The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Forum
A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights

Kentucky governor Matt Bevin said last week that he hopes the Kentucky legislature won’t consider a transgender-bathroom bill in the upcoming legislative session; according to Bevin, “the last thing we need is more government rules.” He’s absolutely right, and I think it’s worth offering a conservative defense of transgender rights — which ought to be a conservative issue.

On the American political spectrum, conservatism is the mind-your-own-business ideology. I know smoking is unhealthy, but I enjoy smoking, and my health is none of your business. I know motorcycles can be dangerous, but I like the wind in my hair; whether or not I wear a helmet is none of your business. I realize that fireworks can blow up before they’re supposed to, but they’re fun and my fingers are none of your business. Don’t tell me what sort of car to drive, or what kind of light bulb I can buy, or what kind of milk I can drink, or how to raise my kids.

There’s a reason, when push comes to shove, most libertarians vote Republican. The Republican party is — more often than not, and should invariably be — the party of individual liberty. So conservatives have to ask, is it a good idea to empower the government to start lifting up people’s skirts?

The response, from many conservatives, is that it’s not a question of interfering with personal freedom — the freedom to live one’s own life however he’d like — but of preserving personal freedom — that is, the freedom to go to the bathroom among only people of the same biological sex. Allowing mixed-biological-sex bathrooms risks making adults uncomfortable, and risks opening the door to child predators, or so the argument goes. I’m afraid neither of those positions strikes me as well thought-out. Certainly not from a conservative point of view.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. National Review. National Review. I remember the National Review. That was the rag that did everything it could to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States.

    Please forgive me if I ignore this article and everything else they ever publish. Enemy of the American People. Guess where the National Review is going? Right into history’s dustbin, where they belong.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @antipater_1
    Next week, National Review will present the Conservative case for child molestation.
    , @Colleen Pater
    "On the American political spectrum, conservatism is the mind-your-own-business ideology."
    Actually, that was the liber-tarian philosophy. Conservatism is sort of the opposite.Conservatives are supposed to understand barbarism is the natural state of human affairs, civilization is rare and fragile. Liberty is therefore sustainable only in limited amounts, to the extent it does not lead to the dissolution of order. Democracy was a radical departure from conservatism,the founders of the US naively thought they could manage it by reserving the vote to adult males of property who would understand, not libertarianism but conservatism. who would understand the importance of order, authority, hierarchy,tradition, the known over the experimental, the weakness of human nature. Unfortunately the founders were not very good at conservative they were radical revolutionaries and in no time were off exporting their revolution to france and elsewhere.They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth has the so called right always wondering why the left can so effectively use the American tradition and Christianity against them, the answer is christianity and american ism are radically leftist ideas
    , @TheJester
    William F. Buckley and the National Review and were always Anglophilic (.. or, did I mean Anglophalic?). I'm wondering if that included the British establishment's long-standing disposition for homosexuality. If so, it it not surprising that the National Review and the British establishment they worship are both ecstatic about the recent liberal elevation of the homosexual lifestyle from a social aberration to a venerable and preferred way of life. Come on! Rather than forcing them to "hide in the closet", people are now worshipping homosexual fetishes and idiosyncrasies.

    The National Review apparently knows which side of history it's on -- what's important to them in social and political debates -- and it's acting accordingly!
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Next up, the conservative defense of feminism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/forum/a-conservative-defense-of-transgender-rights/#comment-1704987
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I’m also ignorning this article and simply chalking it up to the ongoing cuckservative nature of National Review. Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?

    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    They are conserving their jobs as cathedral priests
    , @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?"

    Individual liberty.
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The only thing to do when they tell you about National Review is take example from Brimelow’s stoic acceptance: Conservatism has been bought. Let’s roll up our sleeves and make a political right movement again.

  4. This is not your father’s NR, Chris Buckley. Oh yeah, purged even the Old Man while he still had his last literary legs, after he caught on to the Iraq War Dupe. Gone over to the Dark Side, greed, war, and Trotsky’s Neocons. The son Frum the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s liberal icon, returned to his roots.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Well wasn't National Review a CIA propaganda mouthpiece when Buckley was running it? Why should anybody have anymore respect for what they write now?
  5. @Kyle McKenna
    National Review. National Review. I remember the National Review. That was the rag that did everything it could to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States.

    Please forgive me if I ignore this article and everything else they ever publish. Enemy of the American People. Guess where the National Review is going? Right into history's dustbin, where they belong.

    Next week, National Review will present the Conservative case for child molestation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Because National Review sold out to a non-Christian group.
    America is now under the spell of that non-Christian group.
    This is America today - we are a bunch of cowards led around by ... Jews.
    There, I said it.
  6. Mr. Gelernter’s error: A lot of situations are “communicative” and in these situations both parties must have a say. He may be free to smoke but he mustn’t blow his smoke into another man’s face – or the other man has a right to defend himself.
    But in a way this is a classical error – the error of promoting the “rights” of the immigrating (Jewish/transgender) individual to be unconditionally accepted/included in every kind of association; at the cost of other people’s freedom of association (which includes the freedom to not associate).

  7. @Kyle McKenna
    National Review. National Review. I remember the National Review. That was the rag that did everything it could to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States.

    Please forgive me if I ignore this article and everything else they ever publish. Enemy of the American People. Guess where the National Review is going? Right into history's dustbin, where they belong.

    “On the American political spectrum, conservatism is the mind-your-own-business ideology.”
    Actually, that was the liber-tarian philosophy. Conservatism is sort of the opposite.Conservatives are supposed to understand barbarism is the natural state of human affairs, civilization is rare and fragile. Liberty is therefore sustainable only in limited amounts, to the extent it does not lead to the dissolution of order. Democracy was a radical departure from conservatism,the founders of the US naively thought they could manage it by reserving the vote to adult males of property who would understand, not libertarianism but conservatism. who would understand the importance of order, authority, hierarchy,tradition, the known over the experimental, the weakness of human nature. Unfortunately the founders were not very good at conservative they were radical revolutionaries and in no time were off exporting their revolution to france and elsewhere.They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth has the so called right always wondering why the left can so effectively use the American tradition and Christianity against them, the answer is christianity and american ism are radically leftist ideas

    • Replies: @Stonehands

    .They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth...
     
    The Jesus who proclaimed that drunks, userers, fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals were in error?
    The one who proclaimed " Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish.....?"

    A leftist?

    Christ was rejected by the Jews because he wasn't their political savior from the Romans.


    Perhaps you meant Jesus of Angleton the former CIA spook.
    , @In Defence of Liberty
    "Christianity is a leftist idea?" You're an idiot! Read the Bible! Maybe this is the answer to the lifelong question; How Dumb Can You Get?!
  8. @Diversity Heretic
    I'm also ignorning this article and simply chalking it up to the ongoing cuckservative nature of National Review. Isn't this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?

    They are conserving their jobs as cathedral priests

  9. What makes this funny for me is that I left a comment on National Review (before they went into censorship mode by using Facebook comments) and I said National Review will one day declare that Transgenderism is a conservative value. As expected all the cucks denounced me as being a crazed troll, the only thing I was wrong about was how much sooner their endorsement has arrived.

  10. It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

    American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.

    No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

    Robert Lewis Dabney on Conservatism, 1897

  11. If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

    Samuel Adams

  12. Not sure what Gelernter is getting at here. Transgender bathrooms, like smoking or whether to welcome “refugees,” is an issue best left up to businesses and property owners. These are areas in which both cultural conservatives and SJW’s love to tell others what to do. A pox on both those houses!

  13. @Kyle McKenna
    National Review. National Review. I remember the National Review. That was the rag that did everything it could to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States.

    Please forgive me if I ignore this article and everything else they ever publish. Enemy of the American People. Guess where the National Review is going? Right into history's dustbin, where they belong.

    William F. Buckley and the National Review and were always Anglophilic (.. or, did I mean Anglophalic?). I’m wondering if that included the British establishment’s long-standing disposition for homosexuality. If so, it it not surprising that the National Review and the British establishment they worship are both ecstatic about the recent liberal elevation of the homosexual lifestyle from a social aberration to a venerable and preferred way of life. Come on! Rather than forcing them to “hide in the closet”, people are now worshipping homosexual fetishes and idiosyncrasies.

    The National Review apparently knows which side of history it’s on — what’s important to them in social and political debates — and it’s acting accordingly!

  14. It is a short ark of descent once one accepts crimes against art, one quickly moves to crimes against nature, both of which are re-valued as virtues rather than portents of an imminent destruction.

    Looking forward to reading the conservative case for wife swapping. It goes with the territory, no?

    P.S. I’m sure they just ran the article for purposes of attention-seeking. Pretty soon, I’m sure they will be attacked by Morton Downyey’s Nazi skin-heads in the men’s room of an airport over their adopted babies.

    • Replies: @L. Beau Macaroni
    What's next? I suspect it will be one of these three:

    1. The conservative case for gun control

    2. The conservative case for the elimination of white people

    3. The conservative case for NAMBLA-style pederasty

    Okay, who wants to make book? I've got $10 burning a hole in my pocket.
  15. @Diversity Heretic
    I'm also ignorning this article and simply chalking it up to the ongoing cuckservative nature of National Review. Isn't this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?

    “Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?”

    Individual liberty.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    As one other poster has noted, that's libertarianism, not conservatism. There's a difference. A society so bereft of ordinary social controls that people turn to the legislature and the police to enforce toilet usage is probably unworthy of being conserved.
    , @neutral
    There is no better sign that somebody is not conservative than when hard leftists defend you.
    , @Mr. Anon
    " "What, exactly, are they conserving?”

    Individual liberty."

    Right. That's why NRO supported the Patriot Act - their commitment to individual liberty.

    Anyway, this whole transsexual nonsense has nothing to do with liberty. A man does not have the liberty to force me to say he's a woman. He does not have the liberty to make me participate in his own mental derangement.
    , @MarkinLA
    What about the liberty of a woman in a woman's bathroom not not wanting somebody to pull his dick out in front of her? Is liberty only a one-way street?
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "Individual liberty."

    Sodomites have no more right to display their alternative deathstyle in public than I have a right to pull down my pants and masturbate in public.

    Some behaviors are private or embarrassing and civilized people don't shove them in other people's faces: that's called sociopathy. Sociopaths belong in cages until they can behave civilly or six feet underground if they cannot.
  16. @Kyle McKenna
    National Review. National Review. I remember the National Review. That was the rag that did everything it could to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States.

    Please forgive me if I ignore this article and everything else they ever publish. Enemy of the American People. Guess where the National Review is going? Right into history's dustbin, where they belong.

    Next up, the conservative defense of feminism.

  17. Keep publishing articles by NRO cucks and UNZ will also go on my network block list.

  18. @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?"

    Individual liberty.

    As one other poster has noted, that’s libertarianism, not conservatism. There’s a difference. A society so bereft of ordinary social controls that people turn to the legislature and the police to enforce toilet usage is probably unworthy of being conserved.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As one other poster has noted, that’s libertarianism, not conservatism. There’s a difference."

    Conservatism opposes governmental social regulations.

    According to Edmund Burke, "Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour."
  19. “Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?”

    Individual liberty.

    Sure, that’s why it’s conservative to be pro-infanticide, and leftist to be pro-life. Pushing cultural marxism and the breakdown of all distinctions is conservative, not leftist! NAMBLA = conservative group, not leftist.

    We will destroy the churches, to free the individual from their tyranny. Behold the conservative future, comrade!

  20. @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?"

    Individual liberty.

    There is no better sign that somebody is not conservative than when hard leftists defend you.

  21. Here’s a good example of fake news:

    A Famous Porn Star Claims She Was Raped On Set. Will She Receive Justice?

    Real rape victims who want justice take their rape allegations to the police.

    Aging porn stars who want free publicity take their phony rape allegations to Twitter, and their fellow aging porn stars in the yellow press.

    Notice how the words “police” and “cop” do not appear in Snow’s article. Benz hasn’t taken her accusations to the police, she’s taken them to Twitter. Because making a false statement to police is a crime, and wouldn’t gain her any free publicity.

    To answer the rhetorical question: no, she won’t receive justice. Her claims will be taken seriously, and she won’t be put in stocks and pelted with tomatoes, eggs, and rotten cabbage.

  22. @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?"

    Individual liberty.

    ” “What, exactly, are they conserving?”

    Individual liberty.”

    Right. That’s why NRO supported the Patriot Act – their commitment to individual liberty.

    Anyway, this whole transsexual nonsense has nothing to do with liberty. A man does not have the liberty to force me to say he’s a woman. He does not have the liberty to make me participate in his own mental derangement.

  23. National Review: Standing on the street corner of history, shouting “Hello Sailor!”.

    • LOL: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Anon
    National Review was hijacked years ago by a certain non-Christian cabal.
    William F. Buckley sold out to that cabal.
  24. @Tulip
    It is a short ark of descent once one accepts crimes against art, one quickly moves to crimes against nature, both of which are re-valued as virtues rather than portents of an imminent destruction.

    Looking forward to reading the conservative case for wife swapping. It goes with the territory, no?

    P.S. I'm sure they just ran the article for purposes of attention-seeking. Pretty soon, I'm sure they will be attacked by Morton Downyey's Nazi skin-heads in the men's room of an airport over their adopted babies.

    What’s next? I suspect it will be one of these three:

    1. The conservative case for gun control

    2. The conservative case for the elimination of white people

    3. The conservative case for NAMBLA-style pederasty

    Okay, who wants to make book? I’ve got $10 burning a hole in my pocket.

    • Replies: @neutral
    Number 2 has been going on for decades now, there is no mass immigration or amnesty into white lands they don't endorse. Then there was that infamous article by Williamson which said poor whites, he said: "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die".
    The link is to Slate (which does link to the main NR article), if they are shocked about what he was arguing for, then you know its bad.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/national_review_says_pro_trump_working_class_whites_are_lazy_and_selfish.html

    Number 3 has kind of already happened, with a nuanced look at pedophilia.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424373/salons-much-maligned-pedophilia-piece-charles-c-w-cooke

    So all that is left is number 1.
  25. @AT
    Keep publishing articles by NRO cucks and UNZ will also go on my network block list.

    He links them so that we can mock cuckservatives.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    And so we may eviscerate fake news stories vomited by the anti-White, heterophobic fakestream media, which often ban nonconformist commenters or disallow comments entirely.
  26. Its truly bizarre that with regards to the transgender bathroom issue, nobody (literally, nobody) has made the obvious argument against it. I will present it, below. Whomever decides to steal it, you’re welcome.

    Transgender men* don’t want to go to the bathroom around other men. It make them feel uncomfortable.
    Most women and girls also don’t want to go to the bathroom around other men. It makes them feel uncomfortable.

    Under the old system, transgender men felt uncomfortable because they had to go to the bathroom around men, and they preferred not to. That was a sacrifice that those transgender men had to make, because little girls wanted to feel comfortable.

    Under the new system, little girls feel uncomfortable because they have to go to the bathroom around men, and would prefer not to. This is a sacrifice that those little girls have to make, because transgender men want to feel comfortable.

    So, under the old system, grown men were made to feel a bit uncomfortable in order to provide comfort to little girls.
    Under the new system, little girls are made to feel a bit uncomfortable in order to provide comfort to grown men.

    Which one is the compassionate system?

    As mentioned: you are welcome.

    joeyjoejoe

    *the same argument works by reversing the genders: women and little boys, and so on.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Transgender folks always have the right to do their dressing up at home. Then they don't have to feel uncomfortable in public facilities. I bet you nearly everywhere a visibly transgender person is around, many people around them are going to be visibly disgusted, confused, uncomfortable, or a combination of the above. This despite the MSM World War T. A few moments extra discomfort in a bathroom isn't going to add much to their overall discomfort every waking hour.

    It was much healthier when transgender issues were recognized by societal institutions as mental illness, and transgenders felt shamed into seeking help, or not following through with 'continuing their magical transgender journey', or hiding it. Shaming has a legitimate public purpose. It tends to reduce dysfunctional behaviors and prevent others from adopting them. As it stands, the MSM is actively encouraging transgenderism in even preschoolers, who have little grounding in the real world.

    We do trans folks no real favors pretending that they are the opposite sex, no more than we would be telling a mental patient who believed he was Napoleon that he actually was, and letting him go around pretending to lord over others.

    Most people recognize its nonsense. Its simple enough to say to hell with rules when enough people agree they no longer work. If the people say enough is enough, they can force the government's hand. There are plenty of other examples of that.

  27. @Colleen Pater
    "On the American political spectrum, conservatism is the mind-your-own-business ideology."
    Actually, that was the liber-tarian philosophy. Conservatism is sort of the opposite.Conservatives are supposed to understand barbarism is the natural state of human affairs, civilization is rare and fragile. Liberty is therefore sustainable only in limited amounts, to the extent it does not lead to the dissolution of order. Democracy was a radical departure from conservatism,the founders of the US naively thought they could manage it by reserving the vote to adult males of property who would understand, not libertarianism but conservatism. who would understand the importance of order, authority, hierarchy,tradition, the known over the experimental, the weakness of human nature. Unfortunately the founders were not very good at conservative they were radical revolutionaries and in no time were off exporting their revolution to france and elsewhere.They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth has the so called right always wondering why the left can so effectively use the American tradition and Christianity against them, the answer is christianity and american ism are radically leftist ideas

    .They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth…

    The Jesus who proclaimed that drunks, userers, fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals were in error?
    The one who proclaimed ” Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish…..?”

    A leftist?

    Christ was rejected by the Jews because he wasn’t their political savior from the Romans.

    Perhaps you meant Jesus of Angleton the former CIA spook.

    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    Yes that jesus the heretic, the whoremaster, the begger, the rabble rouser, the guy who preached the abandonment of family, tribe and nation, the unimportance of scripture, tradition, authority, or even reason and reality. The communist non judgemental subjectivist,the feminist,multiculturalist, and anti capitalist. I could go on and on but youre blinded by your faith which is fine you see christianity as the last bulwark of conservatism I am simply pointing out its destroyed half a dozen empires with its inherent liberalism ans liberals know this and use it against conservative christians so you never see it coming and are alway left befuddled.If its of any consolation i wish it were not so we have a long cultural tie to the church but the reality is my people are more important than some religion
  28. @L. Beau Macaroni
    What's next? I suspect it will be one of these three:

    1. The conservative case for gun control

    2. The conservative case for the elimination of white people

    3. The conservative case for NAMBLA-style pederasty

    Okay, who wants to make book? I've got $10 burning a hole in my pocket.

    Number 2 has been going on for decades now, there is no mass immigration or amnesty into white lands they don’t endorse. Then there was that infamous article by Williamson which said poor whites, he said: “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die”.
    The link is to Slate (which does link to the main NR article), if they are shocked about what he was arguing for, then you know its bad.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/national_review_says_pro_trump_working_class_whites_are_lazy_and_selfish.html

    Number 3 has kind of already happened, with a nuanced look at pedophilia.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424373/salons-much-maligned-pedophilia-piece-charles-c-w-cooke

    So all that is left is number 1.

  29. @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?"

    Individual liberty.

    What about the liberty of a woman in a woman’s bathroom not not wanting somebody to pull his dick out in front of her? Is liberty only a one-way street?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What about the liberty of a woman in a woman’s bathroom not not wanting somebody to pull his dick out in front of her? Is liberty only a one-way street?"

    She has the liberty not to use that facility. Moreover, why is she looking that way? And, you assume the tranny is going to be flopping it out everywhere. They want privacy just as much as you or me. Ask your girlfriend, she knows.
  30. @Fran Macadam
    This is not your father's NR, Chris Buckley. Oh yeah, purged even the Old Man while he still had his last literary legs, after he caught on to the Iraq War Dupe. Gone over to the Dark Side, greed, war, and Trotsky's Neocons. The son Frum the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's liberal icon, returned to his roots.

    Well wasn’t National Review a CIA propaganda mouthpiece when Buckley was running it? Why should anybody have anymore respect for what they write now?

  31. Tom Bethell observed in the American Spectator many years ago that whenever a politician, judge, or pundit previously regarded as conservative moved to the left on some issue, the news would be heralded in the media by the observation that Senator or Justice or Doctor So-and-so was garnering “strange new respect” in Washington, showing “growth,” “maturity,” “thoughtfulness,” etc.

    National Review, this past year, is definitely the winner of the Strange New Respect championship. With each new issue, I’m shocked, but no longer surprised, to see what additional concessions it has made to leftist orthodoxy since the last time I looked at it.

  32. @neutral
    Number 2 has been going on for decades now, there is no mass immigration or amnesty into white lands they don't endorse. Then there was that infamous article by Williamson which said poor whites, he said: "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die".
    The link is to Slate (which does link to the main NR article), if they are shocked about what he was arguing for, then you know its bad.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/national_review_says_pro_trump_working_class_whites_are_lazy_and_selfish.html

    Number 3 has kind of already happened, with a nuanced look at pedophilia.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424373/salons-much-maligned-pedophilia-piece-charles-c-w-cooke

    So all that is left is number 1.

    I stand corrected.

  33. @Colleen Pater
    "On the American political spectrum, conservatism is the mind-your-own-business ideology."
    Actually, that was the liber-tarian philosophy. Conservatism is sort of the opposite.Conservatives are supposed to understand barbarism is the natural state of human affairs, civilization is rare and fragile. Liberty is therefore sustainable only in limited amounts, to the extent it does not lead to the dissolution of order. Democracy was a radical departure from conservatism,the founders of the US naively thought they could manage it by reserving the vote to adult males of property who would understand, not libertarianism but conservatism. who would understand the importance of order, authority, hierarchy,tradition, the known over the experimental, the weakness of human nature. Unfortunately the founders were not very good at conservative they were radical revolutionaries and in no time were off exporting their revolution to france and elsewhere.They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth has the so called right always wondering why the left can so effectively use the American tradition and Christianity against them, the answer is christianity and american ism are radically leftist ideas

    “Christianity is a leftist idea?” You’re an idiot! Read the Bible! Maybe this is the answer to the lifelong question; How Dumb Can You Get?!

  34. @Diversity Heretic
    As one other poster has noted, that's libertarianism, not conservatism. There's a difference. A society so bereft of ordinary social controls that people turn to the legislature and the police to enforce toilet usage is probably unworthy of being conserved.

    “As one other poster has noted, that’s libertarianism, not conservatism. There’s a difference.”

    Conservatism opposes governmental social regulations.

    According to Edmund Burke, “Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour.”

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Your conservatism may do that. In my conservatism social regulations are enforced by the people themselves (e.g., the Amish practice of shunning). These are much more effective than laws (hardly anyone really wants to be a social outcast) yet they do not involve the coercive power of the state.

    Burke wrote in a highly homogeneous society in which social norms were enforced by precisely the method that I have alluded to, including pervasive Christianity that could persuasively threaten the eternal damnation and torment of a transgressor's soul. To cite him in favor of the libertine society you evidently advocate is a perversion.
    , @Gross Terry
    Burke was a whig, and as an anglo gentleman, almost certainly relished regular sodomy.
  35. @MarkinLA
    What about the liberty of a woman in a woman's bathroom not not wanting somebody to pull his dick out in front of her? Is liberty only a one-way street?

    “What about the liberty of a woman in a woman’s bathroom not not wanting somebody to pull his dick out in front of her? Is liberty only a one-way street?”

    She has the liberty not to use that facility. Moreover, why is she looking that way? And, you assume the tranny is going to be flopping it out everywhere. They want privacy just as much as you or me. Ask your girlfriend, she knows.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    And, you assume the tranny is going to be flopping it out everywhere.

    I am simply going by what your friends told me about you.
  36. @Corvinus
    "As one other poster has noted, that’s libertarianism, not conservatism. There’s a difference."

    Conservatism opposes governmental social regulations.

    According to Edmund Burke, "Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour."

    Your conservatism may do that. In my conservatism social regulations are enforced by the people themselves (e.g., the Amish practice of shunning). These are much more effective than laws (hardly anyone really wants to be a social outcast) yet they do not involve the coercive power of the state.

    Burke wrote in a highly homogeneous society in which social norms were enforced by precisely the method that I have alluded to, including pervasive Christianity that could persuasively threaten the eternal damnation and torment of a transgressor’s soul. To cite him in favor of the libertine society you evidently advocate is a perversion.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your conservatism may do that. In my conservatism social regulations are enforced by the people themselves (e.g., the Amish practice of shunning)."

    It's not your conservatism. It's not my conservatism. It's simply conservatism. Furthermore, our country is not run by merely conservatives; there are a mix of ideologies.

    Shunning and shaming works best in small communities.

    "These are much more effective than laws (hardly anyone really wants to be a social outcast) yet they do not involve the coercive power of the state."

    Except when this shunning or shaming, which is a form of coercion, takes away the liberty of people (e.g. Jim Crow laws). Besides, state laws, which are created by the will of the people, reflects individual coercion.

    "Burke wrote in a highly homogeneous society in which social norms were enforced by precisely the method that I have alluded to..."

    The social norms were enforced by the laws of Parliament AND individual/family coercion.

    "...including pervasive Christianity that could persuasively threaten the eternal damnation and torment of a transgressor’s soul. To cite him in favor of the libertine society you evidently advocate is a perversion."

    I advocate a society by which transgressors are brought to justice through social customs and the rule of law. There is no perversion here.
  37. @Corvinus
    "As one other poster has noted, that’s libertarianism, not conservatism. There’s a difference."

    Conservatism opposes governmental social regulations.

    According to Edmund Burke, "Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour."

    Burke was a whig, and as an anglo gentleman, almost certainly relished regular sodomy.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Burke was a whig, and as an anglo gentleman, almost certainly relished regular sodomy."

    You're going to have to back up your claim with hard evidence rather than talk about your fetish.
  38. If conservative ever had a meaning at all, it was something like ‘preserving traditional rules formed by painful experience.’

    Some rules have been in place for so long that we’ve never been forced to see the experience that made the rules. We don’t understand the problem, so we try violating the tradition.

    In this case the awakening came FAST.

    Cross-dressers have been using the ‘wrong’ bathroom for a long time, respecting the rules of privacy, not causing any problems. Immediately after the Neutral bathroom was introduced, the REAL REASON for separate bathrooms showed up. Voyeurs and predators and plain old uncontrolled adolescents have been WAITING and HOPING for this opportunity, and started using it immediately. Now we see why the separation was invented.

    Gelernter is ignoring this science-based approach to experiment. He’s blindly following the anti-science Enlightenment verbiage about “rights” and “equality”. Both concepts are perfectly opposed to facts, logic and science.

  39. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Gelernter is ignoring this science-based approach to experiment. He’s blindly following the anti-science Enlightenment verbiage about “rights” and “equality”. Both concepts are perfectly opposed to facts, logic and science.

    These matters are about specific interests. All in the media, and non-STEM academia (disgracefully) is about interests.
    And the right method to achieve something is to know how to handle the readership gently manipulating their emotions (certainly not their reason: that’s an illusion) to lead them to the desired conclusion.

    Speaking of science, in early 21th century the surging science is neurological manipulation. It’s getting to a new lever, really. And what we see at present is still little to nothing compared to what’s coming.

    As the brain and the mind become known in more depth, the advantage of the more intelligent and their interest groups over the rest of people is only gonna grow. And grow. And grow. And broaden. And grow.

    The more it’ll grow, the more it’ll serve the elite to waver banners of equality in front of the masses; and the more they’ll do so.

    By the way pedestalizing “facts” “logic” and “science” with that kind of tunnel-vision mindset would lead to still worse results than the cunning verbiage about “rights” and “equality” can ever.

  40. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Well, given that National Review is filled with castrated men, the article sorta makes sense.

  41. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @joeyjoejoe
    Its truly bizarre that with regards to the transgender bathroom issue, nobody (literally, nobody) has made the obvious argument against it. I will present it, below. Whomever decides to steal it, you're welcome.

    Transgender men* don't want to go to the bathroom around other men. It make them feel uncomfortable.
    Most women and girls also don't want to go to the bathroom around other men. It makes them feel uncomfortable.


    Under the old system, transgender men felt uncomfortable because they had to go to the bathroom around men, and they preferred not to. That was a sacrifice that those transgender men had to make, because little girls wanted to feel comfortable.

    Under the new system, little girls feel uncomfortable because they have to go to the bathroom around men, and would prefer not to. This is a sacrifice that those little girls have to make, because transgender men want to feel comfortable.

    So, under the old system, grown men were made to feel a bit uncomfortable in order to provide comfort to little girls.
    Under the new system, little girls are made to feel a bit uncomfortable in order to provide comfort to grown men.

    Which one is the compassionate system?


    As mentioned: you are welcome.

    joeyjoejoe

    *the same argument works by reversing the genders: women and little boys, and so on.

    Transgender folks always have the right to do their dressing up at home. Then they don’t have to feel uncomfortable in public facilities. I bet you nearly everywhere a visibly transgender person is around, many people around them are going to be visibly disgusted, confused, uncomfortable, or a combination of the above. This despite the MSM World War T. A few moments extra discomfort in a bathroom isn’t going to add much to their overall discomfort every waking hour.

    It was much healthier when transgender issues were recognized by societal institutions as mental illness, and transgenders felt shamed into seeking help, or not following through with ‘continuing their magical transgender journey’, or hiding it. Shaming has a legitimate public purpose. It tends to reduce dysfunctional behaviors and prevent others from adopting them. As it stands, the MSM is actively encouraging transgenderism in even preschoolers, who have little grounding in the real world.

    We do trans folks no real favors pretending that they are the opposite sex, no more than we would be telling a mental patient who believed he was Napoleon that he actually was, and letting him go around pretending to lord over others.

    Most people recognize its nonsense. Its simple enough to say to hell with rules when enough people agree they no longer work. If the people say enough is enough, they can force the government’s hand. There are plenty of other examples of that.

  42. 50 years ago in the USA, when a man was caught prancing about in women’s clothes, he was arrested on a morals charge. 30 years ago, the MSM introduced Americans to transvestites, who made us laugh for their wild outfits.
    Now we have Big Brother telling us we VILL recognize trans and give them more rights than normal people, backed up with fines and prison time.

    Welcome to the madhouse, comrade.

  43. How many years ago did National Review declare Malcolm X a conservative.
    I see it never ends.

  44. National Review continues to circle the abyss.

    Now the National Review is promoting mental illness…what a sad trajectory for this once very good magazine.

  45. @Corvinus
    "What about the liberty of a woman in a woman’s bathroom not not wanting somebody to pull his dick out in front of her? Is liberty only a one-way street?"

    She has the liberty not to use that facility. Moreover, why is she looking that way? And, you assume the tranny is going to be flopping it out everywhere. They want privacy just as much as you or me. Ask your girlfriend, she knows.

    And, you assume the tranny is going to be flopping it out everywhere.

    I am simply going by what your friends told me about you.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I am simply going by what your friends told me about you."

    My friends wanted to make you feel better about yourself. They're a bunch of tricksters.
  46. @MarkinLA
    And, you assume the tranny is going to be flopping it out everywhere.

    I am simply going by what your friends told me about you.

    “I am simply going by what your friends told me about you.”

    My friends wanted to make you feel better about yourself. They’re a bunch of tricksters.

  47. @Diversity Heretic
    Your conservatism may do that. In my conservatism social regulations are enforced by the people themselves (e.g., the Amish practice of shunning). These are much more effective than laws (hardly anyone really wants to be a social outcast) yet they do not involve the coercive power of the state.

    Burke wrote in a highly homogeneous society in which social norms were enforced by precisely the method that I have alluded to, including pervasive Christianity that could persuasively threaten the eternal damnation and torment of a transgressor's soul. To cite him in favor of the libertine society you evidently advocate is a perversion.

    “Your conservatism may do that. In my conservatism social regulations are enforced by the people themselves (e.g., the Amish practice of shunning).”

    It’s not your conservatism. It’s not my conservatism. It’s simply conservatism. Furthermore, our country is not run by merely conservatives; there are a mix of ideologies.

    Shunning and shaming works best in small communities.

    “These are much more effective than laws (hardly anyone really wants to be a social outcast) yet they do not involve the coercive power of the state.”

    Except when this shunning or shaming, which is a form of coercion, takes away the liberty of people (e.g. Jim Crow laws). Besides, state laws, which are created by the will of the people, reflects individual coercion.

    “Burke wrote in a highly homogeneous society in which social norms were enforced by precisely the method that I have alluded to…”

    The social norms were enforced by the laws of Parliament AND individual/family coercion.

    “…including pervasive Christianity that could persuasively threaten the eternal damnation and torment of a transgressor’s soul. To cite him in favor of the libertine society you evidently advocate is a perversion.”

    I advocate a society by which transgressors are brought to justice through social customs and the rule of law. There is no perversion here.

  48. @Gross Terry
    Burke was a whig, and as an anglo gentleman, almost certainly relished regular sodomy.

    “Burke was a whig, and as an anglo gentleman, almost certainly relished regular sodomy.”

    You’re going to have to back up your claim with hard evidence rather than talk about your fetish.

  49. The US constitution’s 9th amendment says the people, not the federal government, have the power to define civil rights.

    The US constitution’s 10th amendment says the state governments, not the federal government, have the power to protected civil rights.

    So-called transgender civil rights as implemented currently in the US are a illicit federal civil right, one of many illicit federal entitlement benefitting queer people.

    Queer diversity enjoys many illicit federal civil rights today:

    [MORE]

    1. Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus
    2. Sodomy protected as a federal civil right
    3. Elective abortion-on-demand protected as a federal civil right
    4. Pornography protected as a federal civil right
    5. Queer propaganda in public schools
    6. Subsidized Queer AIDS and STD treatments and medicines protected as a federal civil right
    7. Queer AIDS hysteria promoted by the federal government at http://www.aids.gov
    8. Mandatory national health insurance plan coverage for Queer elective abortion, tranny surgeries, and queer STDs
    9. Government anti-discrimination laws for Queers
    10. Government war mongering and propaganda to impose Queer protected class entitlements on to foreign nations
    11. Queers activities supported in military recruitment and promotions
    12. Federal govt. sponsored marriage licenses for Queer licentiousness
    13. Queer promiscuity promoted as mandatory inclusive socialism
    14. Government NEA grants promoting obscene Queer artwork
    15. Federal hate speech prosecutions in favor of Queers and other protected classes of diversity
    16. Queer sodomy of children re-labeled generic molestation by federal government and mass media
    17. Preferential immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for queers
    18. Government tax breaks and subsidies for Queer owned or employed mass media businesses
    19. Queers intimidate government-sponsored psychologists to certify queers aren’t degenerate and crazy.
    20. Queers use federal government to force private businesses to service queer degenerate activities, such as abortion, sodomy, and STD proliferation.

  50. @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this the bunch that thinks homosexual marriage is a conservative issue. What, exactly, are they conserving?"

    Individual liberty.

    “Individual liberty.”

    Sodomites have no more right to display their alternative deathstyle in public than I have a right to pull down my pants and masturbate in public.

    Some behaviors are private or embarrassing and civilized people don’t shove them in other people’s faces: that’s called sociopathy. Sociopaths belong in cages until they can behave civilly or six feet underground if they cannot.

  51. @Daniel Chieh
    He links them so that we can mock cuckservatives.

    And so we may eviscerate fake news stories vomited by the anti-White, heterophobic fakestream media, which often ban nonconformist commenters or disallow comments entirely.

  52. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Bathroom bills allow a male who simply “thinks” he is a female to use a women’s locker room and shower room.
    This has been tried in some high schools and the girls have revolted against showering with a boy who thinks he is a girl.
    The whole transgender thing is sick.

  53. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Anon
    National Review: Standing on the street corner of history, shouting "Hello Sailor!".

    National Review was hijacked years ago by a certain non-Christian cabal.
    William F. Buckley sold out to that cabal.

  54. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @antipater_1
    Next week, National Review will present the Conservative case for child molestation.

    Because National Review sold out to a non-Christian group.
    America is now under the spell of that non-Christian group.
    This is America today – we are a bunch of cowards led around by … Jews.
    There, I said it.

  55. @Stonehands

    .They have left a very confused legacy which along with the legacy of that other leftist Jesus of Nazareth...
     
    The Jesus who proclaimed that drunks, userers, fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals were in error?
    The one who proclaimed " Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish.....?"

    A leftist?

    Christ was rejected by the Jews because he wasn't their political savior from the Romans.


    Perhaps you meant Jesus of Angleton the former CIA spook.

    Yes that jesus the heretic, the whoremaster, the begger, the rabble rouser, the guy who preached the abandonment of family, tribe and nation, the unimportance of scripture, tradition, authority, or even reason and reality. The communist non judgemental subjectivist,the feminist,multiculturalist, and anti capitalist. I could go on and on but youre blinded by your faith which is fine you see christianity as the last bulwark of conservatism I am simply pointing out its destroyed half a dozen empires with its inherent liberalism ans liberals know this and use it against conservative christians so you never see it coming and are alway left befuddled.If its of any consolation i wish it were not so we have a long cultural tie to the church but the reality is my people are more important than some religion

    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Your "people" are more important then God?

    Jesus is a "whoremaster"?

    I think you have been ill equipped to deal with evil by being born into the pagan catholic church.

    Are your people catholic?

    Christ's church is an assembly of people, an organism, not an organization!

    Leave room in your mind for redemption- this is our "lot" in life.

    The decision you make is for eternity, not the puny amount of time spent on earth- God isn't concerned with your comfort here on earth!

    Godliness with contentment is great gain.
  56. @Colleen Pater
    Yes that jesus the heretic, the whoremaster, the begger, the rabble rouser, the guy who preached the abandonment of family, tribe and nation, the unimportance of scripture, tradition, authority, or even reason and reality. The communist non judgemental subjectivist,the feminist,multiculturalist, and anti capitalist. I could go on and on but youre blinded by your faith which is fine you see christianity as the last bulwark of conservatism I am simply pointing out its destroyed half a dozen empires with its inherent liberalism ans liberals know this and use it against conservative christians so you never see it coming and are alway left befuddled.If its of any consolation i wish it were not so we have a long cultural tie to the church but the reality is my people are more important than some religion

    Your “people” are more important then God?

    Jesus is a “whoremaster”?

    I think you have been ill equipped to deal with evil by being born into the pagan catholic church.

    Are your people catholic?

    Christ’s church is an assembly of people, an organism, not an organization!

    Leave room in your mind for redemption- this is our “lot” in life.

    The decision you make is for eternity, not the puny amount of time spent on earth- God isn’t concerned with your comfort here on earth!

    Godliness with contentment is great gain.

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.