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.

The goals are the eradication of disease, the restoration of proper form and function, and the alleviation of pain. The alleviation of pain is limited too by ethical principles. Most doctors won’t alleviate the suffering of those who identify as amputees by amputating healthy arms. Most doctors won’t treat insomnia with propofol. And many doctors won’t treat gender dysphoria by chemically sterilizing pre-teens, lopping off the healthy breasts of girls, and castrating boys.

In Chu’s twisted view, neither the consciences of surgeons nor the significant potential for future suffering should be permitted to influence the accessibility of mutilating surgeries.

Primacy of subjective feelings in “trans”-cultism

Chu’s troubling editorial reveals the primacy of subjectivism in the “trans” ideology. Subjectivism is the philosophical belief that knowledge “proceeds from or belongs to individual consciousness or perception” and that “there is no external or objective truth.”

Subjectivism is foundational to the “trans” ideology, which subordinates objective biological sex to subjective feelings about one’s maleness, femaleness, both, or neither. This exaltation of subjective experience is exposed in Chu’s implicit denial of the objective truth of his surgery: “Next Thursday, I will get a vagina.”

Chu did not get a vagina. He got a surgeon-constructed facsimile of a vagina. It isn’t materially or functionally a vagina. It is composed of either the inverted skin of his excised penis and scrotum or a segment of his sigmoid colon. If skin from his penis and scrotum were used, his fake-vagina will not be self-lubricating as vaginal tissue is, and it may grow hair. If a segment of his sigmoid colon were used, his “vagina” may produce a smelly, mucus-y discharge, will be at risk for colon cancer, and will not have the sensitivity of an actual vagina.

Even while claiming he would be getting a vagina, Chu acknowledged that his body won’t see it as that: “Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain.”

His body will always recognize the manmade opening as an unnatural wound and will seek to close it unless Chu regularly inserts dilating stents.

Subjective feelings for thee but not for MDs

Ironically, while Chu places his subjective, internal feelings at the center of his identity and bases his actions on them, like many other opposite-sex impersonators, he denies the same freedom to others. In fact, he believes his subjective desires place obligations on others. His subjective feelings about his sex require actions of others that deny their subjective feelings and beliefs about the meaning of biological sex and of harm. Chu seeks to force doctors to violate their moral convictions, ethical principles, and concomitant feelings in order to serve his “wants.”

Chu writes this about the real possibility that more and new forms of suffering may follow surgery: “The negative passions—grief, self-loathing, shame, regret—are as much a human right as universal health care, or food. There are no good outcomes in transition.”

While grief, self-loathing, shame, and regret are common experiences, it is nonsensical to refer to them as human rights. Chu seems to be suggesting that surgery and the ensuing suffering are not only human rights but also that they’re positive rights, which are rights that oblige others to do or provide something.

Chu believes doctors, in violation of their own ethical convictions—convictions that are central to their identities—are obliged to provide services that will damage bodily functions and wholeness and may result in grief, self-loathing, shame, and regret.

In his spiritually dark, bent world, Chu seeks self-erasure and longs for woe: “Tragically I still want this, all of it. I want the tears; I want the pain. Transition doesn’t have to make me happy for me to want it.”

And this is who America’s best and brightest chose to honor.