Man Who Pretends to Be Woman Awarded Worthless Pulitzer Prize

Five years ago, I wrote an article titled “Andrea Chu, Boy Erased: Self-Negation and Self-Harm Define the ‘Trans’ Ideology” about sexually disturbed New York University PhD candidate “Andrea” Long Chu, a then 25-year-old man who longed to be a woman. Just a few days before Chu’s castration, the New York Times published a troubling essay by him titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy,” in which he claimed that gender-dysphoric persons are entitled to surgery and that surgeons have an obligation to provide it regardless of their beliefs about what constitutes harm.

More on that shortly. But first some news about Chu. He is, unfortunately, in the news again, and again for controversial reasons.

Chu has been awarded a Pulitzer Prize which is administered by Columbia University demonstrating again how worthless Pulitzer Prizes have become. The prize is for “distinguished criticism, using any available journalistic tool” and comes with a hefty $15,000.

Americans need to rein in their awe of the corrupted Pulitzer Prize, which is awarded by teeny-tiny ideologically imbalanced juries. Here are the five people who awarded the mentally ill, morally repugnant Chu his prize:

Jeneé Osterheldt whose bio describes her as “a culture columnist who covers identity and social justice through the lens of culture and the arts. She centers Black lives and the lives of people of color. … [T]his means taking systemic racism, sexism, and oppression to task. It always means Black lives matter.”

Dru Menaker self-identifies as a “free expression advocate,” which apparently includes providing obscene material to kindergartners; she opposes a new Tennessee law that “makes it a felony for a book publisher, distributor, or seller to provide ‘obscene matter’ to a public school serving any K-12 students.

Bilal Qureshi is a senior editor at NPR, an American Muslim, and homosexual.

David Plazas is the Opinion and Engagement Director at the Tennessean and homosexual. His favorite opinion writer is the wildly leftist New York Times writer Frank Bruni, who too is homosexual.

Lauren Etter is an investigative reporter for Bloomberg News.

Since leftists are so concerned with “representation,” it’s weird that the jury is 40 percent homosexual and 80-100% “progressive.”

Sissy hypo porn

In his book Female, Chu admits he was lured into the “trans” cult by exposure to “sissy hypno porn,” a genre of porn that instructs male viewers to imagine themselves as a woman being penetrated.

An article titled, “Sissy Porn, the Gender Movement’s Dirty Secret” provides this description of the sick phenomenon:

Sissy hypno videos, especially those made by men who identify as trans, instruct men to transform into women (though the pornography industry term “girl” is often used instead). Mantras are repeated -- often a variation of ‘you are the girl,’ commanding the viewer to imagine themselves as female.

In an interview, Chu says that “It’s plausible” that had he not been exposed to sissy hypno porn, he may “never” have “figured it out” that he is a “transwoman.” More likely, such a bizarre idea would not have entered his mind and malleable imagination.

In his book Female, Chu offers a more detailed description of sissy hypno porn:

Sissy porn’s central conceit is that the women it depicts are in fact former men who have been feminized (‘sissified’) by being forced to wear makeup, wear lingerie, and perform acts of sexual submission. Captions further instruct viewers to understand that the very act of looking at sissy porn itself constitutes an act of sexual degradation, with the implication that, whether they like it or not, viewers will inevitably be transformed into females themselves. This makes sissy porn a kind of metapornography, that is, porn about what happens to you when you watch porn. At the center of sissy porn lies the asshole, a kind of universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed. Getting f*cked makes you female because f*cked is what a female is.

The degree of mental illness that accompanies Chu’s gender dysphoria is revealed in his uncommonly frank description of “transitioning”:

This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to…. People transition because they think it will make them feel better. The thing is, this is wrong…. I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones. One reason is that, absent the levies of the closet, years of repressed longing for the girlhood I never had have flooded my consciousness. I am a marshland of regret. Another reason is that I take estrogen—effectively, delayed-release sadness, a little aquamarine pill that more or less guarantees a good weep within six to eight hours.

Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began transition. I now feel very strongly about the length of my index fingers—enough that I will sometimes shyly unthread my hand from my girlfriend’s as we walk down the street. When she tells me I’m beautiful, I resent it…. I know what beautiful looks like. Don’t patronize me.

I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.

I won’t go through with it, probably.

Demand for physician-assisted mutilation

Harm is a concept that Chu twists in his effort to compel doctors to medically ravage the bodies of girls, boys, women, and men. His confusing thicket of childish rationalizations for compelling doctors to concede to the “wants” of gender-dysphoric persons come down to these:

1) Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to “gatekeep,” (i.e., to decide which treatment modalities will be prescribed for gender-dysphoric persons), because, Chu alleges, many doctors view “trans”-identifying persons with “suspicion and condescension,” and are motivated by “bigotry.”

2) Doctors shouldn’t use the alleviation of suffering as a criterion for assessing treatment modalities, because some of the treatment modalities desired by gender-dysphoric patients will not alleviate suffering and may increase it.

3) Allowing doctors to determine the best course of action constitutes an illicit dictatorial control over the bodies of gender-dysphoric persons and encourages them to lie by pretending that such treatment modalities will, indeed, end their suffering:

As long as transgender medicine retains the alleviation of pain as its benchmark of success, it will reserve for itself, with a dictator’s benevolence, the right to withhold care from those who want it. … [A]s things stand today, there is still only one way to obtain hormones and surgery: to pretend that these treatments will make the pain go away.

In Chu’s skewed and revolutionary view, “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want…. [N]o amount of pain, anticipated or continuing, justifies its withholding.”

Chu wants what he wants, and any impediment—including the knowledge and expertise of doctors—to the satiation of his desire for self-negation is ipso facto wrong. This raises the question, does Chu believe his principles should be applied consistently to all medical and psychological conditions or just gender dysphoria?

Chu’s explanation that doctors are motivated by the sole goal of alleviating pain is myopic or incomplete. Many doctors believe the practice of medicine—both means and ends—is circumscribed by objective standards that determine the appropriateness of medical options. Those standards derive from objective measures of bodily health and wholeness.