Transgenderism Stems From Feminism's Failure to Deal With Marilyn Monroe

4 ½ min

Had I told Democratic friends around the turn of the 21st century that in 2021 their party would insist that a biological man identifying as a woman should be treated as a woman in sports competitions, they would have laughed me under the table. Yet here’s Joe Biden, their man in the White House, claiming that biological men have the right to compete against women as “women” and to use women’s restroom facilities.

This is the sort of idiocy against which one cannot argue. Either one grasps the importance of chromosomes and genitalia in identifying males and females, or one is an idiot. To argue against the idiot is itself idiocy, for no one so irrational will ever listen to rational argument.

All we can do is try to understand how we got here—and that route is not what one might think.

The first path on this journey to biological blindness is culture’s insistence on equality-as-sameness. Under this definition, it’s expected that women be given the same jobs as men regardless of differences in physical strength.

Applying this assumption of equal physical strength consistently, we are left with no room for complaint when physically superior men compete against physically inferior women, because merely pointing out the difference is forbidden. “Men and women are physical equals, therefore competition between them is inherently equal,” goes the classic feminist line. Unless the feminist rejects this claim, she must take the side of the transgendered in the matter of athletics.

But the case for men in women’s sports is bigger than a claim to some sort of equality. The assertion that men can identify as women if they so choose makes the very reality of “man” and “woman” a matter of choice, unrelated to biology. If identity is a matter of choice, then the issue of biological differences is moot. That the biologically male-women keep defeating the biologically female-women is of no consequence. Some kinds of women are simply better at sports than other kinds of women, that’s all.

Although some have flirted with applying this issue of “identity” to areas beyond gender, the notion hasn’t stuck to any of them. One hapless white woman attempted to identify as black but was promptly called out as a racial wannabe. That sort of thing, the culture made clear, was a no-no. You don’t get to be a white-black person, even though the chromosomal difference between blacks and whites is far less than that between men and women. So, how can men “identify” as women?

The answer is found in one famous name: Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn is a symbol of Objectified Femininity, such as is often seen in Playboy magazine. The sexual revolution, so called, did not result in the liberation of women but in a new definition of women as sexual entities of a certain sort. Where “woman” previously meant any biological female—with the ensuing range of possible attributes, personalities, and physical and emotional traits—the “woman” who emerged in the 1950s and ‘60s had only certain, hyperbolized characteristics. She was “built,” she was seductive, and she was a little on the mentally shallow side. In other words, she was easy prey for men on the make.

This cliché of women now seems ludicrous, as indeed it always was, but while feminists worked to offer a view of woman as man’s physical and mental equal, they did nothing to offer a truly feminine alterative to Marilyn and Playboy. A sexual woman remained an objectified woman.

The object changed a bit from Playboy bunny, to hippie girl, to ‘70s swinger, to ‘80s party girl, but nowhere along the line was there an effort to reaffirm the integrity of woman as a full sexual partner. To do this would have required facing and possibly dismissing some of the sexual revolution’s most cherished beliefs. It would have been necessary to address the central role of a woman as a mother, and the inherent connection of sex to parenthood; to look at marriage as more than a breakable contract; to redirect sexual energies to partnership and relationship instead of titillation and orgasm; and even to look at the traditional roles of men and women in marriage as not baseless. Indeed, it was easier to press forward with equal-as-same and to leave objectified women in place as proof of men’s indominable chauvinism.

Enter the trans woman. Biology abandoned, we arrive at the place where “woman” is any human with a particular attitude, namely, a willingness to exhibit the cliches of objectified feminine sexuality and be called “woman.” An object doesn’t need biology. All that is required is the willingness to be such an object. Trans women are protected for the same reason pornography is popular.

When “woman” again means something beyond a choice or an object, sanity will be restored to American sexuality. For now, we live in a world of unreality where an entity is whatever we choose to name it.


Dear Readers,

Big Tech is suppressing our reach, refusing to let us advertise and squelching our ability to serve up a steady diet of truth and ideas. Help us fight back by becoming a member for just $5 a month and then join the discussion on Parler @CharlemagneInstitute!

Image Credit: 


Kenneth LaFave

Kenneth LaFave

Kenneth LaFave, PhD, is the author of Experiencing Leonard Bernstein (Rowman & Littlefield).

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


Ouch. But also, that last couple of paragraphs really struck me. I’ve long made a connection between the much protected world of pornography and the sex industry and the sudden explosion of trans identifying people. I have viewed the Sudden Gender Dysphoria cult as something very post modern and hailing from grievance studies in our downward spiraling higher education system. And now victim culture has hit the mainstream hard. And trans women are at the helm. They do parody women, and more often than not it actually is less Marilyn than Tootsie. So apparently a lot of middle aged men wanted to be a homely grandmother? For the others, I really think it’s just about smashing the status quo with no concern of obvious future issues.And maybe a good dose of pushing toward trans humanism. Either way, it is not reality based. And it is toxic, but lucrative. Big pharma and a host of international clinics are doing great business. They say there is a 4000% increase in just young women 14-25 suddenly in the wrong body. But I view women as doing this for different reasons. Mainly, why would you want to be a woman in the PornHub dominated culture where women are lower than chattel? It isn’t surprising that men identifying as women are doing all the damage and dominating the spotlight. Isn’t that what they do best? Drama queens to the end. They lie about statistics concerning suicide and murder but no one fact checks anything and reality is no longer a problem people have. But I just found a post it upon which I scribbled the words “ You can choose to believe that a brick wall is not real. But when you run into it and hurt yourself, the pain is very much real. “ I guess that’s where a lot of people who’ve been watching this for along time are waiting for: Trans activists hit the brick wall at 100 mph. They don’t just want special rights and protections, they want everything. It’s unsustainable and can’t hide all the issues. Truth will win.


Account Photo
I recently wrote a blog installment on a closely related subject, Ken: Abigail Shrier's recent new (2020) book, 'Irreversible Damage: The Transgenderism Craze Seducing our Daughters' (available from Amazon and most other sources). Shrier (who holds a JD, among her many other excellent credentials) is a very brave woman who has faced a firestorm of protests from the leftist liberal LGBTQ community, as a result. Her book deals with the hypothesis advanced by Dr. Lisa Littman's concerning what she has termed 'Rapid Onset GEnder Dysphoria' (Littman is, of course, another exceptionally courageous woman). This is very much a book that needs far wider awareness and a much bigger audience! [ ]


"To argue against the idiot is itself idiocy, for no one so irrational will ever listen to rational argument." Oh Kenneth! If only you were aware of where you sit on the Dunning Kruger curve, then you'd know how ironic it is to say this so close to the start of your hopelessly ill-informed little screed. You kick off with unwarranted smugness, front-load the fallacies by conflating gender with sex, then rapidly bury yourself in a pile of straw men and horse dung. I hope that it is, at least, warm in there for you.


Account Photo
I'm thankful my child is a young adult now. But I hear expressions from parents with young girls--how they feel petrified about strong young men who claim to "identify" female before waltzing into the bathrooms and showers for girls and young women in school. "Petrified?!" I exclaim. "I'd be loudly dunning my school's administration every single day, with a posse of friends, until the moral decision about protecting young girls' privacy and safety was made!" Parents to whom this especially impacts MUST SPEAK UP, stridently and repeatedly.


So why don’t you go to the school administration now? Just because your kids aren’t I. Danger doesn’t mean other kids don’t need protection.
Evil is making the natural, unnatural, and the unnatural, natural.