is to be taken quite literally, with the missing context now supplied, and has no theological significance as it gives us no information whatsoever about the Father of All Beginning, or the Son for that matter.

When I started reading this book, I was hoping to be entertained. By the end, I was (almost) convinced. This book is essential reading for everyone, and I recommend it.

Is Dancing Gay?

It is true that gays, lesbians, and transgenders have little in common with each other, but their political alliance has become a fearsome juggernaut. LGBT stuff is everywhere in public conversation, and it is now important to figure it out. There is more to it than the crude and stupid propaganda that homosexuality is love, light, and freedom, that “love is love,” or that “trans women are women.” I was hesitant about doing research in this area because I thought it would be disgusting (who wants to read about anal sex?), but in fact I found it easy to maintain scientific detachment.

Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen is an enlightening book dealing with gender and homosexuality.

In Chapter 4 he recounts a study he did on why so many male dancers, such as ballet dancers, were gay. The rough argument he gives is “Because dancing is feminine, and gay men tend to be feminine.”

This puzzles me. Because it seems clear that dancing as such is not feminine at all. Professional dancing requires athleticism. Not essentially feminine. It requires mastery of one’s body. It takes great self-discipline and long practice. Men can dance with women which is romantic, and if one is a good dancer, he can charm women very efficiently. I can sort of see why ballet seems suspicious what with the tutus and all, but ballroom dancing, swing, flamenco? And even for ballet, for example, the martial arts actor Jean-Claude Van Damme, a perfectly straight guy, took up ballet of which he remarked that it “is an art, but it’s also one of the most difficult sports. If you can survive a ballet workout, you can survive a workout in any other sport.” What’s feminine about succeeding at it?

There is a further even more serious problem. Bailey seems to imply that art as such attracts gays. But it is typically the Artisan temperament that excels at such pursuits. In mapping onto beauty, this is the highest temperament of all, manifesting the passionate fiery masculine creative yang, a power that both dominates yin and generates an external effect. Both are imitations of the divine outpouring. The universe is the Almighty Father’s art, and He is not a homosexual. His (masculine) power gives shape to (feminine) matter, and begets a Son, and we humans are His adopted children. Gays do not reproduce. What gives?

Going back to ballet, there is a Simpsons episode on the subject. Bart is late to sign up for sports in school and is forced to take up ballet. He says, “Dancing is for girls.” And again, “I think ballet is for sissies,” at which point his instructor laughs derisively and replies, “Ballet is for the strong, the fierce, the determined. But for the sissies? Never!” You see what I am saying? There is nothing inherent in ballet that signifies that the male dancer is submissive or cowardly or ignoble or perverse. On the contrary, it’s for those with “fire in the belly.”

What may be feminine is subtlety and complexity of feeling, but while art may seek to evoke feelings, by itself it is external manifestation of physical technique and virtuosity which is on the contrary a masculine ideal.

Is it that dancing is not a competitive sport? In the first place, it often is. And competition can occur behind the scenes as the best dancers get the best opportunities to perform and enjoy higher incomes.

Is it that dancing is “delicate”? But which sophisticated activity isn’t? Philosophers “dance around” with their arguments as if fencing, that does not mean that philosophy is a feminine discipline. Being a stupid, rough, crude, unpolished brute like some gorilla is not what makes one a man.

Is it that dancing is traditionally how women entertained men? Think of veiled dancing girls performing for an Eastern caliph, or twirking for blacks, or lap dancing in a strip club. This is more plausible, but still, dancing as a career choice, the sort you see in theaters, appeals more to intellectual aesthetic sense than to sexual desire. And again women too can appreciate a man who dances.

Is it that dancing is a vanity? “Oh look at me, I am floating about to and fro happy as a clam, I am so pretty, look at how pretty I am.” If people, perhaps unconsciously, associate art, especially acting, with vanity, this may explain why it is perceived as unmasculine. But vanity is an individual vice and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is unhelpful to condemn all artists like this.

Here’s an anecdote: when I was boy in the Soviet Union, I once saw a picture of Van Damme, whom I already mentioned, in some newspaper. I was astonished by how handsome he looked. It was almost a revelation. And the reason was that Soviet Russia had no entertainment and hence no celebrities and so no attractive figures in the public eye, male or female. I mean, who were we looking at, Brezhnev? Socialism is profoundly ugly. All good art uplifts the soul, and an actor’s good looks serve a social purpose which is cultivation of beauty, and so caring about appearance need not be vain.

Still, if vanity belongs to women, and gays tend to be feminine, this may draw some of them into these lines of work.

Here’s my hypothesis. The crucial aspect of artistic creativity is freedom from restraint. If Rationals study the law, Artisans break it, in a good sense. (Wicked criminals are the opposite of Artisans.) So this involves spontaneous unbounded self-expression. Becoming good at an art is a grueling task that takes self-control, but ultimately the performance itself requires the complete shedding of self-control, a liberation from all inhibitions and hang-ups. An artist must exhibit effortless graceful self-forgetful power.

Insofar as Artisans seek to be artistic, audacious, and adaptable, it is, in short, a chaotic endeavor, though again creative chaos is metaphysically the highest possible archetype.

But guess what, heterosexual men are by their nature seriously lawbound. Courting, marriage, taking care of family, monogamy and faithfulness, division of domestic labor are remarkably orderly, indeed “bourgeois,” endeavors that require submission to rules and sacrifices of personal ambitions. Many may be able to combine this with remarkable creativity. But gays may have a competitive advantage here by virtue of not being burdened by laws of sexual morality.

Now on the one hand, homosexuality is a vice and hence hardly metaphysically high. Indeed, I would classify it as destructive chaos. But humans are complicated. For some this freedom may lead to highly creative achievements.

And there is another reason. Self-expression can be a very good thing, but if it’s bad it can turn into a kind of shameless, almost demonic, exhibitionism intended in part to “shock to bourgeoisie.” Straight men might be less inclined to do the latter, but in so doing also be less capable of the former.

Finally, insofar as gay men are more feminine, their sexuality is more diffuse, receptive, and undirected. For an image, picture a woman writhing on the bed crazed with lust, moaning to no one in particular, “Fuck me, fuck me!” This absence of self-control, perhaps shameful, can also assist gays in their vocations.

Two Hearts

Let’s delve a little deeper into soul gender. I stated that the soul gender is determined by the intellect. This must now be amended to the effect that the intellect is always joined with the will, and it is ultimately the (rational) will that sets gender.

The problem is how to accommodate the widely held idea that one can incarnate as either sex. Here’s how I believe it should be done.

There are two forms of love in the heart in every soul: masculine love and feminine love. I stand by my assertion that God never fails, and indeed if the soul incarnates in a male, the masculine love is turned on, and mutatis mutandis for a female, and this is done infallibly. Love is a form of light, but these two are not homogenous and do not mix.

The purpose of each incarnation is to grow one’s charity in either form. At death one’s soul gender in heaven in determined by the preponderance of masculine or feminine love. So it is possible to have the following scenario: one’s masculine love is very strong compared to one’s feminine love, then one incarnates as a woman and one’s feminine love increases during this life, but not enough to overshadow the masculine love. Then upon death and full integration of the mind, one’s soul gender in heaven will still be male.

Another reason for reincarnation that I have not yet mentioned is that heaven features perfect harmony between the blessed and God. But if Smith murdered Jones in this life, and they both end up in heaven, harmony may prove elusive, and mere forgiveness is not enough. Smith’s debt must be worked off. This can only be attempted in other incarnations.

Here is a symbol of love between a man and a woman.

The left line is the masculine love, going up to heaven to God the Father. The right is the feminine love, going down to “Mother Earth.” Falling in love is having your inactive love filled with the love of your partner, it’s literal interpenetration of souls, union and mutual indwelling. And this completeness brings ecstasy and zeal.

In the middle there is complementarity. I mention how the male soul goes on heroic quests to win the heart of the princess. So where there is valiant action on one side, there is waiting and longing on the other; where there is burning ambition, there is welcoming peace; where there is harsh competition, there is acceptance; where there is victory, there is surrender; where there is power, there is abdication; where there is danger in the darkness of evil, there is safety of home; where there is glory, there is humility.

Both loves are of course erotic toward each other; the masculine love is in addition fatherly, the feminine love, motherly. They cooperate in nontrivial ways to bring up their children well.

But here’s the kicker: even if somehow a man’s feminine love is activated, which God can do but never does, it does not produce homosexuality, gender dysphoria (if there is such a thing), hatred of one’s body, or a desire to bear children. One is never actually born in the wrong body, and even if, per impossibile, one were, that would not be the cause of the present trans mania.

Christian Karma

Note that cumulative charity through incarnations is simply a Western, and Christian, interpretation of karma. Every life is then a dangerous adventure in which one grow in charity through righteousness and grace, or lose charity through wicked thoughts, words, or deeds.

The singular importance of this theological virtue is noted by St. Thomas: “Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified.” (ST: I, 12, 6)

As I mention in my Secrets of Metaethics, there are three kinds of light: 1st-level physical light, 2nd-level spiritual light of the chakras, and 3rd-level divine light. It belongs to the soul on the 2nd level to, through grace, acquire the 3rd-level divine light. (Though it is more accurate to say that this light acquires you.) Faith is such light in the intellect, charity in the will, and hope in power.

So to summarize, the lower 5 chakras develop naturally during pregnancy; the intellect which is the higher 2 chakras descends from heaven and completes the soul some time around quickening, though it is wiped clean and loses all memories upon that event; charity accumulates in the heart from one incarnation to the next. Of course, a little child cannot be said to have charity understood as explicit rational friendship with God. So we must contend that the holy light exists in the will at first in a latent form and later bursts forth, igniting at the appropriate time in the right conditions.

It is hard to see why Christianity has denied a doctrine so convenient.

Indeed, reincarnation solves a number of perplexing problems. One is no longer forced to postulate either the Limbo of the Fathers or of the Children which are little more than desperate expedients. Neither Abraham nor Socrates were hopeless cases. Fully ensouled babies who are aborted in heaven recover their intellects and face neither increase nor diminution of their charity.

There are three not two states in life: corrupted nature, pure nature, and grace. (The fourth state, glory, is in heaven only.) In Christianity, the wicked may well suffer serious punishment, the graced will see God, but what happens to the naturally righteous of whom there have been billions? It is madness to consign them to hell, indeed no better doctrine for making atheists exists. So will they enjoy natural happiness without the vision of God? But that’s not God’s MO at all. He does not need mere humans, or even angels, He wants sons who share to some extent His 3rd-grade nature (that is, consisting of 3 levels). Reincarnation allows these people to try again.

It grants greater mercy to the wicked. Even if you lost some charity due to sin in one life, you may be able to recover it in another.

It makes more sense of the distinction between Immediate Judgement after death and Last Judgment at the end of the world. One distinction is that the latter includes all the remote consequences of one’s actions in a single life. But it is unclear how that can affect the final happiness if one is in no way responsible for what happens thousands of years after his death and that any influence one might have had on the future is intertwined with countless other factors. Reincarnation gives rise to a more significant distinction which is that Last Judgment is one that tallies up all your lives.

I’m sure this list can be extended. Reincarnation seems like the height of common sense to me.

Essence of Soul Gender

An objection to my thesis on gender — that biological sex, spiritual sexual identity or soul gender, and masculinity vs. femininity — are three distinctions and that sex always matches gender is simply to ask what makes a soul male or female.

We know what makes a body male or female, and we can to some extent agree on which qualities are masculine and which feminine, but what makes one spiritually male or female?

For example, sexual attraction is not a marker for gender. Homosexuality can be seen as effeminate but a gay man is not a “girl inside.” A “butch lesbian” is not particularly attractive (to straight men) but she’s not “really” a boy.

Love of God does not make gender because an ungraced person is still spiritually well-defined and because both men and women can receive divine grace. Indeed, Mary the Mother of God is the queen of heaven.

Being better than average at spatial reasoning or verbal ability has little to do with gender and is simply part of the masculinity / femininity spectrum.

Keirseyan temperament, though Guardians and Rationals are yin and Idealists and Artisans, yang, is not it because it is simply one of the four active chakras (orange, yellow, green, or blue) empowered, while gender is determined by the intellect. And of course, both men and women can be of any temperament.

Rather, the essence of the male soul is to be a holy warrior against evil. It is for his spirit to hunger and thirst and embark upon a heroic quest to slay the dragon in the name of love, honor, and glory. It is to take his light, journey into the heart of darkness, and emerge victorious. This quest can be many things, it can be big or small, it can fit the preoccupations of any temperament. It can often be forgotten in the travails of daily life, but no man is finally immune to its claims.

A perceptive and funny article on Babylon Bee illustrates the point perfectly:

Wife Asks You To Get Her A Water, Nail Clippers, And Magical Feather From Mythical Bird Atop Fire Mountain ‘As Long As You’re Up’

Local woman Sabrina McKenzie asked her husband to please go on an epic quest of mythologic proportions, since he was already up anyways to go to the bathroom.

“Babe, since you’re up already,” began Mrs. McKenzie, as her husband froze in fear. “Can you grab me a glass of water? Oh, and while you’re at it, follow this ancient map across many leagues to Fire Mountain, climb the treacherous peak, and retrieve a feather from the Hawk of Destiny, of which the old legends speak?”

A woman who would foolishly undertake such a quest would literally trans herself, disfigure her own soul, just as other fools today mutilate their bodies. Likewise, a man bound to the nursery is a corrupted soul.

The female soul is ultimately fulfilled in family and children and unconditional compassion for them. These are a woman’s highest callings.

Just as the sex of the body is unexpressed until puberty, so soul gender is also unexpressed until later in life. As heterosexual sex is an expression of a man’s bodily sex, so a heroic romantic quest is an expression of his soul gender. And as some men are physical eunuchs uninterested in or incapable of sex, so some others are spiritual eunuchs, dismissing any quests in their lives.

Who’s Obsessed?

Libertarianism is not a particular random obsession of some people. It is not true that, as Twitter says, liberals are obsessed with the “individual,” and conservatives are obsessed with “civilization,” and libertarians with the state.

Libertarianism is a solution to political philosophy which is a subset of ethics that deals with proper and improper uses of violence in human life. It answers the question, “How do we best beat each other up — or, normally, not as the case may be?”

This answer impinges on individual rights, civilizational success, and state powers alike.

Gender Realities, Cont.

Here’s how the whole thing works: at conception the chakras are fused into an undifferentiated ball of white light which separates into its flower spectrum as time goes on. But only the active chakras thus develop naturally during gestation; the intellect is a direct divine infusion. The intellect is detached from its foundation in heaven and thrust into the body uniting it with the rest of the soul. Crucially, the will, the heart of man, his ultimate unity, the reservoir of divine light, not to be confused with the green chakra, is merged from the soul in heaven into the new soul. This allows progress in charity — the ultimate point of the whole human project — to continue throughout multiple lives.

It may be objected to the central claim of my post that the soul gender is determined not by the intellect (indigo – violet chakras) but by the lower 5 active chakras (red through blue).

This makes it possible for animal souls to be gendered too. And it also may make more sense of reincarnation where genders are switched. A relative of mine who has the Sight tells me that in a previous life she was a male warrior. Make what you will of it.

This allows transgenderism at least theoretically because this time it is nature that determines both the sex of the body and gender of the soul (as opposed to God determining gender in my case), and who knows, maybe some weird radiation or chemicals or what not can mess the whole thing up.

However, on balance I reject this opinion. First, as I said, angels are gendered but have no active chakras at all. So it is their intellects that are decisive.

Second, what is the point of gendering animal souls which are corruptible? Bodies need to be sexed for reproduction, and the masculinity-femininity spectrum is needed for proper behavior such as mating, fighting, protecting offspring. But why exalt the soul by marking it this way which does not deserve it? So according to this reasoning, a biologically male gorilla is very masculine but is spiritually neuter.

Third, reincarnation gender-switching may be possible on my theory too, except that it has to take place explicitly in heaven.

Fourth, upon death the chakras unite back into a fully developed ball of light. The heavenly inhabitants shine like the sun, they do not display the rainbow. This is the Hegelian dialectic rightly understood: primitive whole into a complex structure into a sophisticated whole. (No, society does not reach communism after dying during capitalism.) Nevertheless, the active chakras are bound up with the body and are basically disabled in a separated soul — that’s why for full humanity there must ultimately be a resurrection. So it’s hard to see how they can be the source of gender, or at least how the intellect can query the lower chakras to assure itself of its proper gender.

So the theory originally proposed is maintained.

Holy Libertarianism

It is a common mistake that libertarianism entails libertinism or degeneracy or moral decay.

Libertarianism proper is a political doctrine that champions private property, entrepreneurial freedom, international peace, economic progress, and individual responsibility.

Consider the most primal form of private property, self-ownership. If you own yourself, you have a right to do various things with yourself. For example, you have a definite right to build up your body. To become healthy, strong, fit, maybe an athlete or bodybuilder. You have a right to acquire moral virtues, to develop your mind, to wise up, to pick up skills and become powerful, competent, and proficient at what you do. You have a right to accept divine grace and become friends with God and devote your life to service of fellow man.

But just as you have a right to move up, to ascend toward the light, you by necessity must have a concomitant right to move down, to descend into darkness. You have a right to become a fat slob who sits at home devouring Oreos and playing video games. You have a right to get tattoos, a nose ring, and even perhaps to lop off your genitals. You have a right to acquire vices and become a lazy, angry, gluttonous fool. You have a right to become an incompetent loser. You have a right not only to refuse grace but even to profess atheism. You have a right, instead of serving humanity, to live a pointless, ineffectual life of quiet desperation.

There are of course subtleties and complications. One obvious limitation concerns minors who are by nature “under the rod.” Libertarians are in no way committed to letting anyone trans his kids, for example. Another regards madness. Libertarianism is for rational animals, and society has to deal with those who are not. But for example if you want to argue that transgenderism is a form of madness that requires involuntary commitment and treatment, then there has to be a general consensus in society of doctors, legislators, and general public about it because it’s a big deal to label a person insane and lock him up. Another issue is risky entertainments: do people have a right to skydive or climb mountains or do cocaine or drink raw milk? Self-ownership says yes, but I can see how some might object.

Libertarians favor privatization everywhere it is feasible. But not everything can be privatized. Public properties like roads should be managed in the interests of the taxpayers, in a utilitarian manner, i.e., according to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. Far from tolerating drug-addicted homeless defecating on the streets, libertarians counsel buying these guys a one-way plane ticket to Siberia.

Now of course we don’t want people to ruin their lives, and we want to do all we can to help each other succeed. But the libertarian insight is that the state is a deeply evil, compromised institution, incapable of guiding people up. The government is given keys to the hell-dungeons where the wicked writhe in pain. It is therefore a demonic entity established to punish and torment evildoers, and it is legitimate for that purpose. But it is a completely inappropriate means to discouraging libertinism, degeneracy, or moral decay.

Hence libertarianism not only does not entail libertinism, not only does not promote libertinism, but by (1) granting each person (a) the full rewards of success in life and subjecting him to (b) the full penalties from failure in life and (2) limiting government mostly to punishing violent crimes, actively encourages civilization on the social level and individual maturation and moral development on the individual level. It insists, and rightly so, that the state is a deadly enemy of both.

Gender Realities

In regard to sex and gender, there are three distinctions.

First is biological sex. It’s a binary, male and female. Any rare intersex condition is a genetic defect, an unfortunate corruption of nature. There is sperm, and there is egg, and the two types of bodies that generate them, and that’s it.

Second, there is spiritual sexual identity. There is definitely such a thing. When you die, your soul does not become neuter. Near-death experiencers do not report losing their idea of what gender they were in heaven or demanding to be addressed as “they/them” by the Being of Light. Angels are not neuter despite being incorporeal. I do not have to examine my body right now, and did not even when I was a little boy, to know with full certainty that I am male.

This soul gender is also binary. And here’s the crucial philosophical part. Spiritual gender is separate from biological sex, these are two quantitatively different things. But it is not distinct from biological sex, the two are qualitatively identical. The reason is that human ensoulment occurs in two ways: the rational part is either created by God or descends from heaven in a (re)incarnation into the body chosen by God. Now nature as it is in the world is partially corrupt and fails at least occasionally. Every manner of birth defect, sickness, vice occurs from time to time. But a direct act of God does not fail because God is good and fully competent. Hence it is impossible for a soul to be put into the “wrong body.” Hence no male soul is ever implanted into the body of a female or vice versa.

This does not imply that “gender dysphoria” is impossible. A bodily ailment or spiritual malady or a disharmony between soul and body can theoretically generate it. But even then it would cause a false perception of oneself, of what one truly is, a flaw in self-knowledge, to be treated with meditation or psychological therapy or prayer, not puberty blockers or surgery which merely add the disfigurement of the body to the intellectual error.

Finally, there’s masculinity and femininity in body and personality. This is a spectrum. To use Steve Sailer’s examples, Michael Jordan was not 100% masculine, and Sophia Loren was not 100% feminine. There is a vast variety of features and traits that admit variation in this gamut. Yet regardless of where you fall on it, you are either physically and spiritually male or physically and spiritually female.

Neither sex nor gender is a social construct. Masculinity and femininity to some extent are but only partially so, there are standards that are both universal and objective. It follows that transgenderism is a delusion or lie, transgender people do no exist. The entire movement is an aberration, pronouns are fantasies, she-males are autogynephilic pervs, and “trans children” are infected with a social contagion that spreads rapidly due to social media that must at all costs be suppressed.