No true. It turns out, Biden wasn't nominating a *woman*. He only nominated people who identify as women. We've all been duped. Should've known better when he appointed Rachel Levine, another "woman".
I thought the right term was "vagina haver" . . . idk, they keep coming up with more newspeak. I can't keep up. And is "brown" an offense now? Should it be "POC vagina haver"? Is "smooth" somehow inadvertent hate speech? Better double check.
She was able to, she just refused to. And a lot of people thought that was a cleverly, lawyerly way of "evading the conservative trap" of the question. Everyone has gone MAD.
Well, she did say that she could not answer because she "was not a biologist", thereby conceding that biology is the determining factor. I would have responded that, like Justice Potter Stewart and obscenity, I can't define it but I know one when I see one.
When we think about crimes against humanity we picture dumb brutes with guns, not well-dressed politicians and professionals. But they’re some of the worst and there's ample precedent for using human rights law to punish them.
Hermann Göring was civilian President of parliament. Saddam Hussein was President of his country; ditto Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Wojciech Jaruzelski, and many more. The 61 perpetrators convicted for the Rwandan genocide include journalists, priests, a popular musician, a historian, and numerous politicians including the Minister of Education, the Minister of Commerce, the (woman) Minister for Family Welfare, and the Prime Minister. These are not dumb brutes with guns. Think about that.
High-level professionals can and do commit crimes against humanity. A doctor who performs unethical human experimentation is a criminal. After the famous Nuremberg trial came twelve lesser-known "Subsequent Nuremberg trials." In the first, The Doctors' Trial, 21 of the 23 defendants were medical doctors. Sixteen were found guilty. Seven were hanged.
A judge who enforces twisted laws is a criminal. Like Oswald Rothaug. The fact that he’s a judge, a highly educated person entrusted with enforcing duly enacted laws, doesn’t make it better, it makes it worse. He never carried a gun; he carried a gavel. That’s enough. (At the third Subsequent Nuremberg trial Judge Rothaug was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity.)
In the other ten, civilian government officials were tried for crimes against humanity. Leading businessmen, too:"
When this paradigm of "gender identity" erases biology, it erases all the experiences sui generis to women living in a society that still largely operates in a caste system based on sex. You are in effect abandoning the more vulnerable, biologically important half of the population.
And when you try to "disappear" female identity by replacing "gender stereotypes" with "gender identity," you're literally arguing that how one “feels” about oneself is more important than the physical reality of a woman's body.
"...you're literally arguing that how one “feels” about oneself is more important than the physical reality..." Isn't this basically the left's argument on everything?
Some of this is down to *bikini medicine*, namely the assumption that men and women are alike except for the bits covered by a bikini. If bikini medicine holds, then biological sex isn't that important (Butler's view). However, in 2014, the NIH did cough to the fact that they had not bothered accounting for biological sex as a variable in research and that in fact, perhaps it did matter. Since 2016, biological sex as a variable has been accepted. Among things they discovered was that male and female heart disease exhibit different patterns and that male and female bodies react differently to certain medications. There is also research into pregnancy and menopause etc etc. In short biological sex is an important variable in medical research. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender/sexgender-influences-health-and-disease has more information.
Equally, it was thought that people were not that bothered about this. The Respect My Sex, if you want my X campaign in the UK (now in its 2nd week) has shown that it is something the grassroots will get mobilized about. They have a series of honesty questions to doorstep politicians about. Basically if a politician can not give a straight answer about what is a man or a woman then why should electorate trust them to give a straight answer on anything else?
Agree - plus you cannot really change the bits covered by the bikini other than to destroy what was there and plastic surgery your way into a cosmetic fiction.
Don't you just love it when they sew part of a man's colon to his inverted penis to construct his "vagina." And how about those hideous scars on the arm that result when it's skinned to form a woman's "penis." Dr. Frankenstein ain't got nothing on these docs.
There are ways to ask that question -- for example Do you believe a biological male police officer should administer a rape test kit to a female victim of severe sexual trauma? Should a biological male police officer strip search a woman? Should the woman be allowed to object to the above without being branded a bigot?
Yeah. But if Ya wanna organize a group to fight this kind-a crap, You might recall that a lotta men are NOT misogynists. Some probably make good allies, but who needs dat?
And clearly some of the misogynists ARE women. Or at least those formerly recognized as women by virtue of having the requisite chromosomes. Hey, neomysogynists!!!! Wow I created a word.
Because then you don't get special privileges. You don't get to compete in a special form of sports where you can win gold medals and be crowned world champion despite being hundreds of places below the world's best.
I’ve been told that the only persons who can call themselves women are men who identify as women. This is just more gasoline on the fire, adds to the confusion, and in no way helps answer your very valid question.
Yep. Women fought for millennia to be more than second-class humans behind the ones with penises. Now, we're even second-class *women* ... behind the ones with penises. Insanity.
It is because identity theory has created a hierarchy of oppression. The more oppressed trump the lesser oppressed. Mind-numbing no? And professortariat just keep creating new identities to classify as oppressed. If there is a silver lining it is that people with common survival needs - food, shelter, competent education for the offspring, reasonable health care, etc.. - are finding each other. And this is one place it is happening - black, white, red, yellow, and brown, men, women, trans and non-binary, degreed and not, urban and rural, young and old, gay, straight and bisexual - are realizing we have much more in common than not. Kudos to you all.
Because ultimately it is biological men bullying women into silence. I don't really 'believe" in the patriarchy ,but must admit it is the best evidence of the patriarchy I've ever seen.
"Feminists" have enabled biological men to supercede women. Both groups are involved in bullying "normie" women. W/O support from Feminists the Transmen would have no traction.
I predict that women's teams will welcome these ringers to ensure their victory. Other teams will quickly recruit more trans "women" to keep up and so on and so forth until women are back in the kitchen and bedroom where they belong and all sportswomen have...balls.
Hijacking of Feminism is just one of the symptoms of larger ideological capture that started in US Universities in mid 2000. Before this Universities were places where people went to be exposed to different opinions, believes and values and then trough discussions, exchange of ideas manage to come back as productive members of society.
Sadly since mid 2000 things are going down the hill, facts are not relevant anymore (math is racist), reality doesnt matter (no difference between male and female), only thing that is important is to tow woke party line. Any dissent will be shunned, decried as racism, white supremacy, colonialism. And universities became party schools for brain washing.
Big mistake was made, when majority of people thought, that this was was just a phase, and will be finished after people leave college, but this was gravely wrong. Not only that it dint went away, it spread like wildfire. Media outlets were captured, companies, and now it is spreading to government. With out free and independent media, there was no-one to report on ongoing issues of this ideology that is destroying universities, and few descending voices are viciously attacked and silenced, first by MSM and now by tech companies.
In middle ages, if you didn't comply to dogma of the church, you were burned on public square. Now too you will be "burned" on "public square" of social media networks, they will make you unemployable, will destroy not only you, but anyone associated to you.
And as any dogma, it is getting more radical by the day, and more and more "stringed purity" tests are created by the day, to judge unbelievers and believers of this new woke religion.
I hope that we wont have to wait for decades, to get rid of this illiberal ideology, that is rotting US society from inside out.
Thx for the article - just read it and found it interesting.
"We must harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust, reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive, and better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age."
Well, a problem with "hardening" our institutions as they stand right now so that they can withstand mistrust - is that they are currently "Woke". How can we trust a government who tells us First Female Four Star Admiral Rachael/Richard Levine is a woman and puts him in a position of power regarding Mental Health? How can we trust an education system that grooms kids for Gender with unicorns? How can we trust a medical system that "affirms" girls for Gender Identity and hands them "T"?
How can we better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age when the schools push Marxist Queer Theory to separate them from their families and make them easy fodder?
I agree. I think it is because of the interconnectivity enabled by the internet many never really leave college. Plus it is taking many students(even pre-Covid) 5, 6, 7 years to obtain an undergraduate degree.
They come in to college woefully unprepared for college level work. Many need remediation for basic courses. They have no focus and change their majors several times adding to the course load, time factor and money. They go for the easy and get worthless degrees in gender studies and some marginalized sociology program. When they graduate they go to work for the government, an HR dept or a college or university where they perpetuate mediocrity, envy and divisiveness.
There is another factor that is rarely considered. Many college students are mismatched to the college or university. When my children were getting ready for college I did some research. I checked on the average SAT scores for that campus. If the average score is at the top range of your child's score they are going to struggle. It is better to find a university or college where your child will be in the top 25% of the student population. They will end up with a better experience and will be less likely to fail, drop out and/or become resentful. Many activist students and drop outs are resentful without being aware as to the root cause of their anger and resentment. It is because they are/were mismatched to the higher educational institution they went to.
Actually no, in the middle ages, people were rarely burned on the public square or anywhere else (burning witches was a Protestant phenomenon and the death penalty was common but mostly for crime). Doxxing and "canceling" people today is by far, FAR more common than burning people ever was.
Thank you for publishing this excellent article. I am proud to call myself an old-school liberal and feminist. To me, "women" like Lia Thomas and her many activist supporters are simply exercising standard male privilege by insisting their rights are more important than actual natal women.
Transgender individuals deserve equal rights under the law but they do not deserve the "privilege" of athletic scholarships designed for cis women.
And there's no such thing as "gender" or "transgender." There is sex and there are people who pretend to be the opposite sex. They should have no more rights than any other citizen. We must not reorganize our entire society just to cater to the demands of a tiny subset of emotionally disturbed people.
They also don't "deserve" to confined with True Women in prison cells, like they do in CA. CA's so-called "solution:" "You just need to fight them," and handing out *condoms.* Sort-a blows the whole theory that there's only other women going in there right outta the water!
There's a lawsuit against that, but it's facing the full power of the State, so outcome unknowable.
If I were in a woman’s prison and they allowed men who say they are women in, the first thing I’d do is organize my fellow prisoners to give that guy exactly what he purports to want, no penis or balls. They’d only have to do it to one or two and then the pipeline would stop.
Close, but no cigar. What they do is group themselves to maintain a watch during the nights. But either way, women have ended up raped and with a number of pregnancies.
The only wonder I have is how are "they" keeping it so quiet. Sheesh. Just answered my own question. What media would take the time to find out, for one? For another, what media tells anything approaching reality?
It is not just Cali. My formerly very conservative county houses people in a county jail administered by a very conservative sheriff by how the inmate identify their gender.
To be honest, a lot of this whole trans nonsense lines up with ultra-right wing MRAs. "If you bitches want to take men's jobs, then fine -- we'll wear dresses and rape you. You made us do it."
I just read an account of a trans "man" in Britain who spent two years in the men's prison despite begging for a transfer to the women's. That certainly seems like spiteful retaliation to me--"You think you're a man? This is what you get." So trans "women" are treated like queens and trans "men" are tormented and laughed at.
Some no doubt but I think those types are truly marginalized. I think most men and most women and those in between realize we need each other. When I was young we talked about the rat race. As I grow old I am.experiencing first hand what that means. People are crazy. Way too many people.
I think that suit is being brought by WOLF, Women's Liberation Front--you can donate to their fund at womensliberationfront.org. Every little bit helps.
I agree with you this is a good article but STRONGLY disagree this is “supporters are simply exercising standard male privilege by insisting their rights are more important than actual natal women.”
Most of the support is coming from women and feminists. Saying this is “exercising male privilege” is simply moral exculpation to remove your culpability in this mess as a feminist.
Most men know what it means to have testosterone pumping through your blood since about age 12 and how utterly unfair it is for biological men to compete with women. For a male to decide he wants to identify as a woman is one thing, but to then think that person needs to go compete in athletics with females in order to somehow fulfill a sense of self is completely off the rails.
"Natal women" -- give me a break. And Steven N you are correct -- very few men (other than the ones who think they are women) seem to support this. WOMEN are propping them up because they feel sorry for them. It's 100% possible to feel sorry for troubled people without lying to and about them, and taking away the rights of everyone else.
I was always suspicious of "feminism." I grew up with the movement. The only good I ever noticed was men became more circumspect about sexual predation at work.
Yes, and the experience has been mirrored in the gay rights movement, as you mention. From fighting to be legal through to gay marriage, it was a bottom up movement. And then with gay marriage, most gays were happy and settled down to normal lives. But the lobbying groups and, most importantly, the universities, took up the torch, rebranded everything as Queer, and spent their days navel gazing and coming up with more and more bizarre words and ideas to toss at one another with zero impact on the gay community.
I sometimes think that it's also the next generation in line trying to find Something To Fight For, and who are galled at the idea that maybe, just maybe, all of the people with particular problems in the world have already been identified by their parents' and grandparents' generations, and what's needed is to just see those through.
No, no! Can't be THAT! WE need a rebellion! WE need a reason to call our parents idiots and bigots, too! So they invent a new category of oppressed person -- dude in a dress -- and proceed to go batshit insane over it.
Definitely a big part of it. I live in a liberal New England college town with no real problems. So people are desperately digging up their backyards to find arrowheads to prove the land originally belonged to Native Americans so we can pay them reparations and do that Indigenous land acknowledgement. And our planning commission's top priority is to study and remedy segregation in a town that is 98% white. We've already declared ourselves a nuclear free zone and changed Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' Day so we really are running out of ways to virtue signal.
Yes, many believe they missed the great movements in history with the last being the Civil Rights Movement. They are trying to find meaning and purpose in their lives and have not got the underpinnings of a religious foundation and belief system to help them choose between the false and the true. The new cause becomes their religion.
That's probably 95% of it, right there. And the fact that most of 'em had practically *all* their needs met. Gotta *invent* problems to "solve" (cough) to give their empty social-media constrained lives *some* meaning.
They have to separate children from their parents because the parent is the child's protector. You can't groom the child or gain access to the child to gratify your sexual proclivities if the parent is in the picture. Hence the activists demanding secrecy from the school systems so parents won't know who is counseling their child and about what, what books they are being assigned to read, what cartoons they are being shown, what discussions the teacher is leading.
Lol yeah as a 33-yo homo, I’ve never cared to learn what “queer theory” is. Much in the same way that the “we’re going to shove gay pride down your throat” people turned the average person against SSM, the TRAs can’t see the harm that they’re doing to their own cause.
That is not correct. Most gay people and lesbians never wanted to, and never did marry. Their lives did not change at all. And the activists behind the "gay marriage" movement are pretty much the same people still doing all the activism -- their lives didn't change, either. They continue to grow in power and influence (and funding), and whatever their aims are, they aren't and never were "settling down to normal lives."
Nothing you said changes the fact that the activists worked for something the majority of people they claimed to act for didn't want to do, something no one in any society had ever sanctioned, and that they continue to advocate for things fewer and fewer people want to do -- things they insist everyone else promote and celebrate, things that are increasingly destructive and harmful. That's the point of what I said. I'm sorry you don't think I'm a nice person and I wish nothing bad for you. When it comes to public policy, medicine, law, and health, what works best for families needs to come first, because families produce every one of us.
Children thrive best with their married biological parents, and the health of societies is best ensured when societies promote men and women marrying and having children, supported by and supporting their extended families. Societies that refuse to do this themselves, and refuse to put it first in their policies, pay a terrible price in poverty, drug addiction, crime, depression, suicide, and all the things our country pretends aren't happening even as the bodies pile up. A lot of men don't want to marry because we have messed up our marriage laws, our families, and our children. No, that doesnt' mean we should ban marriage, it means we need to fix what we've been doing wrong.
Is this 1998? Haven't had a gay marriage debate in decades and I'm pretty happy about that. Some of what you say makes sense, and that's the part I've already said above. The rest is old, rehashed nonsense. Sorry you hate the gays, not sure why you're on a happily married lesbian's substack bashing her marriage, but if that's what makes you happy after all these years, I fully support your right to spout. My advice is fight the next fight, not one from the distant past (and no, they're not the same, which I'm sure will be part of your rejoinder). Have a good day.
Ever watch the movie, McCabe & Mrs. Miller? Came out in the early 70s or so. Warren Beatty is McCabe and he’s a hustler who rides into a little mining town in the Pacific northwest c 1890. But McCabe was on the wrong side of a deal with powerful group who send some rough folks out to hunt and kill him. He goes to see a lawyer (McCabe was also at the end of the line when they were handing out brainpower) who espouses platitudes at most tangentially related to his plight. The lawyer has no clue what the problem is, but holds forth with great passion and confidence that he can help him. In other words, the lawyer was a moron.
Sound familiar?
(By the way, most of the music in the movie was by Leonard Cohen. Some was hilariously juxtaposed, like when “The Sisters of Mercy” was being sung. Good movie. No spoilers.)
I believe I saw yesterday that the only cohort believing that Joe Biden is doing a good job is college educated women. If you can’t even discern that the President of the United States is a senile, imbecilic fool, is there any wonder that you would embrace the gender lunacy and arrant idiocy being pushed today?
Just amazing, isn't it? Moreover, young women now constitute 60% of college attendees. Sort of a negative feedback loop - extol nonsense, attract more women to it and alienate and marginalize men. And call it "progress."
It’s pretty simple. Without women, there would be no men, trans women or any variation of non binary person. Full stop. The vast majority of people know this and need to speak up to defend women from this nonsense.
Is someone forcing them to compete against this transgender person? Can’t they use their First Amendment rights? The women can protest by not competing against a transgender person! Why do you want someone else to take care of their problem?
Livelihood and in the US, healthcare. I require a costly injectable literally to live. $500/dose. If I lose employer-provided healthcare, I will be either dead in a year or severely impaired (what used to be called a "vegetable") for decades.
I am to the point I believe the "elite" are brain dead. IMO one of the most important signs of intelligence is recognition that there are things one does not know. Another is recognition and acknowledgment of mistakes. I see little evidence of either in the so-called "elite".
You're right on all counts, per usual. I'll just the main problem with the elites is that the "heart dead." I believe that's because they don't have much contact with *living breathing people.* To much lived in the virtual reality created by computers, is my guess.
Not so sure about that anymore Pam, Ms. Strimpel cites multiple academic “women” as sources of this further muddying of the waters. To blame it on “men” (ironic quotes intended) is simplistic and reductive.
I looked up the ncaa Board of Governors. Made up of chancellors of universities. The far majority are male. Robert Gates is on it. That tells you everything. I don’t believe that representation must exactly match the people being governed but that sure speaks to academia and whats happening in it.
There are indeed a lot of women in this world who see in misogyny a perfect weapon to take out their female competition. I'm convinced that a lot of the women who are supporting this men-in-women's-sports bullshit look at the girls who are competing and seethe with resentment because who do those bitches think they are getting medals and attention.
Its called “relational aggression”. Women do it all the time in the work place. Its grounded in how we are raised, culture and gender-based play theory.
Fortunately for the gals, it is trivial compared to the war on men by women. Normally, men - generally much stronger, larger, more aggressive, would do that which they've always done - defend women and put this "gender" nonsense to bed. Now most of us have other fish to fry. Enjoy your "freedom from male oppression."
I understand your anger. I was shocked by the statistics of how poorly men are doing (suicides, support services, on the job deaths, divorce)and there is an incredible documentary on it whose name escapes me right now. You are right to point out that a few men are acting aggressively to subdue women and many good men have opted out due to past mistreatment.
Nobody's angry. There is a very big difference between angry and fed-up. I'm fed-up, and largely because these - as Limbaugh called them - Femi-Nazis and their soy-boy supplicants have made life miserable for men AND women - creatures who are natural allies, not enemies - and worse, miserable as well for their unfortunate offspring.
Good plan. I can do that. You? How about you design, build, and maintain the dams, steam turbines, reactors and alternators that bring electricity to keep your backside warm in winter and cool in summer. Climb the 135' tall towers and string the cables. Use the 65# chain saws and cut down the trees, wrestle them onto trucks, and saw them into the boards that keep that warm air indoors. Cast, draw and thread the pipes that bring water into your little warm spot and take your poo away when you're done with the latest oh-so-smart little missive about "toxic masculinity."
Naw. The fact is that over the course of history, men and women have cooperated in a viciously dangerous and difficult world to move humanity forward - sometimes by fits and starts, but forward - each doing the jobs FOR WHICH THEY WERE BEST SUITED. In the real world, though, aggressiveness occasionally gets turned in the wrong direction, but its benefits seem pretty great when someone threatens your family. Everything is a double-edged sword. Smart people know that.
Naw. In the comfort of modernity, almost all of which was invented, produced, and maintained by men using that sometimes admittedly, testosterone-fueled aggressiveness, as you say, SOME women are attacking those people who made their comfortable little world possible. And SOME men are well and truly fed up with it.
MGTOW? Why would anyone do that, when the world is filled with women who are smart enough to know all these things, and easily accessible by those big, mean old airplanes - sometimes flown by Western women, but once again, in fact, invented by Western men.
It might be interesting to see a world without men; questions of reproduction aside, it would likely consist of mud huts - if the gals could figure out how to stack the mud. Maybe men and women should get off each others' backs and return to cooperating to keep moving humanity forward, instead of tearing each other to shreds - just like the globalists want - so they can then give orders to us all.
Jim, lots of women don’t buy into this “I am woman, hear me roar” philosophy. They just do what they have to do in order to take care of themselves and their families. They don’t have the time or the energy to get on a soap box and complain, or waste time commiserating about what’s fair and what’s unfair. Unfortunately no one writes about those women. The media pontificates and writes and interviews the women coming out of academia with gender studies majors who have no relationship with reality. If they didn’t get up on a soap box to complain there would be no validation of their pointless time spent in university. So don’t assume that all women believe this shit
putting gender hood or woman hood above men. Most people just want to be treated fairly.
Agree completely. Most all of us are just trying to find our way; unfortunately the misfits and soreheads - who have always been with us - are now able to elbow their way to the loudest, highest soapboxes, and while they are in actuality a tiny minority, in these days they exert an outsized influence.
When I get a few minutes, I'll share my experience in growing up in rural West Virginia in the 'fifties. My mother was born in 1911, my father 1904; add to that Appalachia's traditional twenty-years-behind-the-times, and you have a glimpse into the far past. As they say, sometimes fantasy gets mugged by reality, and having lived during those times when women and men staggered from cradle to grave working the skin off their fingers might just be enlightening.
You ok, hun? Lot of pent up anger there. Looks like you really need to talk about your feelings. Maybe a counselor or a trained expert who can help.
We'll be nice and will pretend men haven't historically subjugated women and barred them from education and participating in the public world outside of home, which prevented them from achieving more for the greater good of humankind. We'll even pretend all men, even losers dwelling in their parents' basements watching Pornhub all day (not you of course, but they are out there), by doing nothing except by virtue of being born male, should claim credit for inventions and tough work done by a small selected group of commendable men.
What is this bizarre “macho”/insecure response from Jim? Sorry to be ad hominem, but like... one of the points of the article is that only recently have women been able to escape the shackles imposed on them by men only for female liberation to be hijacked by men.
His point is uncannily similar to the argument that black slaves couldn’t possibly survive in American civil society because well, they’d only ever been slaves. It’s been what ~100-120 years that women have been ‘allowed’ to have occupations outside the home, but yeah go off about how if men didn’t exist, we would only have mud huts.
Fortunately, I’ve had plenty of female friends who are far more intelligent than me to prevent me from being so ignorant.
This is nonsense. Most women have ALWAYS worked, because most businesses and professions were family businesses and professions (not wage-earning ones), and everyone in the family worked at them. Few MEN were ever educated, and the wives and daughters of those lucky few were usually educated to the same extent they were. It's true that in the West women had fewer legal rights, but that was not done in order to oppress women, it was based on centuries of developing law, and in the current West has not been the case for several generations. The vast majority of men have always done all the dangerous, difficult, horrible work, from fighting wars to digging tunnels in sheer rock -- all the work most likely to cripple, maim, and kill. They were not designing bridges or signing treaties. This is a fantasy view of history that does no one, male or female, any good to espouse.
I agree. Plus to say women did not work is ludicrous. Keeping a home and family is hard, hard daylight to dusk and beyond work. It is not coincidence that the availability of birth control and progress in women's rights occurred simultaneously.
Men do most of the dangerous, necessary, and backbreaking work of keeping things working, while women do most of the backbreaking work of raising children. This is the reality people ignore at their peril.
No working man I ever knew ignored it, minimised it, or failed to appreciate it. Only other women, and then only the college-educated women with no children of their own.
I'm movin' on from all this for a while. Things to do. People to harrass.
Mainly I know when I've been bested and am not even competitive.
"It might be interesting to see a world without men; questions of reproduction aside, it would likely consist of mud huts - if the gals could figure out how to stack the mud. Maybe men and women should get off each others' backs and return to cooperating to keep moving humanity forward, instead of tearing each other to shreds - just like the globalists want - so they can then give orders to us all."
Sorry - I probably shouldn't have been so snarky, but I like to think I'm a good guy; I've worked my ass off my whole life, literally dug ditches, installed septic systems for old ladies in the holler where I grew up - all at no cost, fixed every damned thing for every damned person I can name, for free. I went to med school on a shoestring, lying in snow and water to fix my VW so my girlfriend - later wife - and I could get around. I've never done anything mean to anybody and I am just fed up with being attacked for the crime of being a MAN. Fed up to here.
Men can be pretty credulous but women can, too, and anybody who thinks this "feminist" stuff has anything to do with "equality" needs to wise up. The world is hard. It's hard for everybody, and the fact is that men do 95% of the physically demanding, dirty, and dangerous jobs.
That is just what we do, and we don't complain about it. This issue is merely one more wedge to pit Westerners against each other; our masters have big, big plans for us, and to my eye we are definitely helping.
The snark started from the women IMO, followed by you making a reason for your thoughts and an appeal for working together. I also didn't hear a the classic bitchy "You ok, hun?" from you... nor did you launch immediately to character assassination, nor did you falsely associate someone with a particular movement. You did do one huge mistake, criticize a woman.
Don't bother, Jim. Just sit here and enjoy the schadenfreude I'm getting from watching a movement espouse its virtues that has exploded on them in only one century. I think even Communism had a longer lifetime...
Feminism as much as I want to separate the wheat from the chaffe has given people I care about an identity crisis not just in gender, but as their worth as mothers and wives whether they be stay and home or working mothers. It has created the very abusive men they've wanted to avoid by destroying the honor of being a self-sacrificing father in the eyes of Christ or promoting a stable family, demonizing a mother that does choose to stay home with her family as well as help influence policy that makes single working parent income impossible to live on. I'd even blame them for the amount of MLMs mothers get suckered into and being their main revenue.
You've done good, Jim. You don't need to defend yourself, just sit back and shake your head in bewilderment. If you've raised a family and provided for a home and did some level of decent parenting, you've done more than feminism has ever done for the family outside of the real saints in the past that tried to start up shelters for abused women instead of violating their insides to kill innocent children.
You are the kind I looked for. And found. God bless and keep you all. And as an aside that does not mean I am in any manner submissive. We are truly partners and each of us has a valuable skill set or sets.
Yes. Facts don't care about anyone's feelings, and I certainly don't. The fact is that men - mostly those dead white men that the Left and "feminists" love to hate - built the entire physical world and continue to keep it running, and nothing changes that fact. Men are generally more interested in things; women are generally more interested in people. Men built the material world, and women built everybody in it, and without those women our world would not exist. If you deleted men's accomplishments out of the history books, they would be the thickness of a Marvel comic. If you took all women's material accomplishments out, you couldn't tell the difference. If you, OTOH, took out all the great thinkers, do-ers, and leaders created by women, THAT book would look like a comic; I can't think of a single great human being reared exclusively by a man.
We are not the same; we are different. We in general have different interests and, yes, abilities. That's a good thing, and it is that difference which has allowed us to attack our common problems from different directions and become the dominant species in this world of incredible hardships.
Ah, the war that never ends. Perhaps someone should have reminded the feminists of the old adage, “sometimes it’s better to quit while you’re ahead”. Unfortunately, it seems that movements, like government programs and agencies never go away. They just keep moving the goal posts. It’s no coincidence that this latest iteration of feminism incubated in the hallowed grounds of academia. I have to admit that I’m a bit amused by it all. After years of fighting to get more women onto college campuses and into positions of authority within them to fight misogyny, it turns out that the academics they spawned are, wait for it; misogynists.
XX - that is the definition. Anything else is doublespeak designed to try to convince the population that up is down and day is night. If you believe them on this - they can convince you of anything (such as the senile, mumbling, squinting old man is actually running the US and doing a wonderful job!)
The XX definition leads to the “sex is a spectrum” because of anomalies in human development and the wider animal world. The male/female dichotomy depends on the size of reproduction cells. Females have large gametes and males have small gametes. For humans around 100K to 1. All sexually reproducing life has evolved the same solution, one sex has large gametes, the other sex has small gametes. We define the side with large gametes as female, the other as male. Even sexually reproducing plants have the same solution. Large female seeds and small male pollen. Using the XX approach will lead you into a sophist maze created by gender theorists. IMHO
We are humans, not plants. For the vast majority of humans, we are XX or XY. If anything other than that, it is classified as an illness. There are exceptions to every rule, but that does not negate the rule.
I agree everything. BUT, using XX XY dichotomy leads to unnecessary complications. Look at the now famous apologetic for sex as a spectrum https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/#. Notice how the author avoids the actual definition of sex by gamete size in order to obfuscate the issue. I’m only offering what I think is a better definition of sex.
I have to point out, as a matter of logic, not all rules have exceptions and exceptions do negate rules. Rules are not rules if they have exceptions.
Not in advertising, but been told I have a flair. "XX" is as simple as branding can get, in any color Ya want, with any colored background. Just IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).
As a person of the other sex, believing, by the way, that only two sexes exist in humans, I’ve never gotten tar-babied by evolving feminist politics. But I do have a perspective regarding the “hijacking” of post-Lucille Ball feminism. It soon became apparent that modern feminism was more about liberal politics than women’s rights. How can I say that? Because the movement’s leaders in its modern iteration were all on the left, people like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Patricia Schroeder, Elizabeth Holtzman, Barbara Jordan, Barbara Boxer, even Geraldine Ferraro. There has been no room in NOW for the likes of female high achievers to the right of NOW and NARAL, women like Phyllis Schafly, Sandra Day O’Connor, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Dole, Elaine Chao, Condi Rice, and Sarah Palin. Even women governors such as Kristi Noem and Nikki Haley have been despised and shunned by self-proclaimed feminists because they aren’t leftists. This goes for the latest wave of younger Republican women in Congress and state offices. Thinking here, for example, of Winsome Sears, Elise Stefanik, and Lauren Boebert; and even Democrat Senator Sinema is disparaged by other women - not, obviously, because she’s a woman, but because she’s not far enough left.
So let’s not pretend that modern feminism is all about the “liberation” of women and the celebration of their many achievements. That’s true only for women on the political left. If you’re not over there, forget it. It’s the leftists who’ve hijacked your cause, and indeed your sex.
Post-Lucille Ball feminism is spot on. A few years ago, during one of those ridiculous workshops on better communication, the facilitator showed scenes from the 1951 movie The African Queen, set in 1914, in which Katharine Hepburn coaxes her reluctant captain, played by Humphrey Bogart, to keep going down a jungle river in the face of possible German shelling. It’s one of the greatest movies ever and features a strong, socially astute missionary woman who uses her feminine understanding of men to get the captain to make it seem like his idea (i.e., an early twentieth-century feminist). Well, the workshop participants who discussed their impressions of the scene were universally negative, especially one woman who was totally put off by what she saw as dishonest discourse. I had to speak up and said that another way to look at it was in the context of the times, the First World War meets early feminism. Everyone looked at me like birds who could not blink. We’ve lost so much more than feminism, I’m afraid.
Strong women have been using their understanding of men to get their own way from time immemorial. It isn't "dishonest discourse." It is practical psychology.
Thank you for cutting through the bs and doing some of your own excellent re-centering here. At some point, the academicians created a path away from common sense. The definition fights take us further and further away from the need to protect women from domestic violence as the author noted, and also rape, harassment, acid attacks, ‘dis’honor killings—yes, all the hell on earth of the Patriarchy. And the women being sexually tortured in Ukraine? Yup I bet they can define ‘what is a woman’. Less sophisticated theorists to splinter us, please, and more who can “do” to lift the tide for all boats.
Exactly. The soldiers who are raping Ukrainian women seem to be able to identify women at a glance, don't they? Maybe they can give lessons to American politicians who seem confused.
It never fails to amaze me that people will let some dude on blockers pretend he's a woman, and yet Rachel Dolezal got raked over the coals for calling herself black when race really IS an undefinable spectrum in a biological sense, and sex something that is embedded irretrievably into every cell in your body.
Yep. The XX/XY paradigm is about as airtight as it gets in science. The "race" argument is a very different thing and immediately falls down; humans the world over have the same DNA; it's the genes expressed that are different, and we don't really know just how that works. In the late 'seventies, we were told in a genetics class - when you could actually say these things - that the average "black" in America had about 15% "white" genes.
Frankly, I'm looking forward through miscegenation to the creation of a coffee-coloured world race, and then, since we can't tell the difference among ourselves, we can get on to important stuff.
true, however she's not a great example. While most people these days are not entirely one thing in the US - Rachel had zero dna pointing to calling herself Black. Same with Elizabeth Warren. Rachel was neither genetically "black" even by the one drop definition, nor was she raised in a black family. Neither nature nor nurture could define her as black..
She's not, but she sure does have a much more reasonable claim to being black than any man has to being a woman. It's the fact that the left is persecuting her for a small transgression and celebrating far worse ones.
From what I read she claimed that her birth family treated her badly when she was growing up and she was very close to her adopted black siblings. I think her identification came by honestly and it makes me sad to see her pilloried.
Thanks. Cis-users always make me groan. I'll bet not one has ever taken a hard science class, and has absolutely no idea what the term actually means...
Probably my favorite class was organic chemistry. It's pretty cool, actually - carbon has four bonds, and they are all equal - in three dimensions, nonetheless. They are dispersed in space at the points of a tetrahedron. When you couple two carbons together, they can rotate freely relative to each other, so it doesn't matter where you put other atoms on those four carbon bonds, say, chlorine.
If you have a double bond between two carbons it locks them together and they can't rotate, so where you put additives on the remaining free bonds matters. If they are on the same side, they are cis-. If they are on opposite sides, trans-. Cis- and trans- are called "isomers" of each other.
Great stuff. Good night, Dr. Traynelis, wherever you are.
I'll hafta take a pass on Your link. It's been mebbe 35 years since I took organic chemistry. I actually did pretty well, because they dropped the lowest test score. Ended up with an incomplete, never took the final.
You don't use it, I completely lost all-a that, so enjoyed Your explanation a LOT.
Thanks. I told my wife that I would be terrible company in my dotage; all I would do is live in the past. Turns out to be true. Vincent J. Traynelis was my college organic teacher; I was trying to get in med school, and he beat my ass like a red-headed stepchild, but it was like being beaten with a golden whip. (I was, actually, red-headed, LOL). Damn did I learn some chemistry, and I remember a lot of it almost fifty years later! I loved it and I loved him. He died shortly thereafter from cancer. A truly great man.
Funny, D's had no trouble defining the word when Biden said he wanted to nominate a black *woman* to the SC.
No true. It turns out, Biden wasn't nominating a *woman*. He only nominated people who identify as women. We've all been duped. Should've known better when he appointed Rachel Levine, another "woman".
Biden should have said that the position on SCOTUS would be filled by a melanin enhanced birthing person with an intact cervix.
Or as Kmele Foster has noted, a “smooth brown vagina”..
I thought the right term was "vagina haver" . . . idk, they keep coming up with more newspeak. I can't keep up. And is "brown" an offense now? Should it be "POC vagina haver"? Is "smooth" somehow inadvertent hate speech? Better double check.
She was able to, she just refused to. And a lot of people thought that was a cleverly, lawyerly way of "evading the conservative trap" of the question. Everyone has gone MAD.
Well, she did say that she could not answer because she "was not a biologist", thereby conceding that biology is the determining factor. I would have responded that, like Justice Potter Stewart and obscenity, I can't define it but I know one when I see one.
All part of an effort to erase “truth”. Authoritarianism is the ability to compel people to believe things their eyes tell them are simply not true.
The source of all this nonsense is the left. They are the true fascists.
“ Authoritarianism is the ability to compel people to believe things their eyes tell them are simply not true.”
May I use that? It’s wonderful.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
This is the only comment thread on the entire internet that is uplifting and enlightening. What a gift Bari has given to all of us!
She ~is~ consistent.
Each article is getting better than the last this one is absolutely brilliant
Thank you for the quote. I believe we are there:
"MONSTERS IN WELL TAILORED SUITS
When we think about crimes against humanity we picture dumb brutes with guns, not well-dressed politicians and professionals. But they’re some of the worst and there's ample precedent for using human rights law to punish them.
Hermann Göring was civilian President of parliament. Saddam Hussein was President of his country; ditto Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Wojciech Jaruzelski, and many more. The 61 perpetrators convicted for the Rwandan genocide include journalists, priests, a popular musician, a historian, and numerous politicians including the Minister of Education, the Minister of Commerce, the (woman) Minister for Family Welfare, and the Prime Minister. These are not dumb brutes with guns. Think about that.
High-level professionals can and do commit crimes against humanity. A doctor who performs unethical human experimentation is a criminal. After the famous Nuremberg trial came twelve lesser-known "Subsequent Nuremberg trials." In the first, The Doctors' Trial, 21 of the 23 defendants were medical doctors. Sixteen were found guilty. Seven were hanged.
A judge who enforces twisted laws is a criminal. Like Oswald Rothaug. The fact that he’s a judge, a highly educated person entrusted with enforcing duly enacted laws, doesn’t make it better, it makes it worse. He never carried a gun; he carried a gavel. That’s enough. (At the third Subsequent Nuremberg trial Judge Rothaug was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity.)
In the other ten, civilian government officials were tried for crimes against humanity. Leading businessmen, too:"
https://pitt.substack.com/p/international-right-to-truth-day?s=r
There are many shocking links to organizations and people who should be brought to justice referenced in this article:
https://pitt.substack.com/p/trans-a-dangerous-youth-subculture?s=r
When this paradigm of "gender identity" erases biology, it erases all the experiences sui generis to women living in a society that still largely operates in a caste system based on sex. You are in effect abandoning the more vulnerable, biologically important half of the population.
And when you try to "disappear" female identity by replacing "gender stereotypes" with "gender identity," you're literally arguing that how one “feels” about oneself is more important than the physical reality of a woman's body.
"...you're literally arguing that how one “feels” about oneself is more important than the physical reality..." Isn't this basically the left's argument on everything?
Some of this is down to *bikini medicine*, namely the assumption that men and women are alike except for the bits covered by a bikini. If bikini medicine holds, then biological sex isn't that important (Butler's view). However, in 2014, the NIH did cough to the fact that they had not bothered accounting for biological sex as a variable in research and that in fact, perhaps it did matter. Since 2016, biological sex as a variable has been accepted. Among things they discovered was that male and female heart disease exhibit different patterns and that male and female bodies react differently to certain medications. There is also research into pregnancy and menopause etc etc. In short biological sex is an important variable in medical research. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender/sexgender-influences-health-and-disease has more information.
Equally, it was thought that people were not that bothered about this. The Respect My Sex, if you want my X campaign in the UK (now in its 2nd week) has shown that it is something the grassroots will get mobilized about. They have a series of honesty questions to doorstep politicians about. Basically if a politician can not give a straight answer about what is a man or a woman then why should electorate trust them to give a straight answer on anything else?
Agree - plus you cannot really change the bits covered by the bikini other than to destroy what was there and plastic surgery your way into a cosmetic fiction.
Don't you just love it when they sew part of a man's colon to his inverted penis to construct his "vagina." And how about those hideous scars on the arm that result when it's skinned to form a woman's "penis." Dr. Frankenstein ain't got nothing on these docs.
Makes me wonder what happened to “Do no harm” as a first principle.
Also the discovery of peptides in tooth enamel in 2017 showed that there is more going on. Basically tooth enamel is binary (they are trying to refine it down to show intersex but are not there yet). It is useful in identifying skeletons so in archaeology and forensics (think a mass grave with badly degraded skeletons -- teeth are often all that is left). Paradoxically it is why we now know that the identification of skeletons through gendered grave goods is inaccurate (the female Viking warrior in Birka) https://www.brighton.ac.uk/strand/what-we-do/research-projects/sex-determination-of-human-remains-from-peptides-in-tooth-enamel.aspx#:~:text=Sex%20determination%20of%20human%20remains%20from%20peptides%20in,depends%20on%20the%20quality%20of%20the%20DNA%20sample.
Thank you.
Good *show!* <bowing>
Every single politician should be asked your last question.
There are ways to ask that question -- for example Do you believe a biological male police officer should administer a rape test kit to a female victim of severe sexual trauma? Should a biological male police officer strip search a woman? Should the woman be allowed to object to the above without being branded a bigot?
Why is no one asking what a 'man' is?
There aren't any left.
Rimshot!
Speak for yourself Joanne Alden. Lol
Sorry, dunno reference to J.A.
But... Weeeel, last time I checked I had two functional gonads. But this is a rough crowd, so that might not last long.
Ovaries are also a gonad.
Are they? Didn't know. Ignoramoose. But that explains why I got four-a them.
Fun fact
🤣🤣
HA HA HA
Because this is all just good old misogyny in a new dress
Yeah. But if Ya wanna organize a group to fight this kind-a crap, You might recall that a lotta men are NOT misogynists. Some probably make good allies, but who needs dat?
And clearly some of the misogynists ARE women. Or at least those formerly recognized as women by virtue of having the requisite chromosomes. Hey, neomysogynists!!!! Wow I created a word.
"misogyny in a new dress"
My bet is that the "female" academics responsible for this wear slacks
Yep. We are being played. Again.
Because then you don't get special privileges. You don't get to compete in a special form of sports where you can win gold medals and be crowned world champion despite being hundreds of places below the world's best.
You have stated well why this movement is being identified as misogyny.
I’ve been told that the only persons who can call themselves women are men who identify as women. This is just more gasoline on the fire, adds to the confusion, and in no way helps answer your very valid question.
Yep. Women fought for millennia to be more than second-class humans behind the ones with penises. Now, we're even second-class *women* ... behind the ones with penises. Insanity.
It is because identity theory has created a hierarchy of oppression. The more oppressed trump the lesser oppressed. Mind-numbing no? And professortariat just keep creating new identities to classify as oppressed. If there is a silver lining it is that people with common survival needs - food, shelter, competent education for the offspring, reasonable health care, etc.. - are finding each other. And this is one place it is happening - black, white, red, yellow, and brown, men, women, trans and non-binary, degreed and not, urban and rural, young and old, gay, straight and bisexual - are realizing we have much more in common than not. Kudos to you all.
No problem. I called the fire department after my first post. They'll be here tomorrow.
Because ultimately it is biological men bullying women into silence. I don't really 'believe" in the patriarchy ,but must admit it is the best evidence of the patriarchy I've ever seen.
"Feminists" have enabled biological men to supercede women. Both groups are involved in bullying "normie" women. W/O support from Feminists the Transmen would have no traction.
Cav...cause then we could/would know the distinction...hence, pleasant, nope can't have it.
Come on Lynn have a heart - where are all the mediocre male athletes supposed to go to keep getting trophies if not into the Women's Division.
My 6’3” husband talks about doing this all the time. He still has eligibility and even at his age, he’d tear them up.
I predict that women's teams will welcome these ringers to ensure their victory. Other teams will quickly recruit more trans "women" to keep up and so on and so forth until women are back in the kitchen and bedroom where they belong and all sportswomen have...balls.
Hijacking of Feminism is just one of the symptoms of larger ideological capture that started in US Universities in mid 2000. Before this Universities were places where people went to be exposed to different opinions, believes and values and then trough discussions, exchange of ideas manage to come back as productive members of society.
Sadly since mid 2000 things are going down the hill, facts are not relevant anymore (math is racist), reality doesnt matter (no difference between male and female), only thing that is important is to tow woke party line. Any dissent will be shunned, decried as racism, white supremacy, colonialism. And universities became party schools for brain washing.
Big mistake was made, when majority of people thought, that this was was just a phase, and will be finished after people leave college, but this was gravely wrong. Not only that it dint went away, it spread like wildfire. Media outlets were captured, companies, and now it is spreading to government. With out free and independent media, there was no-one to report on ongoing issues of this ideology that is destroying universities, and few descending voices are viciously attacked and silenced, first by MSM and now by tech companies.
In middle ages, if you didn't comply to dogma of the church, you were burned on public square. Now too you will be "burned" on "public square" of social media networks, they will make you unemployable, will destroy not only you, but anyone associated to you.
And as any dogma, it is getting more radical by the day, and more and more "stringed purity" tests are created by the day, to judge unbelievers and believers of this new woke religion.
I hope that we wont have to wait for decades, to get rid of this illiberal ideology, that is rotting US society from inside out.
It was happening well before 2000
Jonathan Haidt's latest article in the Atlantic suggests it will take decades! Buckle up!
Thx for the article - just read it and found it interesting.
"We must harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust, reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive, and better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age."
Well, a problem with "hardening" our institutions as they stand right now so that they can withstand mistrust - is that they are currently "Woke". How can we trust a government who tells us First Female Four Star Admiral Rachael/Richard Levine is a woman and puts him in a position of power regarding Mental Health? How can we trust an education system that grooms kids for Gender with unicorns? How can we trust a medical system that "affirms" girls for Gender Identity and hands them "T"?
How can we better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age when the schools push Marxist Queer Theory to separate them from their families and make them easy fodder?
I agree. I think it is because of the interconnectivity enabled by the internet many never really leave college. Plus it is taking many students(even pre-Covid) 5, 6, 7 years to obtain an undergraduate degree.
They come in to college woefully unprepared for college level work. Many need remediation for basic courses. They have no focus and change their majors several times adding to the course load, time factor and money. They go for the easy and get worthless degrees in gender studies and some marginalized sociology program. When they graduate they go to work for the government, an HR dept or a college or university where they perpetuate mediocrity, envy and divisiveness.
There is another factor that is rarely considered. Many college students are mismatched to the college or university. When my children were getting ready for college I did some research. I checked on the average SAT scores for that campus. If the average score is at the top range of your child's score they are going to struggle. It is better to find a university or college where your child will be in the top 25% of the student population. They will end up with a better experience and will be less likely to fail, drop out and/or become resentful. Many activist students and drop outs are resentful without being aware as to the root cause of their anger and resentment. It is because they are/were mismatched to the higher educational institution they went to.
Love this Naomi.
Actually no, in the middle ages, people were rarely burned on the public square or anywhere else (burning witches was a Protestant phenomenon and the death penalty was common but mostly for crime). Doxxing and "canceling" people today is by far, FAR more common than burning people ever was.
Thank you for publishing this excellent article. I am proud to call myself an old-school liberal and feminist. To me, "women" like Lia Thomas and her many activist supporters are simply exercising standard male privilege by insisting their rights are more important than actual natal women.
Transgender individuals deserve equal rights under the law but they do not deserve the "privilege" of athletic scholarships designed for cis women.
Please. Stop using nonsense terms like "cis". There's no such thing. Nobody is a cyst.
And there's no such thing as "gender" or "transgender." There is sex and there are people who pretend to be the opposite sex. They should have no more rights than any other citizen. We must not reorganize our entire society just to cater to the demands of a tiny subset of emotionally disturbed people.
They also don't "deserve" to confined with True Women in prison cells, like they do in CA. CA's so-called "solution:" "You just need to fight them," and handing out *condoms.* Sort-a blows the whole theory that there's only other women going in there right outta the water!
There's a lawsuit against that, but it's facing the full power of the State, so outcome unknowable.
If I were in a woman’s prison and they allowed men who say they are women in, the first thing I’d do is organize my fellow prisoners to give that guy exactly what he purports to want, no penis or balls. They’d only have to do it to one or two and then the pipeline would stop.
Close, but no cigar. What they do is group themselves to maintain a watch during the nights. But either way, women have ended up raped and with a number of pregnancies.
The only wonder I have is how are "they" keeping it so quiet. Sheesh. Just answered my own question. What media would take the time to find out, for one? For another, what media tells anything approaching reality?
Oh I think it could be done.
And then get strung up? No good options all the way around, AFAIK.
You realize they are already in prison.
Where is Lorena Bobbitt when we need her.
Yeah, if we could clone her, problem solved. ;)
Clone?!? WORST idea EVER!!
It is not just Cali. My formerly very conservative county houses people in a county jail administered by a very conservative sheriff by how the inmate identify their gender.
To be honest, a lot of this whole trans nonsense lines up with ultra-right wing MRAs. "If you bitches want to take men's jobs, then fine -- we'll wear dresses and rape you. You made us do it."
I just read an account of a trans "man" in Britain who spent two years in the men's prison despite begging for a transfer to the women's. That certainly seems like spiteful retaliation to me--"You think you're a man? This is what you get." So trans "women" are treated like queens and trans "men" are tormented and laughed at.
Um, no. It doesn't.
Ummmm. No it doesn’t.
This is the end result of what modern feminism brings.
Some no doubt but I think those types are truly marginalized. I think most men and most women and those in between realize we need each other. When I was young we talked about the rat race. As I grow old I am.experiencing first hand what that means. People are crazy. Way too many people.
That is outrageous.
I think that suit is being brought by WOLF, Women's Liberation Front--you can donate to their fund at womensliberationfront.org. Every little bit helps.
Yes. WoLF is a great group. Women's Declaration International, too. Both are working hard to protect women's sex based rights.
TY. GREAT POINT! (I already a while back.)
I agree with you this is a good article but STRONGLY disagree this is “supporters are simply exercising standard male privilege by insisting their rights are more important than actual natal women.”
Most of the support is coming from women and feminists. Saying this is “exercising male privilege” is simply moral exculpation to remove your culpability in this mess as a feminist.
You are right. I have not seen any male support for men competing as women in women's sports, except maybe from the Woke commentators on ESPN.
Most men know what it means to have testosterone pumping through your blood since about age 12 and how utterly unfair it is for biological men to compete with women. For a male to decide he wants to identify as a woman is one thing, but to then think that person needs to go compete in athletics with females in order to somehow fulfill a sense of self is completely off the rails.
"Natal women" -- give me a break. And Steven N you are correct -- very few men (other than the ones who think they are women) seem to support this. WOMEN are propping them up because they feel sorry for them. It's 100% possible to feel sorry for troubled people without lying to and about them, and taking away the rights of everyone else.
You mention 'male privilege' and then mention the 'privilege' of athletic scholarship designed for 'cis women'. You almost got it.
I was always suspicious of "feminism." I grew up with the movement. The only good I ever noticed was men became more circumspect about sexual predation at work.
Yes, and the experience has been mirrored in the gay rights movement, as you mention. From fighting to be legal through to gay marriage, it was a bottom up movement. And then with gay marriage, most gays were happy and settled down to normal lives. But the lobbying groups and, most importantly, the universities, took up the torch, rebranded everything as Queer, and spent their days navel gazing and coming up with more and more bizarre words and ideas to toss at one another with zero impact on the gay community.
I sometimes think that it's also the next generation in line trying to find Something To Fight For, and who are galled at the idea that maybe, just maybe, all of the people with particular problems in the world have already been identified by their parents' and grandparents' generations, and what's needed is to just see those through.
No, no! Can't be THAT! WE need a rebellion! WE need a reason to call our parents idiots and bigots, too! So they invent a new category of oppressed person -- dude in a dress -- and proceed to go batshit insane over it.
Definitely a big part of it. I live in a liberal New England college town with no real problems. So people are desperately digging up their backyards to find arrowheads to prove the land originally belonged to Native Americans so we can pay them reparations and do that Indigenous land acknowledgement. And our planning commission's top priority is to study and remedy segregation in a town that is 98% white. We've already declared ourselves a nuclear free zone and changed Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' Day so we really are running out of ways to virtue signal.
Yes, many believe they missed the great movements in history with the last being the Civil Rights Movement. They are trying to find meaning and purpose in their lives and have not got the underpinnings of a religious foundation and belief system to help them choose between the false and the true. The new cause becomes their religion.
That's probably 95% of it, right there. And the fact that most of 'em had practically *all* their needs met. Gotta *invent* problems to "solve" (cough) to give their empty social-media constrained lives *some* meaning.
I agree. It is also the aim of Marxist Queer theory to drive a wedge between parents and their kids.
They have to separate children from their parents because the parent is the child's protector. You can't groom the child or gain access to the child to gratify your sexual proclivities if the parent is in the picture. Hence the activists demanding secrecy from the school systems so parents won't know who is counseling their child and about what, what books they are being assigned to read, what cartoons they are being shown, what discussions the teacher is leading.
😂
Because we need more ways to divide ourselves.
And yes…sarcasm.
Lol yeah as a 33-yo homo, I’ve never cared to learn what “queer theory” is. Much in the same way that the “we’re going to shove gay pride down your throat” people turned the average person against SSM, the TRAs can’t see the harm that they’re doing to their own cause.
"the gay rights movement ... was a bottom up movement"
I see what you did there.
And I didn't until you pointed it out! (it was early morning when I posted)
That is not correct. Most gay people and lesbians never wanted to, and never did marry. Their lives did not change at all. And the activists behind the "gay marriage" movement are pretty much the same people still doing all the activism -- their lives didn't change, either. They continue to grow in power and influence (and funding), and whatever their aims are, they aren't and never were "settling down to normal lives."
No, you're actually wrong and seem like not a good person. Signed, a happily married (for 25 years) gay man.
If you're happy, good for you. But most gay men did not get married after it became legal. That's just a fact.
But neither have straight men, but it doesn't mean we should ban straight marriage. That's just a fact too.
Nothing you said changes the fact that the activists worked for something the majority of people they claimed to act for didn't want to do, something no one in any society had ever sanctioned, and that they continue to advocate for things fewer and fewer people want to do -- things they insist everyone else promote and celebrate, things that are increasingly destructive and harmful. That's the point of what I said. I'm sorry you don't think I'm a nice person and I wish nothing bad for you. When it comes to public policy, medicine, law, and health, what works best for families needs to come first, because families produce every one of us.
Children thrive best with their married biological parents, and the health of societies is best ensured when societies promote men and women marrying and having children, supported by and supporting their extended families. Societies that refuse to do this themselves, and refuse to put it first in their policies, pay a terrible price in poverty, drug addiction, crime, depression, suicide, and all the things our country pretends aren't happening even as the bodies pile up. A lot of men don't want to marry because we have messed up our marriage laws, our families, and our children. No, that doesnt' mean we should ban marriage, it means we need to fix what we've been doing wrong.
Is this 1998? Haven't had a gay marriage debate in decades and I'm pretty happy about that. Some of what you say makes sense, and that's the part I've already said above. The rest is old, rehashed nonsense. Sorry you hate the gays, not sure why you're on a happily married lesbian's substack bashing her marriage, but if that's what makes you happy after all these years, I fully support your right to spout. My advice is fight the next fight, not one from the distant past (and no, they're not the same, which I'm sure will be part of your rejoinder). Have a good day.
Ever watch the movie, McCabe & Mrs. Miller? Came out in the early 70s or so. Warren Beatty is McCabe and he’s a hustler who rides into a little mining town in the Pacific northwest c 1890. But McCabe was on the wrong side of a deal with powerful group who send some rough folks out to hunt and kill him. He goes to see a lawyer (McCabe was also at the end of the line when they were handing out brainpower) who espouses platitudes at most tangentially related to his plight. The lawyer has no clue what the problem is, but holds forth with great passion and confidence that he can help him. In other words, the lawyer was a moron.
Sound familiar?
(By the way, most of the music in the movie was by Leonard Cohen. Some was hilariously juxtaposed, like when “The Sisters of Mercy” was being sung. Good movie. No spoilers.)
I'll definitely check it out!
I believe I saw yesterday that the only cohort believing that Joe Biden is doing a good job is college educated women. If you can’t even discern that the President of the United States is a senile, imbecilic fool, is there any wonder that you would embrace the gender lunacy and arrant idiocy being pushed today?
Probably the same people that spammed my social media with propaganda for the last 5 years. They just don't want to admit that they're wrong.
Can't you see? They had to go to college to be this way!
Just amazing, isn't it? Moreover, young women now constitute 60% of college attendees. Sort of a negative feedback loop - extol nonsense, attract more women to it and alienate and marginalize men. And call it "progress."
Bruce, you say Biden is senile: what’s your excuse for embracing bigoted ignorance!
Couldn’t help myself-you’re just too cute.
It’s pretty simple. Without women, there would be no men, trans women or any variation of non binary person. Full stop. The vast majority of people know this and need to speak up to defend women from this nonsense.
Is someone forcing them to compete against this transgender person? Can’t they use their First Amendment rights? The women can protest by not competing against a transgender person! Why do you want someone else to take care of their problem?
You do realize of course that for many the cost of speaking up would be their livelihood. I guess that makes them cowards.
Livelihood and in the US, healthcare. I require a costly injectable literally to live. $500/dose. If I lose employer-provided healthcare, I will be either dead in a year or severely impaired (what used to be called a "vegetable") for decades.
I am so sorry DW.
Not necessarily but it does make them bought and paid for. Freedom is not free.
I am to the point I believe the "elite" are brain dead. IMO one of the most important signs of intelligence is recognition that there are things one does not know. Another is recognition and acknowledgment of mistakes. I see little evidence of either in the so-called "elite".
You're right on all counts, per usual. I'll just the main problem with the elites is that the "heart dead." I believe that's because they don't have much contact with *living breathing people.* To much lived in the virtual reality created by computers, is my guess.
Good point. That Metaverse stuff is crazy.
Yah, but not just that. I think overwork in abstracts can lead one to be.. uh.. I guess emotionally cripple mebbe.
Another war against women by men. What’s new? No matter the rhetoric the fact remains only women can get pregnant. Live with it.
Not so sure about that anymore Pam, Ms. Strimpel cites multiple academic “women” as sources of this further muddying of the waters. To blame it on “men” (ironic quotes intended) is simplistic and reductive.
I looked up the ncaa Board of Governors. Made up of chancellors of universities. The far majority are male. Robert Gates is on it. That tells you everything. I don’t believe that representation must exactly match the people being governed but that sure speaks to academia and whats happening in it.
Naw. It's a war against women by *some* men. And face up to it, it's a war against women by a number of *females,* also, right?
There are indeed a lot of women in this world who see in misogyny a perfect weapon to take out their female competition. I'm convinced that a lot of the women who are supporting this men-in-women's-sports bullshit look at the girls who are competing and seethe with resentment because who do those bitches think they are getting medals and attention.
Its called “relational aggression”. Women do it all the time in the work place. Its grounded in how we are raised, culture and gender-based play theory.
We used to call it "horizontal hostility". So common in a group of women.
I am so glad I am.not a joiner.
I agree except I think it is grounded in character or the lack thereof. Some of those mean junior high girls never grow up.
Totally. Thats why the moniker for relational aggression is “mean girl syndrome”.
You may have the right of there, again, M. DarkWHite.
Fortunately for the gals, it is trivial compared to the war on men by women. Normally, men - generally much stronger, larger, more aggressive, would do that which they've always done - defend women and put this "gender" nonsense to bed. Now most of us have other fish to fry. Enjoy your "freedom from male oppression."
Found the documentary and TED talk. The TED talk is Cassie Jaye: Meeting the Enemy. The documentary is the Red Pill.
I've seen it. It's quite good.
I watched the TED talk--it was very moving, not the least for how she was able to change her position when she got new information.
I understand your anger. I was shocked by the statistics of how poorly men are doing (suicides, support services, on the job deaths, divorce)and there is an incredible documentary on it whose name escapes me right now. You are right to point out that a few men are acting aggressively to subdue women and many good men have opted out due to past mistreatment.
Nobody's angry. There is a very big difference between angry and fed-up. I'm fed-up, and largely because these - as Limbaugh called them - Femi-Nazis and their soy-boy supplicants have made life miserable for men AND women - creatures who are natural allies, not enemies - and worse, miserable as well for their unfortunate offspring.
Naw. It's a war on men by *some* women. Not all women. But most of us have other fish to fry now too so enjoy your MGTOW.
Good plan. I can do that. You? How about you design, build, and maintain the dams, steam turbines, reactors and alternators that bring electricity to keep your backside warm in winter and cool in summer. Climb the 135' tall towers and string the cables. Use the 65# chain saws and cut down the trees, wrestle them onto trucks, and saw them into the boards that keep that warm air indoors. Cast, draw and thread the pipes that bring water into your little warm spot and take your poo away when you're done with the latest oh-so-smart little missive about "toxic masculinity."
Naw. The fact is that over the course of history, men and women have cooperated in a viciously dangerous and difficult world to move humanity forward - sometimes by fits and starts, but forward - each doing the jobs FOR WHICH THEY WERE BEST SUITED. In the real world, though, aggressiveness occasionally gets turned in the wrong direction, but its benefits seem pretty great when someone threatens your family. Everything is a double-edged sword. Smart people know that.
Naw. In the comfort of modernity, almost all of which was invented, produced, and maintained by men using that sometimes admittedly, testosterone-fueled aggressiveness, as you say, SOME women are attacking those people who made their comfortable little world possible. And SOME men are well and truly fed up with it.
MGTOW? Why would anyone do that, when the world is filled with women who are smart enough to know all these things, and easily accessible by those big, mean old airplanes - sometimes flown by Western women, but once again, in fact, invented by Western men.
It might be interesting to see a world without men; questions of reproduction aside, it would likely consist of mud huts - if the gals could figure out how to stack the mud. Maybe men and women should get off each others' backs and return to cooperating to keep moving humanity forward, instead of tearing each other to shreds - just like the globalists want - so they can then give orders to us all.
Jim, lots of women don’t buy into this “I am woman, hear me roar” philosophy. They just do what they have to do in order to take care of themselves and their families. They don’t have the time or the energy to get on a soap box and complain, or waste time commiserating about what’s fair and what’s unfair. Unfortunately no one writes about those women. The media pontificates and writes and interviews the women coming out of academia with gender studies majors who have no relationship with reality. If they didn’t get up on a soap box to complain there would be no validation of their pointless time spent in university. So don’t assume that all women believe this shit
putting gender hood or woman hood above men. Most people just want to be treated fairly.
Agree completely. Most all of us are just trying to find our way; unfortunately the misfits and soreheads - who have always been with us - are now able to elbow their way to the loudest, highest soapboxes, and while they are in actuality a tiny minority, in these days they exert an outsized influence.
When I get a few minutes, I'll share my experience in growing up in rural West Virginia in the 'fifties. My mother was born in 1911, my father 1904; add to that Appalachia's traditional twenty-years-behind-the-times, and you have a glimpse into the far past. As they say, sometimes fantasy gets mugged by reality, and having lived during those times when women and men staggered from cradle to grave working the skin off their fingers might just be enlightening.
You ok, hun? Lot of pent up anger there. Looks like you really need to talk about your feelings. Maybe a counselor or a trained expert who can help.
We'll be nice and will pretend men haven't historically subjugated women and barred them from education and participating in the public world outside of home, which prevented them from achieving more for the greater good of humankind. We'll even pretend all men, even losers dwelling in their parents' basements watching Pornhub all day (not you of course, but they are out there), by doing nothing except by virtue of being born male, should claim credit for inventions and tough work done by a small selected group of commendable men.
What is this bizarre “macho”/insecure response from Jim? Sorry to be ad hominem, but like... one of the points of the article is that only recently have women been able to escape the shackles imposed on them by men only for female liberation to be hijacked by men.
His point is uncannily similar to the argument that black slaves couldn’t possibly survive in American civil society because well, they’d only ever been slaves. It’s been what ~100-120 years that women have been ‘allowed’ to have occupations outside the home, but yeah go off about how if men didn’t exist, we would only have mud huts.
Fortunately, I’ve had plenty of female friends who are far more intelligent than me to prevent me from being so ignorant.
Seemed pretty rational, also second paragraph is a stretch or an apple to root vegetables comparison.
This is nonsense. Most women have ALWAYS worked, because most businesses and professions were family businesses and professions (not wage-earning ones), and everyone in the family worked at them. Few MEN were ever educated, and the wives and daughters of those lucky few were usually educated to the same extent they were. It's true that in the West women had fewer legal rights, but that was not done in order to oppress women, it was based on centuries of developing law, and in the current West has not been the case for several generations. The vast majority of men have always done all the dangerous, difficult, horrible work, from fighting wars to digging tunnels in sheer rock -- all the work most likely to cripple, maim, and kill. They were not designing bridges or signing treaties. This is a fantasy view of history that does no one, male or female, any good to espouse.
I agree. Plus to say women did not work is ludicrous. Keeping a home and family is hard, hard daylight to dusk and beyond work. It is not coincidence that the availability of birth control and progress in women's rights occurred simultaneously.
Men do most of the dangerous, necessary, and backbreaking work of keeping things working, while women do most of the backbreaking work of raising children. This is the reality people ignore at their peril.
No working man I ever knew ignored it, minimised it, or failed to appreciate it. Only other women, and then only the college-educated women with no children of their own.
I'm movin' on from all this for a while. Things to do. People to harrass.
Mainly I know when I've been bested and am not even competitive.
"It might be interesting to see a world without men; questions of reproduction aside, it would likely consist of mud huts - if the gals could figure out how to stack the mud. Maybe men and women should get off each others' backs and return to cooperating to keep moving humanity forward, instead of tearing each other to shreds - just like the globalists want - so they can then give orders to us all."
Sorry - I probably shouldn't have been so snarky, but I like to think I'm a good guy; I've worked my ass off my whole life, literally dug ditches, installed septic systems for old ladies in the holler where I grew up - all at no cost, fixed every damned thing for every damned person I can name, for free. I went to med school on a shoestring, lying in snow and water to fix my VW so my girlfriend - later wife - and I could get around. I've never done anything mean to anybody and I am just fed up with being attacked for the crime of being a MAN. Fed up to here.
Men can be pretty credulous but women can, too, and anybody who thinks this "feminist" stuff has anything to do with "equality" needs to wise up. The world is hard. It's hard for everybody, and the fact is that men do 95% of the physically demanding, dirty, and dangerous jobs.
That is just what we do, and we don't complain about it. This issue is merely one more wedge to pit Westerners against each other; our masters have big, big plans for us, and to my eye we are definitely helping.
The snark started from the women IMO, followed by you making a reason for your thoughts and an appeal for working together. I also didn't hear a the classic bitchy "You ok, hun?" from you... nor did you launch immediately to character assassination, nor did you falsely associate someone with a particular movement. You did do one huge mistake, criticize a woman.
Don't bother, Jim. Just sit here and enjoy the schadenfreude I'm getting from watching a movement espouse its virtues that has exploded on them in only one century. I think even Communism had a longer lifetime...
Feminism as much as I want to separate the wheat from the chaffe has given people I care about an identity crisis not just in gender, but as their worth as mothers and wives whether they be stay and home or working mothers. It has created the very abusive men they've wanted to avoid by destroying the honor of being a self-sacrificing father in the eyes of Christ or promoting a stable family, demonizing a mother that does choose to stay home with her family as well as help influence policy that makes single working parent income impossible to live on. I'd even blame them for the amount of MLMs mothers get suckered into and being their main revenue.
You've done good, Jim. You don't need to defend yourself, just sit back and shake your head in bewilderment. If you've raised a family and provided for a home and did some level of decent parenting, you've done more than feminism has ever done for the family outside of the real saints in the past that tried to start up shelters for abused women instead of violating their insides to kill innocent children.
You are the kind I looked for. And found. God bless and keep you all. And as an aside that does not mean I am in any manner submissive. We are truly partners and each of us has a valuable skill set or sets.
Nothing Jim wrote was MGTOW. You have anger issues to work out to jump to that.
Yes. Facts don't care about anyone's feelings, and I certainly don't. The fact is that men - mostly those dead white men that the Left and "feminists" love to hate - built the entire physical world and continue to keep it running, and nothing changes that fact. Men are generally more interested in things; women are generally more interested in people. Men built the material world, and women built everybody in it, and without those women our world would not exist. If you deleted men's accomplishments out of the history books, they would be the thickness of a Marvel comic. If you took all women's material accomplishments out, you couldn't tell the difference. If you, OTOH, took out all the great thinkers, do-ers, and leaders created by women, THAT book would look like a comic; I can't think of a single great human being reared exclusively by a man.
We are not the same; we are different. We in general have different interests and, yes, abilities. That's a good thing, and it is that difference which has allowed us to attack our common problems from different directions and become the dominant species in this world of incredible hardships.
I get you Jim.... 🙏and appreciate your takes and agree with a bunch of what you said.
This is a war against women BY other women in the name of “compassion”.
"Another war against women by men"
Ah, the war that never ends. Perhaps someone should have reminded the feminists of the old adage, “sometimes it’s better to quit while you’re ahead”. Unfortunately, it seems that movements, like government programs and agencies never go away. They just keep moving the goal posts. It’s no coincidence that this latest iteration of feminism incubated in the hallowed grounds of academia. I have to admit that I’m a bit amused by it all. After years of fighting to get more women onto college campuses and into positions of authority within them to fight misogyny, it turns out that the academics they spawned are, wait for it; misogynists.
XX - that is the definition. Anything else is doublespeak designed to try to convince the population that up is down and day is night. If you believe them on this - they can convince you of anything (such as the senile, mumbling, squinting old man is actually running the US and doing a wonderful job!)
Woman - Adult human female.
It’s elegant in its simplicity.
The XX definition leads to the “sex is a spectrum” because of anomalies in human development and the wider animal world. The male/female dichotomy depends on the size of reproduction cells. Females have large gametes and males have small gametes. For humans around 100K to 1. All sexually reproducing life has evolved the same solution, one sex has large gametes, the other sex has small gametes. We define the side with large gametes as female, the other as male. Even sexually reproducing plants have the same solution. Large female seeds and small male pollen. Using the XX approach will lead you into a sophist maze created by gender theorists. IMHO
We are humans, not plants. For the vast majority of humans, we are XX or XY. If anything other than that, it is classified as an illness. There are exceptions to every rule, but that does not negate the rule.
I agree everything. BUT, using XX XY dichotomy leads to unnecessary complications. Look at the now famous apologetic for sex as a spectrum https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/#. Notice how the author avoids the actual definition of sex by gamete size in order to obfuscate the issue. I’m only offering what I think is a better definition of sex.
I have to point out, as a matter of logic, not all rules have exceptions and exceptions do negate rules. Rules are not rules if they have exceptions.
And yet the one thing that is an ACTUAL spectrum -- race -- is being treated as some non-debatable quantity graven in stone. o_O
TYTY. That's scientifically true. But movements don't flourish under the scrutiny science would demand.
Not in advertising, but been told I have a flair. "XX" is as simple as branding can get, in any color Ya want, with any colored background. Just IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).
As a person of the other sex, believing, by the way, that only two sexes exist in humans, I’ve never gotten tar-babied by evolving feminist politics. But I do have a perspective regarding the “hijacking” of post-Lucille Ball feminism. It soon became apparent that modern feminism was more about liberal politics than women’s rights. How can I say that? Because the movement’s leaders in its modern iteration were all on the left, people like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Patricia Schroeder, Elizabeth Holtzman, Barbara Jordan, Barbara Boxer, even Geraldine Ferraro. There has been no room in NOW for the likes of female high achievers to the right of NOW and NARAL, women like Phyllis Schafly, Sandra Day O’Connor, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Dole, Elaine Chao, Condi Rice, and Sarah Palin. Even women governors such as Kristi Noem and Nikki Haley have been despised and shunned by self-proclaimed feminists because they aren’t leftists. This goes for the latest wave of younger Republican women in Congress and state offices. Thinking here, for example, of Winsome Sears, Elise Stefanik, and Lauren Boebert; and even Democrat Senator Sinema is disparaged by other women - not, obviously, because she’s a woman, but because she’s not far enough left.
So let’s not pretend that modern feminism is all about the “liberation” of women and the celebration of their many achievements. That’s true only for women on the political left. If you’re not over there, forget it. It’s the leftists who’ve hijacked your cause, and indeed your sex.
Post-Lucille Ball feminism is spot on. A few years ago, during one of those ridiculous workshops on better communication, the facilitator showed scenes from the 1951 movie The African Queen, set in 1914, in which Katharine Hepburn coaxes her reluctant captain, played by Humphrey Bogart, to keep going down a jungle river in the face of possible German shelling. It’s one of the greatest movies ever and features a strong, socially astute missionary woman who uses her feminine understanding of men to get the captain to make it seem like his idea (i.e., an early twentieth-century feminist). Well, the workshop participants who discussed their impressions of the scene were universally negative, especially one woman who was totally put off by what she saw as dishonest discourse. I had to speak up and said that another way to look at it was in the context of the times, the First World War meets early feminism. Everyone looked at me like birds who could not blink. We’ve lost so much more than feminism, I’m afraid.
Strong women have been using their understanding of men to get their own way from time immemorial. It isn't "dishonest discourse." It is practical psychology.
Yes! Not to mention an element of romance. Turning flirting into discourse is like thinking people are more alluring naked than clothed.
Thank you for cutting through the bs and doing some of your own excellent re-centering here. At some point, the academicians created a path away from common sense. The definition fights take us further and further away from the need to protect women from domestic violence as the author noted, and also rape, harassment, acid attacks, ‘dis’honor killings—yes, all the hell on earth of the Patriarchy. And the women being sexually tortured in Ukraine? Yup I bet they can define ‘what is a woman’. Less sophisticated theorists to splinter us, please, and more who can “do” to lift the tide for all boats.
Exactly. The soldiers who are raping Ukrainian women seem to be able to identify women at a glance, don't they? Maybe they can give lessons to American politicians who seem confused.
It never fails to amaze me that people will let some dude on blockers pretend he's a woman, and yet Rachel Dolezal got raked over the coals for calling herself black when race really IS an undefinable spectrum in a biological sense, and sex something that is embedded irretrievably into every cell in your body.
Yep. The XX/XY paradigm is about as airtight as it gets in science. The "race" argument is a very different thing and immediately falls down; humans the world over have the same DNA; it's the genes expressed that are different, and we don't really know just how that works. In the late 'seventies, we were told in a genetics class - when you could actually say these things - that the average "black" in America had about 15% "white" genes.
Frankly, I'm looking forward through miscegenation to the creation of a coffee-coloured world race, and then, since we can't tell the difference among ourselves, we can get on to important stuff.
true, however she's not a great example. While most people these days are not entirely one thing in the US - Rachel had zero dna pointing to calling herself Black. Same with Elizabeth Warren. Rachel was neither genetically "black" even by the one drop definition, nor was she raised in a black family. Neither nature nor nurture could define her as black..
She's not, but she sure does have a much more reasonable claim to being black than any man has to being a woman. It's the fact that the left is persecuting her for a small transgression and celebrating far worse ones.
From what I read she claimed that her birth family treated her badly when she was growing up and she was very close to her adopted black siblings. I think her identification came by honestly and it makes me sad to see her pilloried.
The only place the word “natal” applies is prenatal medicine.
Cis applies to chemistry, not human genetics.
Stop using their language.
I swear, Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” was prescient. Forget 1984 folks.
https://files.libcom.org/files/Politics%20and%20the%20English%20Language%20-%20George%20Orwell.pdf
Agree, we must reject their language, because using it implies that we agree with it.
Thanks. Cis-users always make me groan. I'll bet not one has ever taken a hard science class, and has absolutely no idea what the term actually means...
I've taken a number of hard science classes, but *I* sure don't have any idea. And?
Probably my favorite class was organic chemistry. It's pretty cool, actually - carbon has four bonds, and they are all equal - in three dimensions, nonetheless. They are dispersed in space at the points of a tetrahedron. When you couple two carbons together, they can rotate freely relative to each other, so it doesn't matter where you put other atoms on those four carbon bonds, say, chlorine.
If you have a double bond between two carbons it locks them together and they can't rotate, so where you put additives on the remaining free bonds matters. If they are on the same side, they are cis-. If they are on opposite sides, trans-. Cis- and trans- are called "isomers" of each other.
Great stuff. Good night, Dr. Traynelis, wherever you are.
Here - this makes it easy.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/The_Basics_of_GOB_Chemistry_(Ball_et_al.)/13:_Unsaturated_and_Aromatic_Hydrocarbons/13.02:_Cis-Trans_Isomers_(Geometric_Isomers)
I'll hafta take a pass on Your link. It's been mebbe 35 years since I took organic chemistry. I actually did pretty well, because they dropped the lowest test score. Ended up with an incomplete, never took the final.
You don't use it, I completely lost all-a that, so enjoyed Your explanation a LOT.
Thanks. I told my wife that I would be terrible company in my dotage; all I would do is live in the past. Turns out to be true. Vincent J. Traynelis was my college organic teacher; I was trying to get in med school, and he beat my ass like a red-headed stepchild, but it was like being beaten with a golden whip. (I was, actually, red-headed, LOL). Damn did I learn some chemistry, and I remember a lot of it almost fifty years later! I loved it and I loved him. He died shortly thereafter from cancer. A truly great man.
I still remember the mnemonic: "marijuana eats peoples brains per hour" (methyl ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl, hexyl.
All I remember from P-Chem is that someone scrawled "Heisenberg may have sat here" on the inside door of the men's room stall.
Or the cranial nerves:
On old Olympus' towering tops a fat assed German vends a hops.
... or vaccinated a horse.
Or my classmate Tim's: Oh Oh Oh! To touch a fine virgin girl's vagina! Ah, heaven!
Olfactory, Optic, Oculomotor, Trochlear, Trigeminal, Abducens, Facial, Vestibulocochlear (Acoustic) , Glossopharyngeal, Vagus, Spinal Accessory, Hypoglossal.
**************
Saw a bumper sticker a few weeks ago: Honk if you passed P Chem. I heard nothing.
“to mitigate the many discriminations that girls and women still face: the economic and psychological penalty of having babies”
——————————————————-
That’s………not what ‘discrimination’ means.
*checks mansplaining off to-do list ✅✅