By Caeneus Fraternus.

Recently I had my attention directed to an article in the United Kingdom, where there has been more successful push-back against the transgender narrative than anywhere else in the western world.  What we are seeing develop is something I have been warning about for a long time and it should set off alarm bells not only for feminists, but for everybody that cares about truth and reality. I am going suggest, as a hypothesis, that we could be, either intentionally or unintentionally, being set up for a long term failure via a short term victory/concession.

The hypothesis of this article was inspired by a recent story about the Karen White case in the UK, and the narrative being spun around it. Click on the title of the article to see what I am talking about: Transgender prisoner born a male who sexually assaulted female inmates after being jailed for rape is sentenced to life.

Okay, so let us take a look at what I see happening in this story and elsewhere (this would include the Jessica Yaniv case in British Columbia). We appear to have the fallback position kicking in that I have been warning about. Keep in mind that I believe the transgender narrative is coming from the top of society where lawyers advise on everything. Lawyers NEVER ask for what they want, they always ask for much more than they want. If they want a $10,000 settlement, they will ask for $100,000, that way they can look conciliatory if they “give in” and say “okay, it is a real sacrifice, but $25,000 will be okay” or even $10,000 (this is their fallback position) – anything above zero is a victory. But you cannot do this with truth and reality, or can you? When we are talking about defining what a woman is, only absolute truth can prevail, otherwise you are setting yourself up for a fall in the long run. If you untether law, language, and regulation from its CRITICAL biological substrate and physical reality, you will get into trouble eventually.

In the case of the transgender narrative we see a fallback pattern developing, complete with the typical big ask (no strings self-identity). But the no-strings self-identity was just too outrageous for most sensible people in the UK and there has thus been an enormous push-back, and we are now seeing a fallback narrative beginning to emerge. That fallback narrative is being pushed by the establishment and  “transsexual allies” of women saying “we support women against these mean old fake transgenders.” But this is an unacceptable fallback position that will leave women in the same position five to ten years down the road, and it will increase pressure on children to medically transition.

The fallback position is the suggestion that there are “real” transgender and “fake” transgender. In the article in question the lawyers stated “other than changing her name and wearing wigs and women’s clothing, White made no effort to embark on gender reassignment.” So “she” made “no attempt at gender transition” beyond appearance, no hormones or surgery … okay, but appearance IS gender, and if you grant their new thesis, you will give them the legal precedent, because forcing genital surgery will NEVER stand up in law over time, and if you say ANY male can be a woman (or be given the rights of a woman if they have genital surgery) then ALL males can be women in time guaranteed! Anything less than absolute reality will not hold up logically and will fail on a human rights level in time. Establishment sorts and transsexual “allies” may suggest that big pharma has to get billions in hormone cash to qualify trans as “real,” but hormones etc won’t change their sex. Further, they will never force genital surgery as a qualifier in the long run, never. Laws may initially stipulate surgery or hormones, but you will always be one Human Rights complaint away from all men qualifying as transwomen. Even where they do have this qualifier now, it will fail in time. Only absolute truth and reality can protect women in the long run. We need to recognize and undermine this developing fallback position now.

Even critics of transgender ideology like Jane Claire Jones seem to fail to understand why Jenn Smith insists on absolute physical reality. They instead demonize him as an ( in Jones’ words) “ideological purist.” Smith is not an “ideological purist,” he is a “physical and biological reality purist.”

The lawyers in Karen White case and people like Jones pretend wearing a wig is indicative of something. But what? That they are not “real” transgender if that is all they do? Well high profile trans like Laverne Cox wear wigs all the time, and REAL women wear wigs all the time when searching for a specific look, such as Raquel Welch, Dolly Parton etc — do a Google search for “how I style my wig” and you will get almost nothing but thousands of real women talking about their wigs. So what does that have to do with anything? Nothing of course, they are just pushing towards the idea “you must do more,” which of course is use transgender drugs and/or surgery. But it is a Trojan horse that seems inviting at first, but if you let it inside the gates, you are setting yourself up for an invasion all over again.

This was one of the things Jenn Smith was on to with Blaire White and Theryn Meyer very early on in his involvement in this debate, that they were pushing a “you have to try” narrative — in other words, hormones etc (which makes big money for big Pharma). When Smith asked Meyer whether they were connected to Meyer Pharmaceutical in South Africa (where Meyer is from originally) or any other pharmaceutical company (or subsidiary thereof, directly or indirectly), Meyer flipped out, called Smith crazy, and blocked him, but did not confirm or deny the question.

Again, there appears to be a fallback position emerging and that position relates to the “real trans” thesis and increasing profits for big pharma. If you allow this then not only will it be assaulted on human rights grounds later, but it will immediately put kids under even MORE pressure to medically transition. So can we please stop this now? Absolute truth and physical REALITY must be our minimum position! People can express any way they want, I do, but you cannot change your physical sex in fact nor should even the suggestion you can be allowed in law.

The current author is transgender. I admit my sex and do not violate my body. Yes I do things to alter my appearance, but so what? That does not screw with my bodily health. It is okay to be transgender and admit your sex, that is what ALL transgender people should do because it is TRUTH. What you do with your appearance is irrelevant.

Addendum by Jenn Smith:
The other thing that you see happening in the Karen White case is the attempt to declare White guilty, while declaring the transgender narrative innocent, because, of course, White is “not really transgender.” We saw this happen in the case of Christopher “Jessica” Hambrook in Toronto, somebody that identified as transgender then entered a women’s shelter and sexually assaulted women there. In order to purge the suggestion that Hambrook was transgender and that there was therefore something wrong with laws/regulations that put him in the shelters, the press published pre-trans photos of Hambrook instead of the “prettied” up  “Jessica” Hambrook, because it was necessary to, once again, convict Hambrook (who was “not really transgender”) while dismissing charges against transgender ideology.

7 thoughts on “Thought Experiments with Caeneus: The Fallback Narrative in the Transgender Debate

    1. This came from an exchange I had with Jones after committing the unpardonable outrage of asking her to confirm her position on the issue. I asked if somebody born male could ever be a woman or should be treated as a woman (allowed into women’s private spaces etc). She refused to answer the question and instead suggested it was “an ideological purity test.” I replied saying it was not about ideology it was reality and I wanted to know if she supported absolute reality. She did everything but answer the question. I was then swarmed by her TS followers (always a bad sign) who said things like “how dare you ask Jane a question, male scum” etc etc. I, and Caeneus, believe this to be a fallback position, thus it is important to have that question answered clearly by people that position themselves in leadership roles.


  1. I remember the exchange jenn, and I remember your statement that essentially where one goes they all go, which to me is the most logical thing to say in this case. Great article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s