Transgender Activist Backlash

And now this: You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

How is it not obvious that this is straight out of 1984? The gov used words to reform cognitive thinking.

I would refuse to call someone “ze” or “hir” or anything other than their born gender out of PRINCIPLE against this policy.

The more you push to brainwash the public when it comes to gender, which the science still does not show what transgender activists want people to believe, the more pushback you will get. And hitting people with their pocketbooks for not adhering to a political movement’s demands is completely against everything that this country was founded on.

This is the backlash: you are the gender you were born with. You got a dick? You’re a man. You got a vagina? You’re a woman. You’ve got a mutilated penis or vagina because your genes are fucked up and don’t play well with testosterone or estrogen (intersex)? You’re whatever your genetic results are.

Everything else is neither ze nor hir.

A One Sided Conversation With A Red Pilled Feminist

I’m going to seem very harsh here, but that’s because I’m a dick. Her piece is actually very good.

Are women so smothered by the blanket of victimhood that we can’t concede that men face issues too?

Yes. Women smother each other all the time. Lesbian domestic violence is among the highest per capita. But I digress…

Isn’t the hallmark of intersectionality finding victimhood everywhere?

LOL No. Intersectionalality is the interest of finding victimhood in only specific demographics which help activists empower themselves.

Feminist boosterism can make us feel empowered.

Feel good. Not empowered. It makes you feel good. You can only empower yourself and that’s done by taking action. It’s a tough thing, really: you are only empowered by powering through things, which requires “empowerment.” The trick is that the power was always there; most people just don’t perceive it.

This is good; I too love when I am told I am special and powerful. Women do indeed face many problems in society.

Not as many as women, the most privileged class by all objective measures, actually face.

However, at my women’s college in particular,  feminist ideology renders students blind to the injustices that disproportionately affect men, like homelessness, harsh prison sentencing, and gang violence.

This doesn’t just happen at colleges. It happens everywhere, including places of legislation, the White House, the Twitters, in the streets, hell, even Facebook groups filled with harpies.

Thus, colleges need to actively incorporate men’s issues into their curriculum.

Why? Men generally don’t bother trying to think of problems as systemic, largely because they aren’t. Social norms of behavior which hurt a demographic or another aren’t systems. Systems have to be especially designed with purpose. People’s behavior, while they can be affected by systems, generally are self-generating. You can build a system to affect consumer behavior, for example, but the human behavior was always the same. The conditions that the human behavior interfaces with changes. If you are averse to risk and a government policy increases the risk of an activity, your aversion to risk may reform your actions. Your behavior is unchanged. That’s why the concept of “systems of oppression” are ridiculous: people feeling they have no power (thus the need for “empowerment”) need to be reminded they have agency and blame” systems of oppression” for their perceived lack of agency and power. It’s delusional.

Men generally don’t bother fighting “systems of oppression” that oppress them because men aren’t being told that personal failures are to be blamed on something other than themselves. Society tells men they are responsible for this and that and men agree – usually because they are. If you don’t get up and move, it’s not necessarily because you’re being kept from doing so. It’s your responsibility to do it. Women, on the other hand, are being told someone else needs to do it for them. Men don’t get told that. Hence men KNOW they have agency while women need to be reminded they have it as well.

And who tells women they have no agency in the modern era? Other women do. Women activists who need money, so they create the illusion that women still have no agency despite having it.

To actively avoid talking about men’s issues is to create a citizenry deprived of important knowledge about how the world works for men and shields students from socio-economic realities. This must end.

When I started taking Women’s Studies classes 4 years ago, I was seduced by feminist ideology.

I’m so sorry.

Mentally tabulating my oppression cards became a hobby.

This is the latest craze among the blissfully ignorant youth. Go on.

Unfortunately, being steeped in feminism didn’t just make me blind to the truth about men—it made me actively resist learning about it.

Is it like an allergy? Does feminism make people testosterone intolerant? Is that why the men who get involved in feminist circles seem like walking, talking, stinking manginas?

Thankfully, while feminism taught me that women were on the losing side of everything—real life taught me that disadvantage is more nuanced than that.

Yes, the world is very complex. Gender relations are incredibly complex. So complex that you need science to understand it.

So why do we ask feminists, who are the antithesis of science, anything about gender relations at all?

The Power Behind Affirmative Consent

Ashe Schow writes about yet another example of a college man getting his day of justice after a school is forced to settle a lawsuit after the student was expelled, unjustly, for alleged sexual assault.
Washington and Lee University has settled with a former student who filed a lawsuit alleging gender bias as the motivation for his expulsion over a sexual assault accusation.

The student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit he filed in late 2014, was expelled after an investigation in which he was not allowed legal representation or cross examination, and which was conducted by an administrator who allegedly told his accuser that “regret equals rape.”

John and the university have “compromised and settled all matters in controversy,” according to new documents filed in the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Typically, accused students win very little in settlements; they might get their record cleared and a small amount of money that doesn’t even cover their legal fees.

Here’s the reality, though.
Here is what Klein believes:

– The number of sexual assault victims is “far too high,” so high as to justify “sweeping” and “intrusive” legal measures–specifically, California’s new law.

– This law is “sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent.”

– The law could define as rape “two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex.”

– The law intrudes on “the most private and intimate of adult acts.”

– The law’s “overreach is precisely its value.”

– The law “will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt.”

– The law will create “a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent.”

– If successful, the law will cause all or most college men “to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.”

– If the law succeeds, “colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations.”

– The existence of cases “that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair” are especially necessary for the law to succeed.

– “The Yes Means Yes laws creates an equilibrium where too much counts as sexual assault. Bad as it is, that’s a necessary change.”

When you look at the activities feminists activists perform, you don’t see them working to help individual women and individual victims. What you see from feminist activists is an advantageous power play, a power play that some would argue (with strong evidence to back up their assertions) was always the intent of feminism from the beginning.

Conor states that “[m]any proponents of affirmative-consent laws would dispute the way Klein characterizes them, and favor them with the expectation that they won’t result in injustice.”

Feminists have never been all that great at following the evidence and coming to a conclusion, but evidence doesn’t matter as long as they can still get what they want. And all of these legal wins we can keep celebrating are for naught as long as the damage has already been done. The intent isn’t to help individual women who may be victims of sexual assault. It’s to damage the psyche of men who are seeking to succeed in life because feminists are very close to eviscerating “Patriarchy.”

Now that women have economic and academic power, they are making another power play. Women always had the power of creation and the access to the pleasure to partake in the activities the create that life. Now that they have even more power to create and end life, they are even freer to govern their lives. This may be a good thing, but, as a consequence, it has also shifted the monopsony of romance and domestic partnership even more in women’s favor, and with government standing behind them all the way, even as far as often providing them with financial support in place of a domestic partner, women are needing men less and less.

What better position can women be than in this modern age in the west, the first time in history where women can go their entire life without a single man in it – whether they’re poor mothers who are supported by government subsidies or middle and upper class educated women who, unless they decide to become mothers, make more money than men (“Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds”)?

But that’s not enough. Because feminists are not egalitarians, they want to make sure that the “Patriarchy,” whatever they decide to define it in [current year], is finished. They want to make sure that men are fearful of entering sexual relationships with women. Any day now, any man could be a victim of sexual assault without any physical contact ever occurring. He can be charged with sexually assaulting a woman and, without recorded proof (a felony in some states) of consent, he would have little to no chance of proving consent was given.

There’s no better way to ruin a man’s life than to make them forfeit their future by labeling them a rapist, especially with the power to spread this knowledge with the permanence of Google and social media, and by ruining their chance to get an education and make a living? There’s no better way to instill fear in a man than to place a risk far too great for them to take.

A reminder from Conor: “If successful, the law will cause all or most college men ‘to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.'” Those who want to fundamentally reform society will silence and instill fear in those they believe have social and economic power and, in doing so, proving they are the ones truly in power.