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?


Sometimes A Sissy Boy Is Just A Sissy Boy, Not A Trans Girl

A friend responded to my previous post on Jesse Singal’s article and said, in part, “This issue primarily is an assault on genetic women and seeks to undermine the female populace.”

It’s not as simple as that. There are two primary views on gender dysphoria (apart from believing it’s simply a mental illness and people always are what they were born as biologically): that gender identity is a socially developed profile vs gender identity is an innate part of the self (you’re born this way).
The science demonstrates that gender identity IS different than biological identity. Gender identity is a purely psychological state of mind and the solid science demonstrates that it is largely formed from a combination of innate and affected (socially) factors – that is, your biology forms a part of your psyche and, depending on your life experiences (domestic environment, social interactions, etc.), it interprets social stimuli in ways that help form your identity.
So if you’re a natal boy (born with biologically male characteristics) and are psychologically inclined to like more feminine things (playing with baby dolls, playing with girls), you might feel like you’re more a “girl” than you are a boy when you look at the things your parents and other boys and girls are expecting you to be interested in. That can cause confusion and gender dysphoria may develop. You may feel that you identify as a girl because of how you feel (more attracted to playing with girls and dolls, therefore you’re a girl) and were born with the wrong body parts.
Those who argue that gender is a socially developed gender profile say that, since 3/4 of kids with gender dysphoria end up reverting back to their natal identity (that is, boys who think they’re girls end up identifying as boys in the end), depending on the specifics of the clinical case, the most likely treatment is to either A) ween the kid off of the gender identifying triggers that cause their dysphoria in order to limit the dysphoria or, B) take a sit-and-wait approach for those who aren’t that strongly affected by gender identifying and confusing triggers until they “desist,” or their gender dysphoria resolves itself. In cases where the kid has already “come out” socially and have begun transitioning socially toward that trans gender, different courses of action are necessary to either help them transition toward their gender identity or socially transition back if they are likely to desist.
Those who argue that gender identity is an innate part of the self (this is what gender activists argue) and is unchangeable and only deniable, say that the main course of action is to encourage the kid to “come out” socially, including self-identifying as that gender, dressing up as that gender, and actively working toward making their new gender an all-encompassing part of their life. This is where you see 6, 8 , 12 year old kids being dressed up as the opposite gender, including extravagantly painted nails and makeup in excess and being encouraged by their parents to come out socially in a big way even in social media.
When you see examples of these, it’s not simply that parents are trying to use their kids for attention (though there is that possibility), it’s that there’s a growing trend within gender dysphoria clinical therapy to reinforce the gender dysphoria instead of trying to wean the child off of their gender confusion. They deny the solid statistical evidence that 3/4 of gender dysphoric kids end up desisting, arguing that it’s cherry picked data (when the evidence is varied and resolutely against them).
Those of the former view, that gender is a socially developed identity profile and kids with gender dysphoria should not necessarily be encouraged to become trans, believe that socially coming out and outwardly expressing their dysphoric identity will end up generating a reinforcing cycle because:

When kids socially transition, she explained, their parents not only become their champions to teachers and other parents, but also often start engaging in trans advocacy that comes to define them in important ways. If the child starts to sense that their dysphoria is desisting, they’re faced with either sticking with a gender identity that no longer feels like it fits or telling their parents, as the clinician put it, “This whole life that you’ve created for yourself as an advocate, I don’t want to be part of that anymore.” There’s also, of course, the fact that schools and family members are part of the process too, so de-transitioning requires notifying them as well. In this view, a too-early transition really might limit a child’s future options because of the social or familial costs of transitioning back. And eventually, as a kid gets older, the prospect of nontrivial medical procedures to help them physically transition enters the picture.

I don’t really entertain the idea that there is no such thing as trans. It does exist, but it’s not a biological thing like activists want to argue, nor is gender a “socially constructed” concept as they argue (which is contradictory, by the way). Sex and gender may be different things, but they are very much tied and, in the end, most people who are trans and end up regretting their choice to transition (and sadly, often kill themselves) are victims of not undergoing the right treatment at a young enough age to properly find a comfortable gender identity.
And as for “this issue primarily is an assault on genetic women and seeks to undermine the female populous,” consider that the transgender activists are trying to encourage men to transition to becoming women, not the other way around. You might be able to argue that it’s an assault on natal women who identify as women, but it’s mostly an assault on natal boys and men who simply don’t fit the behavioral characteristics boys and men demonstrate. Sometimes a sissy boy is just a sissy boy, not a trans girl.

Transgender Activists Are Playing With the Lives of Children

Transgender activists are playing with the very lives of millions of children suffering from gender dysphoria, “that is, the feeling that the body they were born with doesn’t fit their true gender identity.”
Social activists have destroyed the career of a world-renowned gender identity psychologist who championed the most scientifically accurate clinical knowledge about gender dysphoria and gender identity, all to wage an all-adult social and political war with children suffering from a treatable mental disorder.
Jesse Singal, via New York Magazine, has the story in How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired:
And if you look closely at what really happened — if you read the review (which CAMH has now pulled off of its website), speak with the activists who effectively wrote large swaths of it, examine the scientific evidence, and talk to former GIC clinicians and the parents of patients they worked with, it’s hard not to come to an uncomfortable, politically incorrect conclusion: Zucker’s defenders are right. This was a show trial.
Progressive activism has been driving much of psychological and sociological study, with social and political intent instead of scientific intent, in order to rewrite the knowledge base within these fields and rewrite how society functions and how we treat psychological illness. The intent isn’t to help people, but to wage a war against what they consider to be, for political reasons, a conservative bias in science (there isn’t one). Anything that isn’t puritanically progressive, which is an ideology that is ever-shifting every single week, is conservative and, by definition, on the “wrong side of history” and must be taken out unceremoniously.
Then, Zucker got to a truly bizarre allegation: A former patient, at the time an adolescent transitioning from female to male who was seeking a sex-reassignment surgery referral, said that Zucker had asked him to take his shirt off, laughed when he had done so, and then told him, “You’re a hairy little vermin!” The incident had never happened. Zucker looked at Bartha and, in disbelief, said something like, “So, you are going to post this on the website?” Yes, Bartha responded. Meaning that in a few hours, Zucker’s many detractors would read about how he had cruelly mocked the body of a young trans person.
Most people don’t know a trans person, and probably never will. But if you do, do not steer them toward progressive activist-approved psychological propaganda about gender dysphoria. It is not scientific and experimenting with the lives of pre-teen and teenage kids who need professional help with their psychological confusion and problems is unethical and irresponsible.