The Simpsons, Crowder, and Black Pigeon Tag-Team Google

These are three great short commentaries on the issue at Google which will soon creep into YouTube policies. The first commentary is the Simpson’s almost prophetic dealing with this a decade ago:

…Early in his radio career, Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. By 1934 he had become a harsh critic of Roosevelt, accusing him of being too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he established a new political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. He issued a platform calling for monetary reforms, the Nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, but it was not well-organized at the local level. After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and in the late 1930s to support some of the policies of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Emperor Hirohito. The broadcasts have been called “a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture”. His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being “Social Justice”, initially in support of, and later opposing, the New Deal. Many American bishops as well as the Vatican wanted him silenced, but after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939 it was the Roosevelt administration that finally forced the cancellation of his radio program and forbade the dissemination through the mail of his newspaper [called], SOCIAL JUSTICE.

(WIKI – emphasis added… see also pages 41-42 of D’Souza’s book)

Before continuing let me post and expand (with extra links) on a GAY PATRIOT post that tackles this insanity — and yes, Christian’s being forced to bake cakes via the weight of the state but other’s not being forced to bake cakes for other situations is telling.

(Even selling blueberries is deemed hate!) CEO’s being fired for contributing to tradition marriage causes, the lamenting of alternative news choices, adoption agencies no longer able to adopt out children to loving families, etc — all causes me to say unless something changes, we [conservatives] will be rounded up into ghettos:

I daresay that the reference is not only to the James Damore situation (which technically is not about free speech; it’s more about working conditions and the illegal, retaliatory firing of a whistleblower -but also to:

Youtube censoring conservatives and alt-media, bringing on left-wing extremist groups to do it;
the allegations of Google helping Hillary by biasing its search-term auto-completes, etc.

Anyway, Alphabet Inc. has a lot of ‘splainin to do.

And we’re fools if we think Google is not biased. I’ve noticed that other search engines are more complete, when it comes to indexing/returning GayPatriot articles.

(Louder w/Crowder) Following Google’s viral debacle and the firing of James Damore’s “anti-woman manifesto”, we decided to do some digging to find out just how “diverse” Google’s leadership actually is! Hint: they’re all hard core liberal SJW activists!

If Google Ads uses an algorithm to tell if the person shopping online is a female or male… is that sexist? Gender imperialism?

(Black Pigeon Speaks)

What Is The “Gender Wage Gap” Between All 58-Genders?

Really, there is more  BTW, I use really, loosely.

Great question Uncle Hotep! How would you even quantify that?…

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

Not A Puritan In Sight – Modern Day Witch Hunts

First of all, I have been posting on these varying aspects for some time: TransageismTransgenderTranshumanTransmisogynistTransracialTransspeciesTransterrestrial. The following is a great example of the Left cannibalizing itself. It is an attack on Journals, which are suppose to allow (esp. in philosophy), varying viewpoints to be “hashed out.” It is an attack on freedom of speech. It is an attack on science, and, it is an attack on truth. If some genes being turned off or on producing melanin is “absolute,” but a uterus, XX vs. XY chromosomes, a vagina, different pelvis’ (which you can tell the gender from), different skulls (which you can tell the gender from), on, and on… is fluid, as well as this:

a uterus, more than 21 percent of the entire human genome, which is composed of about 30,000 genes, code for gender-specific traits; XX vs XY chromosomes, a vagina, different pelvis’ (which you can tell the gender from), different skulls (which you can tell the gender from), on, and on

…In 2017, however, progressives argue there are dozens of human genders, including being gender-less or even “gender-fluid,” meaning a person’s gender changes periodically based on how he feels. They argue that gender isn’t tied to scientific study and research but instead to how someone “identifies.”

But a recent scientific study conducted by the Weizmann Institute of Science is tearing holes into the progressive narrative that sex and gender aren’t tied to science.

The study found that there are more than 6,500 unique genes in the human genome that express different traits depending on a person’s gender, either male or female, which explains the huge biological differences between men and women.

That means more than 21 percent of the entire human genome, which is composed of about 30,000 genes, code for gender-specific traits….

(THE BLAZE)

…then this intolerant witch hunt is ultimately an attack on reality. It is codifying lunacy!

Rebecca Tuvel, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College, is a modern day example of a witch-hunt — according to the NEW YORK MAGAZINE. And the funny thing is, the Puritans are Leftists in this story:

The biggest vehicle of misinformation about Tuvel’s articles comes from the “open letter to Hypatia” that has done a great deal to help spark the controversy. That letter has racked up hundreds of signatories within the academic community — the top names listed are Elise Springer of Wesleyan University, Alexis Shotwell of Carleton University (who is listed as the point of contact), Dilek Huseyinzadegan of Emory University, Lori Gruen of Wesleyan, and Shannon Winnubst of Ohio State University.

[….]

In the letter, the authors ask that the article be retracted on the grounds that its “continued availability causes further harm” to marginalized people. The authors then list five main reasons they think the article is so dangerously flawed it should be unpublished:

1. It uses vocabulary and frameworks not recognized, accepted, or adopted by the conventions of the relevant subfields; for example, the author uses the language of “transgenderism” and engages in deadnaming a trans woman;

2. It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism;

3. It misrepresents leading accounts of belonging to a racial group; for example, the author incorrectly cites Charles Mills as a defender of voluntary racial identification;

4. It fails to seek out and sufficiently engage with scholarly work by those who are most vulnerable to the intersection of racial and gender oppressions (women of color) in its discussion of “transracialism”. We endorse Hypatia’s stated commitment to “actively reflect and engage the diversity within feminism, the diverse experiences and situations of women, and the diverse forms that gender takes around the globe,” and we find that this submission was published without being held to that commitment.

What’s remarkable about this letter is that, as Justin Weinberg noted in the Daily Nous, a philosophy website, each and every one of the falsifiable points it makes is, based on a plain reading of Tuvel’s article, simply false or misleading….

(read it all)

NATIONAL REVIEW has an excellent article as well

Every single time I think the academy has reached peak intolerance and peak insanity, it proves me wrong. There is no argument that is too stupid for academic radicals. There is no lie that these “scholars” aren’t willing to tell to advance their agenda.

Just ask liberal-feminist philosophy professor Rebecca Tuvel, the latest victim of the ritual “two minutes hate.” Her crime was serious: She had the audacity to write a paper exploring the arguments “for and against transracialism” and argued that “considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism.” In other words, she took the question that millions of Americans asked when Rachel Dolezal was exposed — if a man can “really” be a woman, why can’t a white person “really” be black? — and explored it through a liberal, feminist lens.

Judging from the reaction, you would have thought she burned a cross in the quad. A fully woke University of Tennessee professor named Nora Berenstain fired the first shots. Her (now-private) Facebook post reads like an Onion parody of political correctness. It’s worth quoting at length:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

[….]

Rather than defend Tuvel, Hypatia’s board of associate editors responded with one of the most craven and cowardly statements in the history of craven academic cowardice. It begins:

We, the members of Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors, extend our profound apology to our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy, especially transfeminists, queer feminists, and feminists of color, for the harms that the publication of the article on transracialism has caused.

“Harms”? Are “transfeminists, queer feminists, and feminists of color” really so delicate that they can’t withstand the publication of a paper they don’t even have to read?…

[….]

Academic freedom cannot and will not flourish if its alleged defenders reserve their outrage only for when their ideological allies fall victim to the online mob. If progressives feel they have to torch conservative straw men before mustering up the courage to defend free inquiry, then academic freedom has a dark future indeed. Conservatives will be walled out entirely, and progressive discourse will be jammed into ever-tighter ideological spaces as a brave few liberals fight a desperate rear-guard action against the true radicals.

One hopes that professor Tuvel’s ordeal will serve as yet another wake-up call, teaching professors that there is no safe space from social-justice warriors…..

(read it all)

Bill Nye, The Not-So-Scientific-Guy

Language warning on some of the below content. Oh, and what is seen cannot be unseen:


Bill Nye (The Not-A-Real-Science-Guy) fancies himself an expert and repeatedly scoffs at anyone who’s skeptical of his particular brand of science….which ironically often lacks actual science. We give you exhibit D from his new Netflix show ‘Bill Nye Saves The World’ on the topic of the “gender spectrum”…

Here is some commentary by RED PILL PHILOSOPHY:


The following excerpt is from THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

The following is excerpted from McGuire’s new book, “Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female

Feminists in the 1960s and 70s argued that men and women are not inherently different. The many apparent differences between the sexes — beyond the undeniable anatomical ones — are simply the result of gender roles people are taught to fulfill, not of their natures as men or women. This was the era when parents were told that their daughters would be just as happy playing with toy trucks as with dolls and that making the switch would help end sexism and liberate girls for a better future. Women sought to detach themselves from the aspects of womanhood they found limiting, especially their fertility.

For decades, gender theory gained steam, seeking the complete abolition of gender distinctions in any way tied to the two biological sexes.

In 1992, family therapist John Gray published Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. The book’s premise was simple: men and women are different, and understanding those differences, not living in denial of them, is the key to relationship success. The book’s popularity exploded. It became not just a bestselling book of its decade, but one of the bestselling books of all time.

It was pop psychology, but it hit a social nerve. The book hit shelves amid a growing effort to build a gender-neutral society. It seemed people were still desperate to understand their differences. Paradoxically, the dawn of gender theory was also the period when social scientists and doctors began to make the most progress in understanding the sexual difference and the delicate physiological interplay between men and women.

Major advances in neurobiology, for example, unveiled just how differently men and women respond physically to intimacy. During intercourse, the female releases more oxytocin than the male. Oxytocin is the hormone that facilitates bonding between human beings, in particular between mothers and new babies and between heterosexual partners. It’s colloquially referred to as “the love hormone,” “the hug hormone,” the “cuddle chemical,” the “moral molecule,” and the “bliss hormone,” and is especially noted for the different roles it plays in female reproduction.

According to the American Psychological Association, “New studies are adding to a body of literature that shows oxytocin plays a key role in maternal bonding and social affiliation — what [social psychologist Shelley] Taylor has labeled the ‘tend and befriend’ response, as opposed to the ‘fight or flight’ response.”

Oxytocin, researchers discovered, makes a woman more vulnerable and attached to the man with whom she is having sex. Men release a small amount of oxytocin during intercourse, too, but they release an even bigger amount of testosterone, which has the effect of suppressing the oxytocin.

So science has a basic explanation for why women will stare at their phone after casual sex, hoping their partner will contact them, while men do not. As one woman wrote in a piece for Elite Daily, “The Truth Behind Why Women Find It Harder to Have Casual Sex than Men Do,” the phenomenon of oxytocin offers “a scientific explanation as to why after sex, women are left wondering if and when she will hear from a guy. All the while, guys are scrolling through Tinder on their couch, wondering if that chicken parm they ordered an hour ago is actually on its way.” “Women,” she writes, “are programmed to become emotionally attached” in a way that men are not.

There is a seemingly unending litany of ways that men and women are different, many of them still unexplained.

As Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield notes in Manliness, his treatise on manhood, data show that women are friendlier. Two-thirds of people who are more inclined toward smiling are women.

[….]

Medical phenomena continue to point to stark differences between the male and female brains.

Men, for instance, are significantly more likely to have reading disorders, something that has been attributed to, among other things, “differences in brain functioning.” And reading disorders may arise differently in men and women. According to a Georgetown University Medical Center study, “Brain anatomy of dyslexia is not the same in men and women, boys and girls.”

The study’s lead author explained, “There is sex-specific variance in brain anatomy and females tend to use both hemispheres for language tasks, while males just the left. It is also known that sex hormones are related to brain anatomy and that female sex hormones such as estrogen can be protective after brain injury, suggesting another avenue that might lead to the sex-specific findings reported in this study.”

The world of science and medicine is trending toward greater, not lesser, understanding of the importance of what makes us different.

Does great variety exist within the sexes? Of course. Some men are poets, some men are soldiers. Some women are trial lawyers, while others write books. Some men vacuum. Some women don’t cook.

And yet, despite historical changes in fashion preferences, domestic arrangements, professional inclinations, and so much more, certain aspects of nature stubbornly persist. Shifts in who wears pink have not changed the fact that women, and only women, can conceive, gestate, and give birth to a new member of the human species. Men are, on the whole, the physically stronger sex. Culture may imbue gender with certain random characteristics, but science is not walking away from sex as a key feature of humanity.

Culture may change, but reality doesn’t…..

“Transferring Sainthood” In Denying Nature – Zac Petkanas Edition

Tucker Carlson discusses “transgender bathrooms” in schools with Zac Petkanas after President Trump reverses Obama’s transgender bathroom guidance.

Wow… people who do not think like this guy are unenlightened. Just… wow. Of course the gay professor most known for firing the first shot across the bow of the modern culture war said:

There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students’ reaction: they will be uncomprehending. That anyone should regard the proposition as not self-evident astonishes them…. The relativity of truth is… a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it…. The danger they have been taught to fear is not error but intolerance. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness — and the relativism that makes it plausible — is the great insight of our times…. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 25.

Even the truth of nature ceases to be reality on the Left.

Again, I think the Lord above for people like VtotheK, via GAY PATRIOT:

According to CNN News Anchor Chris Cuomo (Brother of New York Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo {Because Democrat-Media Complex}), if a 12 year old girl objects to seeing a penis in the Girls Locker Room, it’s because of her intolerant, sexually repressed parents.

I am not making this up. (I am however excerpting it because Twitter drags the site down).

Q. What do you tell a 12 year old girl who doesn’t want to see a penis in the locker room?

A. i wonder if she is the problem or her overprotective and intolerant dad? teach tolerance. 

One day last week, after a good sweaty workout, I went into the locker room and there were three naked little kids in front of my locker. Parents often take their kids to swim in the adjacent Natatorium. These kids had just showered and were goofing around and just happened to be where I had parked my stuff. I just kind of reached over them and got my stuff while taking care not to look in their direction. They were so involved interacting with each other, I don’t think they noticed me at all. But a locker room environment is a place where children are vulnerable. Mix a creep in with that situation and… potentially terrible outcome.

I just don’t get why all of society should have to be reordered and everyone has to bend over to accommodate the tiny number of people who are trannies? Why is it not incumbent on trannies to accommodate the actually quite reasonable wishes of a much larger amount of society?….

“Reasonableness” is not in the progressive Lefts vocabulary… radical views of equality excavate any such thing. Any many well-intentioned [benighted*] Democrats led by the nose not realizing this are just as much at fault.

* “Benighted”

-or-

The Active Transfer Of Saint-Hood Through Social Justice Means

~ some examples ~

One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.

But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.

When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.

Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.

A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.

What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.

The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.

One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.

Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.

These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 134-135.

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….”Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immedi­ately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro­grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a pro­gram, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the pro­prietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority con­tracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.

======================

*No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will neces­sarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 122, 151, 154.

Which bring me to the FAIRNESS BRIGADE our universities are creating so “progressives” [really, regressives] feel good and benighted…


FAMILY POLICY INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON visited the campus of the University of Washington to see if students would affirm or reject Joseph Backholm’s new chosen identity: a 6’5″ Chinese woman.

I think the really important part is at the end when it is pointed out that how are these people going to make the real [tough] decisions in life than truly matter if they cannot deal with simple realities. I can see this thinking with How Obama deals with foreign affairs. This brings to mind as well the recently “famous” dragon-lady, which is a man mutilating his body to become a female… wait for it… dragon. I have more on this in my Transspecies post, but Gay Patriot ends his post on the matter with this:

  • So, does this mean that businesses will be required to provide this creature with a sunny rock to warm itself in the afternoon sun on? Will states that exempt businesses from having to cater to this be subject to boycotts in services of the LGBQTAR (As in ‘Reptilian’) coalition of the perpetually aggrieved?

Earlier I highlighted a video where “College Kids Speak With a 6’5″ Chinese Woman,” but there are other videos in line with this thinking from The Family Policy Institute of Washington.

We took to the streets of Seattle to see if people actually oppose all discrimination, or if they just oppose *some* discrimination.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington asks Seattle residents if there are any limits to the way someone can self-identify.

Do college kids think there’s a difference between men and women? FPIW visited Seattle University to find out.

See more:

Don’t Be a Sucker – Leftist Values Separate

I love this short video because it shows how people love to separate. For instance, in a discussion about same-sex marriage I was told that as a straight white man I have privilege. This understanding of separating me from being able to engage in conversation about policy comes through a long “brain-wash” (if you will) of creating classes and groups of people, and then choosing one to be the problem. Currently this is straight white males, during the below film, it was Jews. So know you have Black Lives Matter speakers saying “white people give your money, your house, your property.”

The multi-culturalism as devised by the Left creates sub-groups which create and cause pride in the “SEPARATENESS” (the “other than”) in thinking. So a person is not an American, they are an “African-American.” Or a “Mexican-American,” needing a group on college campuses to support this pride and prejudice, like La Raza… so, for instance… Cesar Chavev, the founder of the United Farm Workers Union (UFW), said this of La Raza:

Chavez was also against ethnic groups like La Raza. In fact, he saw the dangers of such organizations from the beginning. “I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”…

This division ends up back-firing on the public… and truth is subverted. For instance, a sign hanging at a NAZI death camp in Germany is a quote from Hitler: “I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality….” How? By causing division… here feminist philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers discusses “INTERSETIONAL FEMINISM:

And this division eventually leads to the impossibibility of application, and the break-down of societal truths:

So now we have grouping of gender that is meant to confuse and divide (which is male/female, and this celebration of gender in “male and female” creates a cohesive unity):

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

And very similarly to these trying times we now have a violent and riotess masses of young people acting out this separateness and a scapegoat. Why does violence naturally follow? Because trying to make this perceived ability to create unity from division (chaos) is an impossible task… and so violence is attempted to create unity or Utopian society.

Unfiltered Violence From Hillary Clinton’s Crowds

How Leftists Portray Reality

More Liberal Fascism (Updated)

More Violence From the Left

Totalitarian/Fascist Fits – Violence from the Democrat Left

More Black Lives Matter Racism and Violent Threats

Innaugurtation Day Riots Update

British NHS Bans Term “Expectant Mother”

Dennis Prager reads about the British Nation Health Service’s new guidelines about “gender inclusiveness.” The Left is tearing apart norms of science and logic, as well as common sense. Below is a commentary by RED STATE after they quote the official NHS guidelines:

…The British National Health service recently released guidelines demanding employees no longer refer to a pregnant woman as an “expectant mother” as it is “non-inclusive” of transgender men  women people. The Daily Mail reported the story.

NHS doctors have been told not to call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’ because it might offend transgender people, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The astonishing warning comes in official guidelines issued by the British Medical Association to its 160,000 members, which says mothers-to-be should be referred to as ‘pregnant people’ instead.

The controversial advice to doctors in hospitals and general practice comes just weeks after it emerged that a Briton who was born a girl but is changing to a man put his operation on hold to have a baby.

Four-months pregnant Hayden Cross, 20, is legally male and has had hormone treatment but not sex-change surgery.

There are no other known cases of a transitioning person becoming pregnant in the UK, but official figures show 775,000 women give birth in Britain every year.

There is so much to unpack here but the take-away is that womanhood is no longer defined by women. I won’t rehash everything wrong with the idea of “gender theory” (again, you can read my previous column on that here) but what strikes me as quite unsettling is the idea that though not one other case of a “man” (by legal definition but not gender) having a baby has been reported yet the NHS is shifting their entire agency policy to accommodate one person. All women who proudly carry the term “expectant mother” are now expected to shift their feelings and motherly pride to bend to the will of one person.

That’s terrifying.

This gender theory madness makes victims of women over and over again. The only end result is that it empowers men to define “womanhood”. Hayden is biologically a woman, but let’s go with the British law on this and call her a man (as is her wish). Here is a man saying that we women don’t even get decide what we call our unique ability to bear life and now aren’t even allowed to claim that mantle as uniquely female and defining of our gender.

It’s very confusing but let me see if I can sort this out: men aren’t allowed to tell women what to do with their bodies when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to giving birth men are allowed to dictate whether or not we are allowed to even call it “motherhood”, which is what it’s been since ALWAYS.

Also, women aren’t to be defined by their vaginas but we just endured angry, nationwide protests by women proudly wearing “p***y hats” and fake vaginas on their heads to symbolize the supposed misogyny of the current administration.

If men can have babies (which they can’t, people. They can’t. It’s S.C.I.E.N.C.E.), periods, and breasts; if men can shun the societal construct of “manly” behavior to proudly include characteristics we’ve traditionally defined as female; if men can even erase the distinctly female term “mother” then what the hell are women good for anymore?

We can stop protesting, Women’s March feminists! There is no such thing as “woman” anymore….