A Sensible Question about the Language Gender Ideologists Insist that Everyone Use

Wilfred Reilly asks:

Even if you're pro-gender ideology, why not just say "woman" and "trans woman?" Why would an additional modifier ("cis," etc) for 99.5% of the population ever be necessary? We don't use the label "hearing man" every time we describe someone who is not deaf.

Other contributors to this thread wrote:

Thank you for pointing this out I will now be referring to every person who is not disabled as able-bodied man or able-bodied woman. Brilliant.

Because it's a signaler that when you use it, it signals that you have accepted the gender cult's dogma.

because, no matter how hard they try to convince themselves and everyone else, they know it’s not the same!

That's power. Make 99.5% do the extra work. —woman —cis woman simple 😐

Norm Macdonald once said cisgender was "a way of marginalizing a normal person."

Because no men are a subset of women. There are women and men. That’s it. Some men LARP as a 1950s version of women but that doesn’t make them women

Continue ReadingA Sensible Question about the Language Gender Ideologists Insist that Everyone Use

The Fine Financial Fortunes of Clarence Thomas

In past decades I looked forward to visiting Washington DC, mostly to see the museums and historic sites. Back in the day, DC brought me good vibes because it reminded me about the genius of the American project and all of the good things the Founders gifted for millions of American people. It was far from perfect, but it was better than what we could see in most other countries and that's why immigrants clamored to join us.

My attitude has soured over the years based on countless revelations of financial conflicts of interests, not the least of which was Nancy Pelosi's surreal ability to know when to buy winning stocks, notably semi-conductor chip stocks. I now think of DC as a cesspool of corruption, not as collateral damage but as its defining attribute. I can no longer look at the photos of the iconic DC architecture without thinking these thoughts. I hear corruption whenever I hear about an acquaintance who has accepted a new job in DC. I think about this whenever a new idealistic politician bursts onto the scene--I shrug and assume it's just a matter of time before their conscience is unburdened by new financial "opportunities." We have so many examples of politicians who choose personal gain over serving the people that it has ceased to be news. More than ever, the job description of politician is this: non-stop fundraising to hire the best PR machine so one can surf the election cycle to accrue more money and power.

That's how I see it, more than ever. Until recently, my concern and distress have been focused on the Legislative and Executive branches of government. But now Propublica has dropped this bomb about the financial fortunes of Clarence Thomas. Follow the full tweet-thread if you dare.

What do you think? Could this lifestyle possibly influence one's judicial mindset? In how many ways could it scramble one's mind and conscience to ride this private gravy-train for years while purporting to serve the public? I wish Propublica had the bandwidth to run deep investigations into the financial and social ties of ALL of our federal judges, as well as all of our federal representatives. I'd like to know this as a mere curiosity, as the U.S. continues its slide toward third world status.

Photos by Erich Vieth

Continue ReadingThe Fine Financial Fortunes of Clarence Thomas

The Transgender Intersex Gambit: “But Intersex People Exist!”

There are only two biological sexes because there are only two types of gametes. Yes, some people are difficult to categorize by simply looking at their bodies, but if they produce a gamete (a cell capable of combining with another cell to produce a human being), it will be either an egg or a sperm, not a spegg nor any other functional option. See this short video produced by the Paradox Institute.

Almost inevitably, upon taking this position, you will hear people who have inhaled gender ideology say the "But intersex people exist." Intersex conditions exist, but they are rare (2/10,000), much rarer than the (approximately 1.4/100) of 13-17 year old teenagers now claiming to be transgender. Consider the following chart, which illustrates the number of intersex people compared to the numbers of people whose sex is obvious by simply looking:

How does the Intersex Gambit unfold? You will be challenged with the following, which I've heard in person several times from people formally educated enough to know better than to screw up something everyone learned in high school biology. They will say something like this: "Sex is not binary because intersex people exist and this demonstrates that biological sex is a spectrum." Biologist Colin Wright, author of "Understanding the Sex Binary," elaborates. Gender ideologists advises:

If no single line can be drawn, then anywhere someone chooses to draw one is totally arbitrary and subjective. If it’s totally arbitrary and subjective, then that means the categories male and female are also arbitrary and subjective “social constructs” with no firm root in biological reality. If that’s the case, why are we categorizing people in law according to these arbitrary labels instead of letting people simply label themselves? To do otherwise is to oppress people based on a biological falsehood.

Wright laments that this argument is made with "stunning success" and that it has even been embraced by "parts of the scientific establishment and the medical profession." Those using this argument include historian of science Alice Dreger.

In her book, Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex, Dreger refers to intersex individuals as “hermaphrodites,” and says: “Hermaphroditism causes a great deal of confusion, more than one might at first appreciate, because—as we will see again and again—the discovery of a ‘hermaphroditic’ body raises doubts not just about the particular body in question, but about all bodies. The questioned body forces us to ask what exactly it is—if anything—that makes the rest of us unquestionable.”

Continue ReadingThe Transgender Intersex Gambit: “But Intersex People Exist!”

The Little Sailboat that Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline

1. Joe Biden promises he will make Nord Stream pipeline inoperable. Someone then destroys the pipeline. Biden then denies that he had anything to do with this act of war. 2. Next, Seymour Hersh publishes detailed investigative article showing how the U.S. destroyed the pipeline. 3. Germany, co-owner of the pipeline, displays what has got to be the most vivid case of Stockholm Syndrome in human history. 4. U.S. news media ignores the Hersh story. 5. The CIA cooks up an absurd alternative story that not-Joe-Biden destroyed the pipeline. The pipeline was destroyed using "Pro-Ukrainian" group that uses a 49 foot sailboat. 6. The NYT, which has now begrudgingly acknowledged Hersh's blockbuster story, laps up the CIA story. 7. Seymour Hersh destroys the NYT-CIA story with a handful of simple questions.

Excerpt from Hersh's newest story, "THE NORD STREAM GHOST SHIP: The false details in the CIA's cover story":

My initial report received coverage around the world but was ignored by the major newspapers and television networks in the United States. As the story gained traction in Europe and elsewhere abroad, the New York Times on March 7 published a report quoting US officials asserting that American intelligence had accumulated information suggesting that a pro-Ukrainian group sabotaged the pipelines. The story said officials who had “reviewed” the new intelligence depicted it to be “a step toward determining responsibility” for the pipeline sabotage. The Times story got worldwide attention, but nothing more has been heard since from the newspaper about who did what. In an interview for a Times podcast, one of the three authors of the article inadvertently explained why the story was dead on arrival. The writer was asked about the involvement of the alleged pro-Ukrainian group: “What makes you think that’s what happened?” He answered: “I should be very clear that we know really very little. Right?”

Continue ReadingThe Little Sailboat that Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline