I’m interested in parlance, I’m interested in poofs, pansies and pillow-biters. How could I not be interested in Polari? According to Paul Baker’s book Fabulosa! (2019), Polari was “Britain’s Secret Gay Language” and used by thousands of “camp gay men” until the late 1960s. Baker describes its history, heyday, decline and revival. But the book implicitly provides two big insights that Baker never intended: first, into why lesbians are losing the war with male transsexuals who want to invade their sexual territory; second, into the psychology of academics and its role in the rise of wokeness.
The front cover of Paul Baker’s Fabulosa! (2019)
Flamboyant and highly entertaining
First things first, however. Was Polari really a language? Well, the front cover of Baker’s book says so, but that’s hype. In the book itself, Baker is more accurate about the linguistic status of Polari. It wasn’t a full language but a slang or code, using words whose forms or new meanings were opaque to outsiders. And so the gay men who used Polari could gossip, discuss strangers and talk about sex while the aunt nels (ears) of naffs (heterosexuals) caught nishta (nothing) of what was going on.
A male fantasy of lesbianism: Gustave Courbet’s Le Sommeil (Sleep) of 1866
The most famous phrase of Polari is “How bona to vada your dolly old eke!” That means “How good to see your attractive old face!” and was one of the catchphrases used by the gay characters Julian and Sandy on the 1960s radio-comedy Round the Horne (which was overseen by the avuncular Kenneth Horne). In his book, Baker devotes the whole of Chapter 5 to Julian and Sandy, who were played by the genuinely gay actors Hugh Paddick and Kenneth Williams. He describes how, by introducing Polari to millions of straight listeners, they helped destroy its popularity in the “gay community.” But the Polari-propelled popularity of “Jules and Sand” is part of that implicit insight I mentioned above. The two characters were camp, flamboyant, and highly entertaining. And characters like that could never have been played by lesbians. Nor could the camp, flamboyant and highly entertaining language of Polari ever have been invented by lesbians. Lesbians don’t behave or talk like that. As Steve Sailer pointed out in “Why Lesbians Aren’t Gay,” his insightful article on the acute differences between male and female homosexuals, lesbians dislike perfume and fashion, don’t like working with men, and “resent male fascination with beauty.” And while gays are notoriously promiscuous, promoting not only new perversions but also fascinating diseases like AIDS, dykes are often more interested in cats than in sex. Gays die for sex; dykes suffer “lesbian bed-death,” where lesbian partners have less sex and may stop having sex altogether.
The reality of lesbianism: lesbian writer Marguerite Radclyffe Hall (right) with her lover Una Troubridge
In short: dykes are dull! And I think the dullness of dykes is one big reason that they’re losing their cultural war with male transsexuals who claim to be lesbian. After all, dullness is one thing that transsexuals are never guilty of. I’ve argued previously, in articles like “The Tyranny of Translunacy” and “Borders for Us, Not for You,” that leftists decide who can invade whose territory by using the relative status of different groups in the leftist hierarchy of victimhood. For example, Blacks or women are higher in that hierarchy than Whites or men, therefore Blacks or women can take on all White or male roles in acting. But Whites or men are forbidden to take on Black or female roles and a White like Rachel Dolezal, who claims to be Black, is condemned by leftists rather than celebrated.
She-penises and polymorphous perverts
Let’s apply this theory of status to transsexualism. By aligning themselves with homosexuals, male transsexuals have gained higher status than women in the leftist hierarchy. Therefore they can invade female territory and, for leftists, become full and authentic women simply by asserting that they are so. And when these men claim to be lesbians, that too must be accepted, even if — or especially if — they are still equipped with a penis. Many genuine lesbians have rightly objected to the idea that they must have sex with such men or accept a penis as a “female” sex-organ. But because lesbians are lower in the leftist hierarchy than male-to-female trannies, their objections are condemned as bigoted and “transphobic.” Now I want to suggest an additional reason for the lower status of lesbians within leftism. To repeat: dykes are dull! And trannies are entertaining!
And so there may be a paradox at work. Anti-woke satirists like Titania McGrath may be helping translunacy even as they mock its excesses and such ludicrous concepts as the “female penis.” After all, McGrath and company are emphasizing how interesting and entertaining trannies are. For example, McGrath has tweeted mockingly about stories like this, in which a polymorphously perverted man is described as a woman:
A Glasgow-born sex offender has admitted exposing her penis, using a sex toy and masturbating in public. Chloe Thompson committed the “grossly offensive” acts in daylight and in front of shocked members of the public, a court was told.
At one point, three children saw the former soldier exposing herself and thrusting her hips in the window of her home, TeesideLive reports. Her latest offences were committed on August 13 last year in Cromer Street and Wellesley Road, Middlesbrough. A couple saw her performing a sex act on herself in a back alleyway of Wellesley Road at about 3.45pm that day.
Liz McGowan, prosecuting, said “the defendant was moving forwards and backwards against a wheelie bin” before being seen using a sex toy on herself. At the time she was wearing “an ill-fitting black wig, a ra-ra skirt and a midriff-length top”, the court heard. (Scot flashed penis and used sex toy in public leaving onlookers shocked, The Daily Record, 18th February 2022)
The story is utterly ludicrous — “her penis,” “sex toy,” “ill-fitting black wig,” “ra-ra skirt” — but that’s precisely why it’s entertaining. So the paradox may be that the bad behavior of some transsexuals helps the translunatic cause. Perverts like “Chloe Thompson” are providing entertainment and excitement in a way that dull dykes don’t. Look at one recent example in the UK of a lesbian losing to translunacy. The lesbian professor of philosophy Kathleen Stock resigned from her post at the University of Sussex after a hostile campaign against her by trans-rights activists and what she called “ostracism” by her academic colleagues and trade-union. What had she done? She’d questioned transgender dogma about men being able to become authentic women. Like other TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, Stock thinks that biological sex matters and trumps self-identification. I agree with them. However, I don’t think TERFs like Stock are motivated by their love of truth. Rather, I think they’re motivated by their hatred and envy of men. Stock doesn’t want biological males to call themselves lesbians and make accusations of “transphobia” to coerce genuine lesbians like herself into sex.
Dull dyke Kathleen Stock
And she’s right. But she’s something else: a dull dyke. Just look at her photos for proof of that. She has short grey hair. She wears denim shirts with button-down pockets and (you can be sure) very sensible shoes. And she was a Professor of Philosophy who wrote an article called “Sexual objectification, objectifying images and mind-insensitive ‘seeing-as’” for a book called Evaluative Perception (2018).
Let’s face it: she’s a dull and dowdy dyke! And I think that dykey dullness is one big reason that lesbians like Stock are losing the cultural war with translunatics. Although Stock herself is not transphobic, her opponents can accurately be called lesbophobic. They don’t like dykey dullness, preferring the flamboyance, drama and exhibitionism of male-to-female transsexuals. And I think that a book called The Neophiliacs, written by Christopher Booker and published way back in 1969, offers an important insight into the psychology of pro-tranny leftists. The book describes how leftists are characterized by their neophilia, or “love of the new.” Thanks in part to their immaturity and the emptiness of their lives, leftists enjoy change and destruction for the interest and excitement these things provide. And so leftists have rejected what the vast majority of human beings have always believed: that a biological male cannot become a woman by wearing a dress or by having his male genitals removed and replaced with an unhealthy and unhygienic simulacrum of a vagina.
Hostility is helpful
Not that many trans-women and self-proclaimed “lesbians” bother with genital surgery these days. The Jewish-Israeli Jonathan Yaniv, who has described himself as “one proud lesbian” on his Twitter page, prompted more ludicrous — and highly entertaining — news-reports when he sued female beauticians in Canada for declining to wax his “female” testicles. And I myself may have inadvertently helped the translunatic cause by writing about Yaniv and his antics in articles like “Power to the Perverts!” By doing that, I’ve helped to emphasize the entertainment value of translunacy. Yes, I’m hostile to translunacy, but translunatics are exhibitionists and likely narcissists. They enjoy even negative attention.
And the hostility of an out-group can strengthen the solidarity of an in-group and increase its will-to-power. Some Jews have commented that anti-Semitism is useful to Jews as a group, because it strengthens Jewish identity and serves to justify Jewish goyophobia. Accordingly, Jews may seek to provoke anti-Semitism in order to reap those benefits. The hostility of outsiders to translunacy may help translunatics in a similar way, increasing their sense of solidarity and confirming their self-image as persecuted victims. It may seem harmful to the translunatic cause when a transsexual in “an ill-fitting black wig [and] ra-ra skirt” uses a sex-toy on “herself” in public and flashes “her” penis whilst hip-thrusting at passers-by. But perhaps it isn’t harmful at all. Perhaps it’s helpful. Again, you can’t imagine a lesbian adding to the gaiety of nations by doing such things. Dykes are dull! But that’s why lesbians may do well in academia, particularly in subjects where hard work and seriousness can compensate for lack of intellectual rigor and good ideas.
“The most influential gender theorist of all”
After all, one of the super-stars of the modern humanities is the lesbian philosopher and cultural analyst Judith Butler, who once won first prize in a Bad Writing Contest for this very dull prose:
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. (Bad Writing Contest for 1998)
Dull dykes Judith Butler and Kathleen Stock
Interestingly, Judith Butler looks a lot like Kathleen Stock. For example, they wear their hair in a similar short style with a side-parting. But one very big difference between Butler and Stock is that Stock is trans-exclusionary while Butler is very much trans-inclusionary. A feminist critic of translunacy has described Butler as “the most influential gender theorist of all.” She has done more than anyone else to promote the idea “that sex and gender are not distinct things, and that sex/gender is socially constructed.”
Harming gentile societies
Why do the lesbian academics Butler and Stock differ so strongly on the translunatic invasion of lesbian territory? I think the explanation is simple. TERFs like Stock oppose translunacy because they hate men. Butler and her similarly trans-friendly lesbian colleague Gayle Rubin support translunacy because they hate goyim and Christianity. Butler and Rubin are both Jewish and they want to subvert and harm gentile societies. I would call both of them charlatans, not genuine scholars, and would say that they owe their huge success in academia to their dykey dullness and their ethnicity. That is, they work hard and take advantage of the Jewish ethnic nepotism I examined in my article “A Singularly Semitic Scandal” (which is about yet another Jewish lesbian charlatan called Avital Ronell).
The introverted but resentful and subversive psychology of academics has played a very important role in the rise of translunacy and other parts of the wokism currently infesting the West. This is the second of the implicit insights provided by Paul Baker’s book Fabulosa!, the history of Polari I described above. Baker is constantly referring to his own introversion, describing himself in the introduction as “a shy boy … with phobias of public speaking and strangers, and no social skills” (p. 11). It’s plain that he’s studied Polari in part because he admires and envies the camp self-confidence and sharp tongues of the extrovert and exhibitionist homosexuals who created and used it. Baker is a Professor of English Language at Lancaster University in the north of England, but I don’t think he would hold that post if there were a lot of competition for it or if his subject required a great deal of intelligence and insight.
Leftists are bored with lesbians
Academics in the humanities are generally there because academia suits them, not because they suit academia. In a physics or mathematics department, you will find people with genuine intelligence and insight into their subjects (although this is changing for the worse as standards are lowered to admit more Blacks and women). In a humanities department, you will find people without genuine intelligence and insight. But they want to pretend otherwise, of course, which is why academics like Judith Butler use the ugly and boring jargon I quoted above: “a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation.”
That’s the sort of language that dull dykes are adept at. It could never entertain an audience of millions in the way that Polari did on the lips of Julian and Sandy during the 1960s. As Steve Sailer says: Lesbians aren’t gay. Dykes are dull and dowdy; fairies are flash and flamboyant. And male-to-female transsexuals have continued that tradition of flash and flamboyance. They’re entertaining and interesting even when — or especially when — they’re behaving badly. I think that’s why translunatics are successfully invading lesbian territory. Dykes are dull and dowdy. Leftists are bored with lesbians, whether they’ll admit it or not. And that’s a big part of why lesbians are losing to translunacy.