Trans Women Competing in the Olympics

Recently I came across this little nugget of joy while browsing through online news.

The article is claiming that having trans women compete in the Olympics would be unfair to cis-women for the reason that trans women, having been men most of their lives, would have advantages over women.

However, a considerable number doctors and researchers from different committees  have ruled that a transgender female athlete on HRT does not have any real advantages over a normal female athlete.

The article itself does not offer up any documented counter evidence. It simply says:

>> It is simply inconceivable that athletes who have spent most of their lives as men wouldn’t have greater muscle mass, skeletal growth, and lung capacity than someone born female

^^^ It might (not) interest our readers to know that I just happened to specialized in biomechanics for 10 years. A woman’s lung capacity increases with training, the same way a man’s does. A woman’s heart also undergoes the same kind of hypertrophy and other adaptations, as does the rest of her circulatory system.  Now I’ve never personally studied the differences between trans and non-trans athletes, so while this seems intuitive, I don’t need to rely on my own expertise; the doctors and researchers who are on these different committees should be intimately aware of all these factors, and have reached their conclusions based on well established fitness science.

Also from the article:

>> Sadly, feminism is not in a position to fight the IOC, because the movement has bought into the doctrine of intersectionality, which dictates that transgender persons constitute a victimized group whose wishes must be granted at all costs.

^^^ Opinions of feminism aside – we know transgender athletes are on the same level as highly trained cis-females, because as stated, we have had independent researchers look into this, and it was a decision reached through careful study of the issue.

………… or at least, that’s what I thought.

The counter argument, summed up, appears to be that a trans-woman, after only a year on HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy), would still have significant advantages over a cis-woman (cis stands for “comfortable in skin”, which is another way of saying someone who isn’t transgender).  You can see a full debate on this subject here: – where I started out with many of the same points I just listed here.

This debate ended with the following:

Trans debate^^^ To which I thought, “Not a problem!” – and went googling away.

Again, for those of you trying to follow what this is about:

The question is whether or not allowing a trans woman on only 1 year of HRT is fair to non-trans women, due to advantages that the trans-woman will have from being male most of their life.

The pro-trans side says it’s fair, because there are no advantages.

The anti-trans side says it isn’t fair, as they would have advantages.

My position is that it’s fair because numerous independent researchers associated with different official committees have made that ruling and would obviously have the evidence to make such a ruling.

So lets get looking!

According to The Guardian: “International Olympic Committee medical officials said on Sunday they changed the policy to adapt to current scientific, social and legal attitudes on transgender issues.

According to CNN: “Medical chiefs at the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have recommended the change which could mean transgender athletes would be more readily able to take part in this summer’s Olympics in Rio de Janeiro as well as other international events.

^^^ Definitely a consensus among the medical community!  But to avoid an Argument from Authority fallacy, we need the actual research that results in such a consensus.  I’m positive we’ll find a controlled study somewhere comparing cis-women to trans-women.

According to Outsports: “Outsports has obtained a copy of the transgender guidelines the International Olympic Committee is expected to adopt before the Summer Olympics later this year. The guidelines stem from an unpublicized “Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism” the IOC held last November.

^^^ Aha!  A lead!  Now we’re cooking!  For sure I’m going to get a PDF with a longitudinal study with empirical evidence that will shut this whole thing down.

You can see the Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment study here:

From the study: (Drum roll, please!)

>> Since the 2003 Stockholm Consensus on Sex Reassignment in Sports, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of autonomy of gender identity in society, as reflected in the laws of many jurisdictions worldwide.

………………………….. uh……. wait, what?

…………. weren’t we going to talk about trans women competing against cis-women?  Because… that’s what all those news sources are using this citation for.  I mean read that last one from Outsports again – the new guidelines stem from this very paper.

Oh god… no…. please tell me we’re not relying on liberal feel-good nonsense and pretending it’s scientific data.

Cat Oh brother here we go againMore from that same paper:

>> B. There are also, however, jurisdictions where autonomy of gender identity is not recognised in law at all.

>> C. It is necessary to ensure insofar as possible that trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sporting competition.

^^^ Okay so this has more to do with letting trans women compete than settling the question of whether or not it’s actually fair for cis-women.

In fact, more from that Outsports source I quoted a moment ago:

>> Joanna Harper, chief medical physicist, radiation oncology, Providence Portland Medical Center, was one of the people at that meeting. She also happens to be trans, and she said her voice in the room was important in determining these guidelines.”

^^^ Okay yea… this is definitely an issue that’s aimed at only letting trans-women compete without settling the issue of whether or not that’s actually fair.  In fact, Harper goes on to state: “This matches up with the NCAA rules and is as good as anything.

As good as anything???  The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is not accredited by any recognizing body, and has no legal authority over any sporting agency or activity.  They’re free to simply make up whatever rules they want on any issue they please, and are not obligated to follow any medically established protocols or procedures.  Also, you can see those very rules being referenced here:

From page 9 on PDF reader:

>>Concern about creating an “unfair competitive advantage” on sex-separated teams is one of the most often cited reasons for resistance to the participation of transgender student-athletes. This concern is cited most often in discussions about transgender women competing on a women’s team.

>> These concerns are based on three assumptions: one, that transgender women are not “real” women and therefore not deserving of an equal competitive opportunity; two, that being born with a male body automatically gives a transgender woman an unfair advantage when competing against non-transgender women; and three, that men might be tempted to pretend to be transgender in order to compete in competition with women.

^^^ First assumption is nonsense – whether or not trans women are “real women” is completely besides the point.  That’s a totally separate issue, and has nothing to do with whether or not there’s an unfair competitive advantage.

Third assumption is even more nonsense.  You cannot put on a dress, say you’re a woman, and call yourself trans.  While the NCAA file does go on to explain this, it’s still not addressing the central concern – competitive advantage of trans women over cis-women.  It seems the NCAA simply wanted to include this soap-box social justice rhetoric in their article.

The second assumption – that of an unfair competitive advantage – is never answered.  The paper does not go on to fully address whether or not this is or isn’t the case, because it references only women who transition before puberty, and this is not the same ruling that the Olympic Committee is making.  So professor Joanna Harper is just flat out wrong in saying that their ruling “matches up” with the NCAA guidelines.

You know… I was really hoping I’d find some research justifying the Olympic Committee’s decision.  And you can tell – just go click on the debate thread I linked.  I thought I was making a pretty good case.  But here it turns out it’s just another SJW cause focused on including trans women without addressing the very legitimate criticisms that naturally come from doing such a thing.  And I’m guessing that criticism will never be addressed, since even bringing it up will no doubt be met with the usual tactics.

Anyway there’s one last source we haven’t run through.  It’s the 2003 Stockholm report that was referenced in the 2015 report.  Wanna take a wild stab on what it’s findings were?  If you said “it’s only fair that trans-women can compete” – then you’ve been paying attention.

You can find the Stockholm report here:

From the report:

>>The group recommends that individuals undergoing sex reassignment from male to female after puberty (and the converse) be eligible for participation in female or male competitions, respectively, under the following conditions:

^^^ It’s never addressed whether or not trans female athletes genuinely have an advantage over cis-female athletes.

The Conclusion

It’s very possible that trans-women do not have any advantages over cis-women after a year on HRT.  However, without evidence backing up that assertion, there’s no way we here at 4th Wavers can support that decision.  4th Wave Feminism is evidence based.  This means decisions change only if that’s what the evidence supports, and also change if no evidence supporting an assertion can be found (as was the case here).

It’s extremely unfortunate that the Olympic Committee is basing it’s decisions on what happens to be popular in the media, and not on actual science.  Given that multiple agencies appear to be jumping on the bandwagon here with no research backing them up does give the impression that such policies are only being instituted because they’re popular.


Heterosexual Pride Day – What Is It, and What’s The Problem?

So it seems #HeterosexualPrideDay has been trending lately.  And if you’ve read most of the stuff about it on the internet so far, you’d come to the conclusion that it’s a huge problem caused by bigotry and homophobia.

But first, what *is* Heterosexual Pride Day?  How did it start, who’s running the show, and what is the actual intent?

What Exactly Is ‘Straight Pride’?

A google search reveals only page after page of mocking the idea.  It’s difficult to track down any actual sources that explain what the day is actually about.  One might think just from what’s already out there, that there is something very seriously wrong with the idea of heterosexuals feeling any sense of pride, given how everyone is reacting to it.  Why else would something be considered so terribly wrong, before anyone even discusses what it is?  It’s obvious that straights aren’t allowed to feel proud about who they are, right?  I mean it’s not like they’re people too, and entitled to feeling the full range of human emotions that everyone else feels.

But hang on, surely we’re missing something here.  Straight Pride just *can’t* be about feeling the same type of inner peace and connectedness with one’s community that gays feel.  There has to be something more sinister going on.  I mean, it’s not like the LGBT community is now criminalizing other groups the same way LGBT people were treated for so long.  So what is Heterosexual Pride Day then?

As it turns out, there might not actually even be such a day, at least not one recognized anywhere.  The BBC has done a piece on this, and they were not able to track down any official day, or organization, or even a group of people who are actively and consistently promoting this event.  That article hyperlinks to this one, referencing events and rallies that have been held in the past.  However, the Unicorn site being linked also does nothing but mock the idea, while it desperately to connect Straight Pride Day to individual acts of homophobia by high school students.

I mean really, from the first paragraph under their 2001 heading:

—– —–
In 2001, a high school in St. Paul, Minnesota set up “safe zones” in which homophobia would not be tolerated. Furious at his school’s blatant intolerance of intolerance, the student proudly held a one-man hetero rights demonstration by donning a T-shirt with the words “Straight Pride” on the front.
—– —–

^ Honestly, what does that even have to do with straight pride day?  Someone else, somewhere else, is straight, and also homophobic.  Therefore, straight pride day has to be homophobic?  I mean, it just *HAS* to be?  Because there are straight people who are homophobic – so that just PROVES straight pride day has to be homophobic too?

This is not research

How most 3rd Wavers reach their conclusions

You know, some black folks commit crimes.  Therefore, Black History Month – yea forget it, I’m not even finishing.  That logic only works if you’re white, straight, or male (works best if you’re all 3).

The BBC article also links to this article by Pink News, where one person actually did organize a rally!  Lets see what he has to say about it.  I’m sure we’ll see nothing but the blatant homophobia that totally justifies all the horrible demonization, and we can just move on.

From the article:

—– ——
Creating a public Facebook event, he [Anthony Rebello] wrote: “We all have the right to celebrate the way of life we have chosen for ourselves. In the name of equality & equal rights, I have created this event to celebrate our right to be heterosexual, and to encourage younger heterosexuals that they should be proud of their heterosexuality.”
—– —–

^ …….. um…. o… kay?  Sooooo… he thought straight folks ought to feel good about themselves, just like gays ought to feel good about themselves.  That’s… literally what he said.  He even mentioned equality and equal rights.

So, what’s the problem with this?  Why is the LGBT community so outraged?  There has to be more to this.  Again, it would be with breathtakingly exasperation to find out that the very people who were told they couldn’t feel proud of themselves or hold events in public are now telling other groups that they can’t feel proud of themselves or hold events in public.

An Interview With A Straight Pride Organizer

4th Wavers decided to reach out to Anthony Rebello, the organizer of the straight pride event linked above.  Below are the questions we asked Anthony, and he was kind enough to provide us some very thorough responses.

1. In July of last year, you decided to start the first Heterosexual Pride parade.  Roughly how many did you invite to attend, and how did you invite them?

Anthony: I invited nearly 200 people through the option made available in my event page: After that, facebook would not allow me to invite anymore people. I wanted to invite all my friends, but the option was unavailable.

2.  What were the events that lead up to you deciding to create this event?  Was there any “aha” moment where this came to mind?

Anthony:  I noticed that many different kinds of people were celebrating their sexual preference/nationalities/beliefs/opinions, so I decided I would also celebrate my own beliefs by being #ProudToBe a Heterosexual.

As someone who supports #EqualRights, I saw no problem with celebrating the fact that I am Heterosexual. In many ways, the #LGBTQ inspired me to do so. I have shown my support for the gay community. I have been to Pride parades. I used to live downtown Seattle. I have many gay friends. I figured the #LGBTQ would support the fact that I was just as happy to be Heterosexual as they are to be gay/transgender/bi… That wasn’t the case. I was labeled a bigot, white supremacist, member of isis… Harassed, insulted, even threatened. I even lost my job because of it. Here is a link to the backlash.

3.  Are you against gays and lesbians having their own pride day?  What about gays and lesbians in general?

AnthonyNot at all.  I believe everyone should be proud of who they are. That everyone should celebrate their lives, no matter what. I believe that is why we are alive. Like I said, I have attended a few Pride parades. I had an apt in Seattle. Belltown. I worked right next to Westlake. I had many gay/lesbian friends/coworkers. I never hurt anyone. I’m not that kind of person. I support the idea that everyone should have equal rights. What about gays and lesbians in general? I have never had a problem with them. I have had many gay guys hit on me, and I didn’t get mad, I just explained to them that it wasn’t my thing, that I was a heterosexual, and that I have always been attracted to girls/women.

4.  Was the Heterosexual Pride event meant to detract from, or counter, the LGBT movement?  Or was it merely an event where heterosexual folks could find community and identity?

Anthony: Not at all. I am an individual. As an individual, I have always done my own thing. I have always appreciated people who do. I don’t want to control anyone. It’s hard enough to control myself sometimes, lol!  This event is merely an event where heterosexual folks can find community and identity, a place for Heterosexuals to identify with other Heterosexuals and be #ProudToBe Heterosexual. I tried to make it clear in the statement on the event:

 “In the name of equality & equal rights, I have created this event to celebrate our heterosexuality, and to encourage younger heterosexuals that they should be proud of their heterosexuality. This is not a protest. It is a celebration for all to enjoy. Hope to see you there.”

5. Dan Savage has done a pretty brutal piece on this matter, which you can find here:  Accordingly, he quotes you as saying, in reference to the LGBT community:

“I think it’s a trend.  A cry for attention.  From your government, a distraction.  For $.”  – in this statement, you compared homosexual marriage to allowing animals to get married.  You also said you don’t agree with turning boys into girls, and vice versa, and referred to it as a “shitshow”. 

Do you stand by these statements?  How do you address that now?

Anthony: At the time, Gay marriage was a *trending topic, in the news every day, and all up in everyone’s faces all the time. To be honest, I was sick of hearing about it. I tried to show support for the idea that we don’t need approval from anyone to have a good relationship. That a solid healthy relationship is between the 2 people having the relationship, and nobody else. I wrote a  blog entry called  “Marriage” which says this:

“You don’t need a third party, or a piece of paper to have a good relationship with someone. You don’t need anyone’s permission, or approval. If you make each other happy, that’s what matters. It is between you, and the person you are involved with, not you and society”

Soon after that, I posted another entry, where I said:

“In response to the whole gay marriage thing, as an artist, and an individual, I feel the need to voice my opinion on the subject. I apologize if my opinion hurts anyone’s feelings.”

I wasn’t actually trying to compare insects getting married with gay people getting married. The point I was that in my opinion, people were making things too complicated. I was trying to simplify things in my own sarcastic, smart ass kind of way. I am an artist, and an individual, and I can see now how this may have been perceived differently by many. In hindsight, I could have worded it better, and I probably should have. Either way, that’s how it came out, and I honestly wasn’t trying to hurt anyone. I was just venting my opinion creatively.


4th Waver would like to thank Anthony for his time and helping to provide clarity for this issue.  Anthony speaks more about the results of his organizing a straight pride day here, where he faced serious retaliation at his work.

You can see Anthony’s primary website at, on youtube at, on facebook at  His blog is, and if you appreciate his artwork, you can send a donation to

Thanks again Anthony for clearing up the confusion.


Now to be fair, when researching this story, we did find one example of a straight pride parade (page 21) that was, in fact, religiously motivated and intolerant towards LGBT people.  This was very clearly far departed from the example above.  At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst campus, the Young Americans for Freedom group sponsored a “Straight-Pride Rally” on April 24th, 1990.  They reportedly waved bibles and shouted insulting phrases towards gays and lesbians.  But at best, this appears to be an isolated incident, and it’s very difficult to find any other examples of this happening.  With that being the case, there’s no indication that “straight-pride day” necessarily means anything at all anti-gay.

This goes to show that pride, like any emotion, can inspire someone to do good or bad.  So maybe we’re going about this the wrong way.  Instead of “straight pride”, first… what is “pride?”

Emotions May Vary

Lets start with a complex, yet (sometimes) easy to understand emotion like “love”.

You probably love your parents, your cat, and your significant other.  But you love each of these things in a different way, because there are different *kinds* of love, and ways you can love.  I mean, I also love French fries.  Just not in the same way I love Jaline.  (Sorry baby cakes, fries come first!)

In that same exact way, there’s different kinds of “pride” a person can feel.  There’s the pride you feel towards an accomplishment, or after having achieved an important goal.  But there’s also other sorts of pride.  For example, if your son or daughter does really well on a project, you might feel a sense of pride – even though it’s an accomplishment done by someone else, you still feel this way!  It’s simply a different kind of pride.

How many of you out there are proud to be an American?  Or for our international readers, are you proud to be British?  Irish?  Norwegian?  I’ve had people tell me such pride is ridiculous, but it most  certainly isn’t.  The pride you feel for your country is just another kind of pride.  It’s not good or bad in and of itself.  It’s just a normal feeling.  What you do in response to that feeling is your choice, and that’s where the “good” and “bad” aspect of it comes in.  Does American pride inspire you to help those in need?  Or take their rights away?

I have straight friends who are very dear to me. Some of them are as close as family. I can’t imagine why on earth would I *NOT* want them to feel proud, and good about who they are!  To say otherwise is a double standard.  I can have pride, but you can’t – completely not recognizing at all that their pride might be different, held to a different degree, at a different level, and might have purposes or reasoning.

Now remember, what pride inspires you to do is the important question!  That can be either good or bad.  The pride parade held at the university of Massachusetts, the pride event certainly wasn’t very welcoming or inclusive.  Yet the pride parade that Anthony organized most certainly was, and the LGBT brutally harassed him for it (possibly inspired by their own sense of pride).

If you could show that straight-pride day was inherently anti-LGBT, or hateful, or based on some kind of discrimination, or SOMETHING to that effect – then this whole entire thing would be completely different.  An event held by a KKK group is reasonably expected to fit such a description, and if you could show something similar with straight pride, there would then be a perfectly acceptable reason to denounce straight-pride in general.

But this simply isn’t the case. Straight Pride does not automatically mean anti-gay. In fact the only people who are currently saying are from the LGBT community. I’ve yet to see a straight-pride person say anything negative.

So What’s the Purpose Behind Gay Pride?

We’ve covered how pride can vary, and how Straight-Pride can’t reasonably be pinned down with any one intent or purpose, as it depends on what pride inspires the person to do in each case.  But the idea of “Gay Pride” is pretty well established, and steeped in some history!  So surely this one is easier to get a hold of.

Howard P. Kainz, professor of philosophy at Marquette University, Milwaukee points out in his book “Politically Incorrect Dialogues” that:

I also find the reference “pride” inappropriate.  Pride is warranted when one has done something or accomplished something worthwhile.  If, as has been suggested, true homosexuality is something inborn and natural, or at least not a matter of conscious choice, I see nothing to be either proud or, for that matter, ashamed of.  Pride is simply out of place and out of it’s proper context“.

He follows this by stating how a “heterosexual pride” day would be immediately recognized as “dumb and ridiculous”.

As we’ve seen above, however, there are different kinds of pride, just as there are different kinds of anger, love, sadness, and so on.  He does make a point, however, that

Straight pride day

Suggested flag for Straight Pride Day.  Now keep this in mind, because they’re gonna want “allies” later.

there seems to be something different between gay-pride and straight-pride.  After all, supporting one of these gets you near universal acceptance, while accepting the other can risk having your life ruined (and which one you think is which says a lot about you).

Michele J. Eliason, professor at San Francisco State University, states in her book “Who Cares – Institutional Barriers to Health Care for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Persons”, that:

“Whenever I do a workshop on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues, someone inevitably asks: “Why must you people have those parades and rallies?  Heterosexuals don’t have straight pride rallies”.  There are several reasons gay pride celebrations are important and a necessary part of gay life today.  First [LGBT] people often feel isolated and alone . . . a yearly gay pride event allows them to come together and celebrate their lives.  For a few hours a day, they can be in the majority instead of being a hated minority.  Second, heterosexual people can affirm their identities in a myriad of ways: by putting engagement, wedding, birth, and anniversary announcements in the newspaper, by bringing their families to work-related social events, [etc].  Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people often lack that support, and need to create their own ways of affirming themselves . . . and heterosexuals also have parades–homecoming, Mardi Gras, wedding dances [etc] and many other kinds of celebrations all affirm heterosexuality”

So again, “pride” simply means something different when referring to either straight or gay, and in each case, may serve different purposes.  If Mardi Gras and wedding dances are already a sort of straight-pride event, and we’re totally okay with those, then why do we have a problem with another straight pride event simply called “straight-pride”?  Gay-pride may indeed include the overcoming of oppression in years passed – this is something gay pride can include that straight-pride probably doesn’t.

However, I want to dispel a certain notion that straight people “have always been accepted”, and have never faced oppression.

When I was a straight white man, I was told every day how worthless I was; that I was sexist for ever even looking at a woman; that I had only one thing on my mind; that I thought about it every 7 seconds; that any – and I do mean *ANY* – expression of interest in a woman was harassment; that I was the problem; that I was a part of this thing called “patriarchy”; that even though I spent most of my adult life homeless, I was “privileged”; that the only thing I was ever allowed to express was apology and shame for all the “privilege” I had, despite sleeping on park benches; and that the very normal emotions I have for a woman were somehow wrong.

Moreover, as a white straight man, I was definitely the target of public-sphere violence. It was okay to physically challenge me and try to beat me up, because hey, I’m a man, and I can fight back, right?  Having street smarts kept me alive numerous times.  I knew not to walk down a back alley with a brand new pair of Nikes.

Now that I’m a woman – all of that vanished.

Now, if I have any of those same feelings, it’s my LGBT rights! And you’re a bigot for even lifting an eye-brow. And it’s wrong to hit a woman! While I’m still just as strong and capable as I was before, the difference in how people treat me is extremely obvious. Men no longer challenge me to a fight. That would be silly – I’m a woman.  Moreover I can walk down any back alley I want now and you can’t dare mention whether or not that was smart to do, because that’s victim blaming!

Finally, Michele J. Eliason‘s book was published in 1996.  Since then, things have changed quite a bit for LGBT people.  In fact, here’s a graph provided by Ben Mully, who took the position against having a Heterosexual Pride Day.  You can see that post here.

Gallup supports LGBTAs we can see, things are quite a bit different today than they were in 1996.

Ben also argues in favor of that additional caveat that the word “pride” carries for the LGBT community.

—– —–
Pride day [is] a celebration of OVERCOMING oppression so that you can sit comfortably in the year 2016 and say you don’t feel oppressed. The phrase “Gay Pride” started when a very real fight for equality was being waged in America and it’s use is honored in all sorts of LGBT events from Pride days, to Pride Parades, to Pride Fests, etc etc etc. That’s why it’s used in this context. It’s a part of American history that many believe should not be ignored, especially because there are still strong political forces that are pushing a message to take us backwards to a time when homosexuals were treated as second class citizens.
—– —–

In the same discussion, Ben takes the stance that since gays have a pride day for that reason, it’s precisely why heterosexuals cannot have one; if you’ve never experienced institutional oppression, then you are specifically disallowed from using the word “pride” in this context.

But as we’ve seen, “pride” does not necessarily have to mean or include this one particular thing, or have this particular context.  There are many different kinds of pride, and when someone wants to have a pride day, they could be doing so with their own intentions in mind.  A holiday based on American pride – or pride for any sports team – would not require the same historical context.  Moreover, straight-pride day is not being officially sanctioned by any governing body.  It’s simply individuals who want to participate in their own event, with the intention of reaffirming their own identities.  And it’s *very* possible to have a straight-pride day without it having an anti-gay agenda.  I mean here’s just such an example from a straight woman.

And although there is absolutely no indication that straight-pride must necessarily be anti-gay – there is no spokesman, no doctrine, no pamphlet, no mission statement, and no widely accepted belief or creed necessarily attached to this particular event – that is the only narrative that’s being allowed by the LGBT “community”.  To have straight-pride must mean you are anti-gay.  Even when there’s almost no one to be found on the straight-pride of the argument saying so.  In fact, I’ve been blocked by nearly a dozen people so far on facebook before the post you’re reading now even got posted.  Even daring to ask why straight-pride is bad is enough to get insta-banned from the communities I was once a part of.  Remember when that sort of treatment was given to anyone supporting an LGBT issue?

Lets take a look at the mainstream reaction to #heterosexualprideday , which is now trending.

First, lets start with the intro.

>> Apparently, people haven’t taken enough away from the LGBTQ community, so it’s time take Pride celebrations from them.

^^^ How on earth are my straight friends, who want to have a pride celebration of their own, taking anything away from me?  I mean this is not some faceless, menacing and unfalsifiable “culture” that exists only in narrative.  These are real flesh-and-blood people on my facebook who I can message and talk to right now.  Some of them are as close as family, and they’d even be willing to invite me TO a straight-pride event as a guest, even though I’m not straight.

Really, who is trying to take away gay prides simply by having straight pride?

Straight Culture

Here’s some of that unfalsifiable culture now. If you’re straight, you belong to a “culture” that automatically makes me oppressed. Hence I can have pride and you can’t. And even though there are literally scores of pages mocking straight pride, it’s still somehow you who’s mocking us by the very suggestion.

>> Straight pride” marches have actually been around since the nineties, and were started by people who opposed any steps forward for LGBTQ rights.

^^^ In the last 30 years, you will be hard pressed to find even 1 straight pride parade.  They have not “been around”.  The absolute most I could find are rare individual instances, like the two listed above.

And while one of those did have anti-LGBT activists involved, that does not mean that absolutely everyone, from now on, forever, has to be anti-gay simply for having straight pride.  In the same sense, I’m 100% certain there have been gay-pride people who were anti-straight.  In fact I even remember reading an article on this a while back, but I have no intention on providing links because it just doesn’t matter – the fact that those gay-pride folks were anti-straight does not at all mean I’m that way, just because they were.

Now on to the twitter replies.

>> Really? What’s next, ?

^^^ As long as you’re not causing my rent to go up, or making me late for work, I honestly wouldn’t are if you had a #DoTheHokeyPokeyDay .  It’s a free country, so organize whatever day you want.  As long as you’re not hurting anyone else, and you’re having a good time, by all means, be my guest.

>> You don’t choose your sexuality but you do get to choose if you’re really insecure about it. Happy, !

^^^ Okay so you have to be insecure about your sexuality before you can have a pride day?

Damn.  Guess I can’t go to gay-pride then.  😦

>> i have nothing against the heteros, i just dont want it shoved in my face, or on the internet where children can see

^^^ Well, yea.  I wouldn’t want anyone shoving something in my face, regardless of what it was.  The only time I want you to do that is if it’s French fries after a heavy leg training day.

I’ve had gay folks go on and on about the details of their sex lives without inviting the discussion, to an extent I didn’t feel comfortable with, in an environment where it wasn’t appropriate – and ditto for straight folks.

As far as the internet goes, sure, there are plenty of gay and straight porn sites that I agree kids shouldn’t be looking at.  Like we covered, this isn’t 1970, where holding hands is “shoving it in your face”.  Gay people hold hands all the time now, and while gay pride may commemorate overcoming such barriers, straight pride doesn’t have to.  You’re allowed to feel pride, regardless of whether you’re straight, gay, lesbian, latino, black, or …. or… (yea there’s one race that has to be left out for now, but we’ll get into that in another post).

>> i can’t believe hetero marriage was finally legalized in 1655. It’s been far too long.

^^^ Again, straight pride does not *have* to be about the same thing gay pride is about.  I mean one is straight, the other is gay – they’re already not the same.  Gay pride can be about overcoming barriers.  Straight pride can be simply feeling good about who you are, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

>> The missionary position AMIRITE

^^^ I’m not even sure why this one was included.  Straight people only do the missionary position?  Gay people never do?

>> you DON’T need because
-nobody thinks your sexuality is invalid or ‘abnormal’
-nobody is taking your rights away

^^^ Problematic when one day, people think being gay is valid and normal, and people aren’t taking your rights away.  What then?  Probably you’ll have to start dreaming up some “Hetero-archy” (just like the patriarchy) where a group of super rich and powerful hetero-people are causing you to be paid 77 cents for every dollar a straight person makes, or some other such nonsense.

Instead of making your pride day contingent on how oppressed you are and forever will be, why not celebrate your pride day, and then let others – yes, even straight people – be who they are, and do what they want, so long as it’s not bothering you?

It’s simply astounding, with breathtaking exasperation, that the very people who were once told they couldn’t have displays of pride for themselves in public……………. are now telling others they can’t have displays of pride for themselves in public.

>> For those that can’t make it to , PLZ join us for parade on Friday. TBA

^^^ Actually yea, I have friends who are black too.  I’ve dated black women.  Kinda makes you wonder how that’s possible if I were actually racist.  The arguments that come back are usually something akin to “all white people are racist” – because having white skin automatically gives you a certain set of characteristics (which is ironically the definition of racism), and I secretly AM racist, just on some subconscious level that I’m unaware of.  This has more to do with you wanting to assume the role of victim than with me actually being racist.

Straight Ally

If you’re trying to be an ally, and you keep getting accused of this shit, or you end up having your pride mocked with a baby crying on a white flag, you’re better off just not being an ally.  Respect is a 2 way street, and we are NOT more entitled just because we’re gay or lesbian. 

In that same way, it seems you actually want straight-pride to be anti-gay.  Keep in mind that there was literally no other prompting that straight-pride, on it’s own, meant anything anti-gay.  This is what people came up with on their own as soon as they heard the term, because they insist on an “us-vs-them” mentality.  As we get closer and closer to equality, now with gay marriage being legalized, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now interpreting the Civil Rights Act to include LGBT people, how will you keep this going?

When 2nd Wave Feminism established equality for women, 3rd Wave feminist in the 90s had nothing to fight for.  So they began making shit up – like the wage gap caused by sexism, the long debunked theory of objectification, the existence of male privilege, and so on.  This is allowed lots of young women a chance to feel persecuted, and “continue fighting” against nonsense that no longer exists, and some that never existed at all.

Is that really where this is going?  To stay relevant, do we have to start dreaming up that everyone who isn’t like us is now an enemy out to get us?  Do we *REALLY* need to build ourselves up by tearing others down?

It appears so.  And that’s why I’m no longer a part of that “community”.


Response to Paul Joseph Watson on Transgender Bathrooms

You asked for it, baby cakes.

This is a response post to a video released a few days ago by a youtuber named Paul Joeseph Watson.  Here’s the vid:

This video is a fine compilation of misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding the “bathroom bill”, so go ahead and give it a watch before we break this down.

1. What The Transgender Bathroom Bill (HB2) Actually Says

Paul’s first point is that according to the bill, only state and public restrooms are regulated by the HB2 bill, and private businesses are unaffected, so that trans people entering a private business “can use either bathroom”.  But that’s not what it means at all.  You can see HB2 here: .  The bill does more than just prevent trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity on state property; it also specifically omits discriminatory protections for people of the LBGT community, and also overrules any local or municipal ability to pass any alternative form of legislation.

So in state and public restrooms, discrimination is mandatory.  In private businesses, it’s optional.  This is not okay.

When we say “state and public”, we’re referring to quite a lot of different places, yet Paul speaks of this like it’s no big deal.  This includes all public schools, for instance, and public parks, and any state run agencies.  Private businesses have the option to discriminate, and again it’s not just against who can use their restrooms, but also regarding who they will hire.  People can now be terminated from their place of employment for being an LGBT identified person.

A little bit of background is also important here: as of February 22 of this year, the city of Charlotte in North Carolina had passed an ordinance that would have *expanded* discrimination protection to LGBT people, which also would have allowed them to use the restroom of the gender they identified with.  What’s important to note here is that the law was an expansion of protections, and not merely granting the right to use the proper restroom.  The HB2 bill passed by the state was made primarily as a response to this move by the city of Charlotte.  Religious conservatives, like the state’s governor Pat McCrory – who has a history of opposition against the LGBT community – wanted to stop the city’s ability to expand discriminatory protections.  This is why everyone is up in arms over North Carolina’s decision to go forward with this.

Is this beginning to make sense?

This also completely defeats the notion (as has been argued by a certain someone) that businesses can simply deny anyone the use of a restroom, because while it’s true a business can turn down service to any individual customer, they *CANNOT* turn away someone just because they belong to a minority group.  You can’t say blacks aren’t allowed to use your restrooms, for example, and treat that as your right to refuse service.  The bill restricts who’s entitled to protected from discrimination, specifically omitting LGBT people, and so it allows businesses to target transgender people.

At around the 00:20 mark in the video, it’s stated that private businesses can allow transgender people to use whichever bathrooms they choose – but again and just to clarify, this isn’t the issue.  It’s possible that private businesses *might* do that, but it’s also possible that they can now target trans people specifically and disallow them from using the bathroom on the grounds of their trans status, or, allow them to use the restroom, but force them to use the bathroom corresponding with their biological birth and not with the gender identity they have now.

Now you might be wondering what ought to happen if a person who is born male and identifies as female, but clearly doesn’t look female.  In this case, we would say she doesn’t “pass”.  “Passing” is a term that means your appearance matches your gender identity.  Some of us have to work at it more than other.  This comes up again in a bit, so hang in there.

2. Who Should Be Protected From Discrimination, and When Does It Not Matter?
The next point Paul brings up in his video is that 0.3% of population is transgender, and therefore wouldn’t affect enough people to matter.

Yea, that’s really an argument being made here.

First, I’m not sure if we had an all-white town, that it would be okay to have discriminatory policies against black people just because there’s not enough of them to “matter”.  According to information from the Census Bureau, Native Americans make up only 2% of the US population: – yet we wouldn’t dream of saying an anti-discrimination ordinance on their behalf simply “doesn’t matter” because there’s not enough of them.

To put this in perspective, the 0.3% number comes from the Williams Institute, which performed a study on LGBT demographics in 2011: .  In that same study, it was also found that only 1.7% identified as gay or lesbian.  So that’s clearly not enough to matter, and we don’t need to, say, legalize gay marriage, right?

Quite frankly, if 1 single person in the entire United States of America is gay, I want that person to have the same exact protections that all the rest of us have – and no, it is *NOT* too much trouble to expand the language of the Civil Rights Act to protect them.  You could slip that in rather easily between some of the other classes that are protected: .

And as far as state law goes, if you can pass a state law saying it’s illegal to take a lion to the movies, you can’t walk backwards and eat a cheeseburger, and you can’t have a gorilla in the backseat of your car, then I doubt it’s too much trouble to draft up some legislation protecting an LGBT person.

Back to the video, we hear Paul say that a few people may “be embarrassed for a few minutes” by requiring individuals to use the bathroom of their birth.

Paul doesn’t seem to consider that a fully passing trans-man, who has to use the women’s bathroom, is going to embarrass a lot more than himself every time he goes in.  Everyone else is going to be bothered by this too.

Imagine your husband using the same bathroom as the woman, or your girlfriend in the same bathroom as the dude. This is what HB2 would mandate. No one wins here.

Imagine for a moment your husband using the same bathroom as the woman, or your girlfriend in the same bathroom as the dude. This is what HB2 would mandate. No one wins in this situation.

Remember, for *state and public properties*, this kind of thing would actually be required, and private businesses can require this as well (if they decide not to outright refuse service outright).

Another point brought up here is that “trans women who make the effort to look like women won’t get noticed”.  That is, if you’re a trans woman, and you’re trying to “pass” as we mentioned earlier, then no one’s ever going to suspect that you were ever anything but a non-trans woman.

That’s just not how it works.

Trans women do make the effort, and still get misgendered sometimes.  In fact, according to a study from the DC Trans Coalition, up to 70% of trans individuals surveyed reported having problems using the restroom, with 68% reporting having been denied access, or verbally and/or physically assaulted.  You can see that report here: . This also happens to non-trans women: (expanded upon here: .

It is simply not the case that everyone who tries will pass, will pass so well that no one else notices.  I don’t want someone violently trying to “out” me when all I want to do is use the bathroom really quick and not bother anyone, especially after I *do* go through all the effort needed to pass.

Hey, here’s an idea!  Lets write some sort of law that says if my gender ID is female, that I can use the women’s room and not have to worry about my safety!  You know, like the city of Charlotte was *going* to do before the state legislature enacted the HB2 bill.

3. So What If Perverts / Pedophiles / Offenders Pretend To Be Trans?

At around 00:55 mark in the video, the issue is brought up regarding a pervert putting on a dress and walking into the girl’s locker room.

First, if you want to talk about rarity, this is where we should start.  If you’re familiar with my Response to Rape Culture series, you might be familiar with some actual statistics on rape and sexual assault.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2013, the prevalence of rape and sexual assault in America for college aged women was 0.43% (for not-college aged women it was 0.14%).  *NONE* of these cases, to my knowledge, involved “a pervert putting on a dress and walking into a girl’s locker room”.

So far I’ve not found a single incident of someone pretending to be trans in an effort to commit rape or sexual assault in the women’s room.  But have there been any incidents of men trying to do this in an effort to sneak in and commit other indecent acts?  I’ve been working on this post for about 2 days now, and I’ve done so many searches that my eyes are starting to cramp.  But yes, as a matter of fact, I was able to find a few cases, and the author of this vid does mention a few of these. <– This 51 year old went into the women’s room of a Walmart and began undressing in front of children.  This individual reportedly has a history of exposure issues. <– This 18 year old reportedly went into the women’s locker room, wearing a wig and a bra, to gratify himself. <— This man put on a dress so he could film from inside the locker room.  However, it is already illegal to video record anyone in a locker room, so a non-trans woman could very well have tried the same thing.  Moreover, this person didn’t need to be trans to try doing this, which brings us to our next example. <— here’s one of a non-trans male simply going into the women’s locker room and attempting to film women from a stall.  Just so we’re clear, it’s not just people dressing up like women. <– Then there’s people like this.  Apparently this guy wanted to test the limits of the law, and decided to go into the women’s locker room and simply undress in front of everyone.  Although this person wasn’t pretending to be trans, so again this isn’t really the same thing.
Finding such incidents is not easy, because they’re so exceedingly rare.  And finding a person pretending to be trans that does this is so rare that its difficult to find any more than a handful of examples.  In a country of 300 million, this would account for something like 0.00001% criminal acts (have no idea what the actual math is here, but it’s somewhere close to about that low).
But we do have to admit that this has happened, and may at some point happen again.  There might at some point be a guy thinking it’s a thrill to put on a wig and walk into the women’s room to see if he can get away with it.  So lets entertain this possibility for a moment.  What if, somehow or another, a sudden outbreak of people pretending to be trans decide to start using that as a cover to infiltrate women’s locker rooms so they can see someone getting undressed, not unlike what they could see at home with a simple google search.

Personally, I’m not against having a staff person simply by ask for ID, and going by whatever the ID shows.  Now before my trans friends grab their torches and pitch forks, let me finish.  I don’t see this as unreasonable, and it would also quell the fears of anyone on the other side of this issue who points to the above cases and asks “what if”.  This provides them a better answer than “it probably won’t” and “it’s frequent enough to worry about”.  After all, we check IDs for alcohol purchases.  I remember working in Georgia, where we had to ask the person’s ID on every alcoholic purchase they made, no matter how old or young they looked.

And since I’m probably going to get asked “So you’re saying we have to show our ID every time just to use the bathroom?” – Consider that if I wanted to use the bathroom at Safeway right now, I would have to ask an employee to unlock the restroom anyway.  So having my ID in hand and pointing to the F doesn’t seem like it’s that much extra trouble, and again, this does answer the concerns of those on the other side of this issue.
In conjunction with this, however, states need to allow a person to go through a fair and demonstrated process of changing ID to match their gender.

As most of my regular readers know, I’m a trans woman. I had to have my condition diagnosed by a psychologist, and then needed to begin living full time as a woman (at this point, I couldn’t use the other locker room just yet – which was fine because I wasn’t fully passing yet either). After a few months and more therapy sessions (not that I was in need; these were basically check ins to see how I was doing, if I had any questions, needed any help, that sort – although some people *do* need therapy during this time to help with adjustments), I then needed to get written affidavits from at least 2 social service agencies stating that I had been living full time as a woman, and fill out forms for a legal name change. I then had to post public notice of my name change, and then I had to wait 2 weeks.  Once that time had passed, I came back and signed my papers for my new name.  Next, I had to bring my affidavits, my name change paperwork, and a signed letter from my therapist to court, and swear in front of a judge that I was going to legally change my gender identification, and henceforth live my life as a woman, complete with all the ongoing hormone / medical treatments I chose to take (as there are a number of options).

After all that, I had to make a trip to the DMV, bringing all my papers along, and get a new state ID made!  (And also of course go to the bank and have my records changed, then head down to the post office and do the same thing, etc etc etc to each place individually until I had everything changed.)

…….. **THEN** …. I could use the women’s locker room.

See, I agree that you can’t just say “I’m a woman”, put on a wig, and that’s it.  The hoops I had to jump through were tough, but I think they were fair. Because if you really are transgender, then it shouldn’t be a problem to keep all your appointments and go through the process.

I still remember the day before I was to show up in court, by the way.  I stayed up half the night crying, because this was going to be the biggest day of my life, and I was going to become a completely new person the following morning.  I would live the rest of my life as Athena.  “Miss Athena”.

Again I want to emphasize this process ought to be “FAIR!”  A standardized, federal process should be in place that anyone could reasonably achieve.  If you leave this up to the states, some conservative governor somewhere (you all know what I’m talking about) will make up requirements deliberately designed to prevent anyone from ever being able to transition.

But that’s how you would settle the issue.  You go by what the gender ID states.

As for passing – this would become a common decency thing.  Much like not chewing with your mouth open at a restaurant, you’d want to make sure your face was prepped before heading in the locker room to change.  I go to 24 Hour Fitness pretty regularly, and if I’m too lazy to shave and put on eyeliner, well then I’m too lazy to go to 24 Hour Fitness, aren’t I.  Not everyone can afford the laser surgery that permanently removes facial hair forever, but we can still afford a basic razor.  And if I need to change clothes while I’m at the gym, I go into the bathroom stall and change there.  Respect is a 2 way street; I’m doing my part to make sure everyone else feels comfortable with me being there, and the people who suspect that I’m trans are willing to help me feel comfortable too.

4. A Bunch of Irrelevant Stuff.  Plus, Science!

Between the 1:00 and 1:30 mark, we get some irrelevant stuff.  Pedophilia and it’s definitions are not related to this discussion, and neither is race.  Paul states it doesn’t matter how we identify, because our “chromosomes are never going to change”, and proudly waves his ignorance in the air with “That’s science, bitches!”

Apparently Paul’s understanding of science comes from what his PE coach scrawled across a chalk board in 8th grade gym class.  Women can have a Y chromosome:  In particular interest from the report: “About 1 in 20,000 men has no Y chromosome, instead having 2 Xs. This means that in the United States there are about 7,500 men without a Y chromosome. The equivalent situation – females who have XY instead of XX chromosomes – can occur for a variety of reasons and overall is similar in frequency. ”  There are a number of other studies on this subject: .  There’s also another condition where sexual development does not match chromosomes, called Swyer Syndrome: .

That’s SCIENCE, bitches!

Ultimately, none of this matters, and is still irrelevant.  How many men / women did you talk to today?  And how many times did you stop to check their chromosomes?  Do you carry a DNA scanner around with you everywhere you go so you’ll know how to treat someone?  Probably not.  And chances are, you don’t check everyone’s genitalia either.  You simply treat someone as female when they present as female, and treat them as male when they present as male.

The fact that you have this “idea” of femaleness and maleness based entirely on how someone looks is why gender is a “social construct”.  There are lots of things we consider “male” or “female” that are not inherently male or female.  Men can wear earrings.  Women can wear flannel shirts.  Once upon a time, men wore high heels, dresses, and skirts.  Look at King Louis XVI.

King Louis

Sorry your Majesty, you might like wearing wigs, dresses, and heels, but your chromosomes will never change!  THAT’S SCIENCES, BITCHES!!

What we consider masculine and feminine changes with time, and it has nothing to do with chromosomes, DNA, or anatomy.  This change happens because gender is a social construct.  Now that doesn’t mean it isn’t important!  The idea of money is a social construct too; there’s nothing inherently valuable about green inked pieces of paper.  Yet the concept associated with that paper is so powerful that people are willing to risk their lives if enough of it is offered.

It’s extremely important you respect a person’s gender identity, by treating them as the gender they identify as.  Ask any trans person how much it seriously hurts to be misgendered.

5. Hypocrites and Double Standards?

The final point brought up that’s worth answering is regarding how Ringo Starr won’t hold a concert in North Carolina, but he’ll tour Russia where LGBT rights are condemned.  Brian Adams likewise won’t show in the state, but he’ll tour Egypt.  Companies like Paypal threaten to pull out of the state, while still doing business in Saudi Arabia.  So why the double standard?

This seems rather perplexing to ask… we protest events that happen in the US, because this is the country where we live.  No one asked Obama to forego healthcare reform because Pakistan doesn’t have a similar measure.  That wouldn’t make sense.  I can’t think of any law or social action in this country that had to pass through a checklist of other countries first to see if it was okay.  We can’t control how life works in other countries, and just look how hard we’ve tried.  We’ve done a hell of a lot more than just withholding a business deal.  For example we had sanction imposed on Iran or ages, and this did very little to change any of their policies in the middle east.  Cuba had sanctions for 40 years?  They successfully remained communist the entire time.  So while we may not be able to strongly influence other countries, we can – and should – control how life works *HERE*, in our own country.  We live in a democracy, and we can change policies through direct actions, like boycotting and demonstrating.  That’s why we treat North Carolina different from, say, Egypt.


One last thing I would suggest, and this goes out to everyone who has a concern on this issue…

It seems like a lot of hysteria happening over this is coming from a place of simply not understanding who transgender people are.  Paul speaks of trans people with such admonishment, and even tries to draw parallels between us and pedophilia, so he strikes me as someone who probably has never actually tried getting to know a trans person in real life.  Because if he had, then he wouldn’t think this way.

We are not “men in dresses”.  We are women, but we were born with slightly different anatomy that we did not ask for.  Think of it the same way someone might be born with a disability, but then one day science discovers a way around that disability so it doesn’t have to control our lives anymore, and we can finally live the way that feels right.

We aren’t coming into the bathroom to “rape you”.  And we’re not coming in after your kids either – lots of transgender people have kids of their own.  We’re coming into the bathroom, believe it or not, because we have to pee.  That’s probably the same reason you’re there.

At least try getting to know one trans person before passing judgement on what restrictions we need to have because you feel scared of us.  When the apprehension fades, so will the prejudice and the urge towards discrimination.

A Response to Cultural Appropriation (Yes, To The Entire Theory)

Cultural Appropriation is a popular topic in the field of social justice, so if you’ve been following stories centered around racism, privilege, and so on, undoubtedly you’ve heard this term also come up.  As per our usual method, we’ll start out with defining what this word actually means by using definitions put forth by it’s proponents.

And of course we’ll get this ball rolling with one of the most popular sources on the internet (it’s in the top 5 search results every time I start researching one of these for some ungodly reason).  According to the source of all that is wrong with the internet Everyday Feminism, a basic definition would beCultural appropriation is when somebody adopts aspects of a culture that’s not their ownRight off the bat, that sounds like something that wouldn’t pass rational inquiry, but first lets focus on getting our terms straight.  Everyday Feminism goes on to say it’s a “power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group“.

My ancestors also invented the justice system, democracy, and modern infrastructure. Of course I was born in 1981 and had nothing to do with any of that - but for some reason I'm always included when it's genocide or slavery.

My ancestors also invented the justice system, democracy, and most of the modern infrastructure you now enjoy. Of course I was born in 1981 and had nothing to do with any of that – but for some reason I’m always included when the topic is genocide or slavery.

This definition goes on to emphasize “power dynamic” as the condition that differentiates this term apart from “cultural exchange” (where people share cultures) and “cultural assimilation” (where people adopt certain conditions because it will make life easier).

This definition is also concordant with other sources, such as what I could find here, and here.  I’ll be focusing mostly on EF as a source, because they not only give the generally accepted definition, but give a list of practical examples to back up their claims (or in other words, they are the best source – and that’s really saying something).

Several possible outcomes are stated to result from the practice of cultural appropriation.  Some of them are:

1) It trivializes historical oppression (like calling Native Americans “Redskins” in the NFL)
2) It makes being racist okay (like writing a positive review on Mexican food in a “shady neighborhood”)
3) It’s cool if a white person does it, but “ethnic” if a person from that culture does it.
4) It allows the dominant group to profit from the oppressed group in a way the oppressed group cannot
5) It allows one race to be rewarded for the accomplishments of another race (like Elvis being the inventor of Rock and Roll, while this was actually invented by blacks).

To go straight ahead and bat these out of the way…

— 1) No one thinks the Trail of Tears was trivial because we have a baseball team by that particular team.  I’ve never heard anyone say “The Native Americans had it good – just look at our baseball team!”

For cultural appropriation to happen under the stated definition, it must necessarily included 1. a power dynamic, and 2. something being taken from the oppressed group.  So while this might technically fit the definition, it doesn’t necessarily lead to this outcome.

— 2) You’re using yelp reviews of “good restaurant, bad neighborhood” as proof that eating Mexican food makes racism towards Mexicans acceptable.  Those damn yelp reviews!!

What’s more, I’m still not seeing anything being “taken by a dominant group” through a “power dynamic”.  This comes dangerously close to presupposing that one race is always dominant and the other is always oppressed for no other reason than race – which is the definition of racism.

— 3) The comparison in the third example is that showing up to a corporate job interview wearing cornrows would be something that would bar a black woman from employment, while a white girl in a fashion magazine with cornrows is seen as edgy.  Can anyone not see the difference between the expectations at a corporate job interview and a fashion magazine?  Or how a white person showing up to such an interview with cornrows would be equally rejected?

Black people do not own cornrows anymore than white people own straight hair, and black women straighten their hair all the time.

— 4) The example used is a white woman selling Native American items because she can get a home mortgage loan to start a business, while a Native American cannot, because reservation land can’t be mortgaged.  However, the Native American woman can mortgage a private home just fine – she just can’t mortgage reservation land because it belongs TO THE RESERVATION.  There’s nothing barring her from starting her own business.

If the simple act of making and selling something that originated in another culture was the same as “a dominant culture taking something through a power dynamic”, then utterly everything you’ve ever bought or sold is an example of cultural appropriation.

— 5) Elvis became famous for rock and roll, a form of music which came from rhythm and blues, invented by black people.  However, black people invented rhythm and blues from church hymns, which were invented by white people.

Further, this directly conflicts with the second possible outcome given; the music from black people may very well have helped them be seen more favorably, which would have helped end racism, not promote it.

Now lets go ahead and get the next few out of the way.

6) It misrepresents marginalized cultures – like how dressing up as Pocahontas ignores the real story of her life.
7) It perpetuates stereotypes, plus you’re pretending to be a race you’re not.
8) White people can do things that people of other cultures were once punished for doing.
9) My right to wear your stuff trumps your feelings about it.

So then.

— 6) First, dressing up like Pocahontas isn’t what created all the misconceptions about her life.  This is a normal part of how history passes down through generations.  It often gets distorted as one retelling follows another.  For example:

What’s more, it’s pretty well known that when Disney gets a hold of something, they spruce it up quite a bit.  And of course there’s always actual history books laying around if you care to improve your knowledge (What??  Take personal responsibility for my own education???).  There’s also Crash Course on youtube if books aren’t your style.

Either way, no matter what historical figure your daughter dresses up as, I’m willing to bet you have a distorted understanding of who they actually were.

Second, where’s the power dynamic?  Your daughter could dress up as Susan B Anthony.  She’s not doing that because she has power over Susan’s indigenous culture.  Also, what’s being “taken”?  What does Susan or Pocahontas or anyone else actually losing as a result of a kid dressing up like them?

— 7) Honestly?  If I have cornrows… I’m pretending to be another race???

The primary claim on this one is that Katy Perry dressing up as a geisha perpetuates a stereotype about Asian women, but this confuses geishas with Asian women.  It’s as though Everyday Feminism believes we can’t tell the difference, or that we’re all stupid animals who can’t understand that there might be more than one side to a person.  Yes, an Asian woman can be passive and submissive.  They can also be domineering.  They can also be friendly.  They can also be angry.  And that’s not different women – the SAME WOMAN can be all those things throughout the day.  Because they are human, they can be all these things.  But you could make this same claim that everyone will think Asian women are only that way, no matter which state we happen to depict an Asian woman to be in.  You’ll say THATS the ONLY way us white folks can understand them to be.

Angry Japanese math teacher?  Stereotype!  Tiger Mom?  Stereotype!  Hyper excited Japanese camera tourist?  Stereotype!  Submissive Asian swimsuit model?  Stereotype!  Chinese dude sitting on a bench not doing anything?  Stereotype!

How many of you are in danger of doing this?  Lets say you saw a Geisha performance.  The very next day you met an Asian woman.  What are you going to do?  Start ordering sushi from her because you saw the geisha serve that the night before?  Everyday Feminism seems to think so.

In researching for this post, I came across this. Whoever made it, thank you. Just... thank you.

In researching for this post, I came across this. Whoever made it, thank you. Just… thank you.

White men actually expect Asian women to live up to the “exotic geisha girl” stereotype” – and of course one of the sources for this claim comes from – a page which mentions “Like many ladies in New York City, I get catcalls all the time.”

Right, like that 10 Hour Video where men have the audacity to say things like “Hello”, “God Bless You” and….. “HAVE A NICE DAY!!!”

No actual statistics from any credible sources are offered – the entire page is only 1 woman retelling the imagined dangers she thinks she’s experienced.   And that’s your proof that geisha stereotypes cause Asian women to be harassed by white men (and specifically white men).  Because one Asian woman got some rude comments online.  I mean you can’t argue with that kind of proven proof.

But if you would like some actual statistics on a related topic, check out this video.  In the first 3 minutes, the author pretty much lays the smackdown on any SJW who might ever try to bring up this topic in regards to Halloween.

TL;DR – if you celebrate Halloween at all, you are celebrating an appropriation of an appropriation of an appropriation of a Celtic holiday you know nothing about.  So you can skip right by all the costume talk.

Also lets head back to that original definition for a moment.

1. What’s being taken from the Japanese by Katy Perry?  I mean if I take your car, but the next morning your car is still there… then how in the hell did I take it?  Geisha’s are still allowed in Japan.  We haven’t taken anything away from them.

2. Where’s the power dynamic?  Japan rivals the US in a number of ways, Japanese culture is very highly respected and admired, so much so that we’ve coined the term “Wapanese”.  I’ve never heard of any modern Japanese person being discriminated against.  Most of us Americans are probably more fascinated to meet a person from Japan, and are more likely to ask them what Japan is like.

— 8) Here it’s said we’ve culturally appropriated yoga, and can practice it, while Indians were once punished for practicing it.  And while we’re benefiting from it commercially, people living in India aren’t.

Or have they?

Consider how much culture we’ve appropriated from China for a moment.  We tattoo their letters on our skin, we eat their food at restaurants, we practice their martial arts, we enjoy watching them in movies, we listen to their music, and Chinese themes can be found decorating our homes.

Now consider how many far right politicians would love it if they could convince the American public to go to war with China, which they can never do now, simply because of how we’ve come to view them.  Despite having such political animosity, China is one of our biggest trading partners, and all of this is thanks in part to our “appropriation”.  A long time ago, we used to have a decidedly racist stance against the Chinese, but that changed too, again thanks to appropriation.  As we start taking more and more of their culture, we stop being racist and start liking them.  Pretty soon we’re even appreciating them!

It’s true that Great Britain once brutally subjugated India.  Today, British teens can be seen wearing nose rings, and cricket is wildly popular in India.  That’s a sign that relations between the two cultures have considerably improved.  There’s no longer hatred between them.  That’s what tends to happen when one culture starts taking from another.  Cultural appropriation makes it hard to stay mad at each other, and even harder to keep seeing the other side as being inferior.  Why would you adopt their culture if it were inferior??

9) From the page: “You should have the right to express yourself however you want to – and you do. Nobody can force you to stop taking things from other cultures.

๑۩ﺴ Reality Check! ﺴ۩๑

Your car is German.  Your vodka is Russian.  Your pizza is Italian.  Your kebab is Turkish.  Your video games are Japanese.  Your democracy is Greek.  Your coffee is Brazilian.  Your tea is British.  Your bread is French.  Your timber is Canadian.  Your rubber is Malaysian.  Your oil is Saudi Arabian.  Your electronics are Chinese.  Your numbers are Arabic.  Your religion originated in the middle east and most of your holidays are pagan.

If cultural appropriation were real, then you don’t appropriate from other cultures.  You **ARE** appropriated culture.

That’s what makes this topic so incessantly inane and inspired this response.  The “power dynamic” is nothing more pseudo-intellectual way of addressing which cultures you actually think are inferior to ours.  We consider the United Kingdom to be on equal terms with us.  That’s why it’s never said that we’re appropriating from them.  Or Australia.  Or Norway.  Or Russia.  There’s no “power dynamic” (we’re not superior).  India is seen as inferior because it’s largely undeveloped as a nation.  Hence there’s a power dynamic (another way of saying we’re superior), and thus we can appropriate from them.  We can identify ourselves as the white devils we are and begin practicing that mental self-flagellation, because we’re more “enlightened”.

Meanwhile, most folks living in India honestly couldn’t care less if Americans are practicing yoga.  Go on facebook right now and ask someone living in India and see for yourself.

AronRa and The Religion of Third Wave Feminism

Yup, that click-bait title you see there does indeed refer to *THE* AronRa of Atheism.

This is the same AronRa who highlights how creationist just.  will.  not.  change their minds no matter what evidence they see.  And at the same time, this is someone who, with breathtaking irony, will not change his mind, no matter how much evidence he sees.

Recently, my comrade Jaline Williams and myself had a discussion with him on his facebook about feminism – from which he banned both of us when he started losing the debate – only so he could then continue arguing against the points we made in our absence.  This is the exact thing he often accuses creationist of doing against him in debates, often to a crowd of exasperated atheist, audibly guffawing at how dishonest and disingenuous such creationist are for having resorted to such grade-school level tactics.

“How dare they!  They censor the other side, then continue debating as though the forced silence from their opponents means they’ve somehow won?  If you have to resort to such lengths to win a debate, doesn’t that show you just how dishonest your position is???”

We’re all familiar with this line of thinking I’m sure, and how it’s so frequently found in Aron’s rhetoric.  So imagine the jaw dropping surprise we had when he resorts to this exact same tactic.

Here’s the post he made that got the ball rolling:


I don’t see how someone can claim to support gender equality yet simultaneously minimize, ridicule, excuse or deny any of the issues related to that, or pretend that they don’t exist in the west anymore, if they ever did. I don’t know anyone who acknowledges issues that still exist here who does not also wear the feminist label.

One of the few atheist feminists on youtube Steve Shives posted a joke about that today: The name…|By lilandra


“The Great Shushing of Atheist Feminist” — The irony here is over 9000.

As most of you know, this is a feminist website.  I am a feminist.  I believe 4th Wave Feminism has three main functions:

– To function as a special interests group for women’s issues (and there are many legit issues, like abortion clinics being unfairly shut down)
– To refute and disprove 3rd Wave nonsense (which hurts both men AND women) with facts and evidence
– To eventually launch outreach missions to other countries where equality is still a problem.

So to be shushed as a feminist in a debate with someone who criticizes shushing feminist is about as much of a train wreck as your argument can get.

What follows is the conversation.  Again, note that Aron banned us, but decided to leave our comments up and continue arguing (the discussion continued for some 500 or so comments after we were banned – and I’m totally uncertain how many others he was forced to ban due to the weaknesses revealed in his position).

So far, his wall remains public, so you can still see the entire conversation if you search him on facebook.

Also, this thread had a number of different discussions going on.  To make things easier to read, in Part 1 I’ve included the exchange that happens mostly between myself, Aron, and a few others first, which got me banned, and in part 2, I’ll post what got Jaline banned.

Upon review, it appears I was banned hours before Jaline was.  Not to brag or antyhing, but you know… just saying.

Much of this really goes to show how 3rd Wavers refuse to change their minds, even if you provide them with all the examples they ask for.  I’ve also left a few other commenters in, as I replied to their points as well.


  • Jaline Williams – to – Aron Ra You don’t know yourself then Aron? I mean. You yourself minimize, ridicule, excuse, and deny issues related to gender equality when it comes to equality for the male gender. So does Steve Shives, in fact Steve Shives probably does so far more than yourself in ways that showcase how fucking ridiculous his beliefs are on the subject.It’s fantastic how you can say such things when you yourself are a living representation of the type of person you claim to not know.




  • Lilandra Ra Pardon Jaline, he often winds up discussing issues related to the male gender more than feminism whenever The Magic Sandwich Show topic is feminism. So look into it more before making such a broad accusation.



  • Athena Brown Lilandra – could you go through my definitions of what defines a Third Waver, then show me how that definition is not accurate?  [[Lilandra never does this for some reason.]]Rather than declaring it a strawman, then declaring victory?(Which is, ironically, a strawman)


  • Hay Seed I’m still trying to unpack the reach it takes to equate feminism with religion. [[It works better if you click the links I provide, then show me why the content in the links are wrong, instead of NOT clicking them, then pretending I never made a case.  He’ll continue using ignorance as a defense for much of the discussion.]]


  • Lilandra Ra Ah yes, your definition of third wave feminism that doesn’t agree with the commonly accepted definition of feminism.


  • Athena Brown You mean like when the commonly accepted definition of “atheism” was “someone who DENIES the existence of god”?Or the definition of Islam which states that it’s “a religion of peace”?Because I even stated out how definitions are insufficient this way in the opening part of my link. Why don’t you read it, then actually show me how I’m wrong? Because as atheist, surely we’ll change our mind when new or better information comes along, right?


  • Athena Brown Also I’m going to bed now – will answer again when I get up. [[I’m gone from the conversation for a while]]


  • Hay Seed It seems like Athena Brown is using a different dictionary from the rest of us. I’m quite curious how the third wave expansion of feminism to non-white and queer women is a bad thing. Just like any community, we have to teach tact and reason to our members. The reason, as demonstrated here, is opposing view points will isolate tactless and poorly executed arguments and say they’re representative of the whole.  [[Again, click the links.]]


  • Aron Ra The standard definition of ‘religion’ is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. I have discovered that do not include gods. However even then, every religion universally accepted as such is a faith-based belief system which includes the notion that some element of self, (be it conciousness, memories, a soul or spirit) will somehow transcend the death of the physical body and continue on. By ANY definiton, feminism is definitely positively not remotely similar to a religion.


  • Aron Ra Jaline and Athena, you’re both showing a lot of projection. [[Aron also has a knack for misusing terms outside of his field.  I correct him later on, but then he continues to misuse it anyway.]]


  • Jaline Williams – to – Aron Ra The difference between us is that Athena and I openly admit to the fact that we’re ridiculing shitty ideas when they arise, no matter the source that they’re coming from. It just so happens that far more shit ideas rise from feminism than good ones.


  • Aron Ra I ridicule shitty arise when they arise too, Jaline, even when they come from other feminists. However, I get far more ‘shitty ideas’ from the anti-feminists.  [[Two things of note: First, during this entire discussion, I do not see any “anti-feminist”.  Not one single person ever speaks out against women’s rights.  Second, I never actually see Aron ever ridiculing any of the nonsense coming out of the Third Wave, even though I’ve linked him repeatedly.]]


  • Jessica de Bruin Another thing worth mentioning is that focusing more on one group who is more often ignored and abused than the more privileged group doesn’t mean we don’t or shouldn’t care about both groups’ problems. It’s just that one group is more desperately in need of aid than the group that already has other privileges [[You can say that again: ]]. Black people and white people can become victims of police brutality, but we have data that shows black victims far outnumber the whites in this regard. So telling protesters “ALL lives matter! Why aren’t you fighting for white people’s rights?” is ridiculous because it’s the black community who faces more problems and whose cause is more urgent. That’s why feminism often focuses on women’s problems first and men’s second: because it’s the women who are being raped and killed at an alarming rate. Hose down the house that’s on fire before the one that’s not.  [[My stance on this is of course we should *acknowledge* the problems other groups face, but that feminism can and should work as a special interest group that *focuses* on women’s issues.  I think it would be great to work together with men’s rights groups, which could focus on men’s issues, to achieve equality for all.]]


  • Jessica de Bruin I hesitate to call atheists “rationalists” in any case because they so often hold irrational views on non-religious issues. Just because you may have figured out one popular narrative is a myth doesn’t mean you can’t still believe a dozen others.  [[How very, very true.]]


  • Dan Knype In other words, shut the fuck up, cis-white-male. I’ve gotcha, loud and clear.I mean, hose down the house that’s on fire before the one that’s not? Men are 9x more likely to die a violent death than women. Let’s hose down that fire first, then, according to your logic!But NO! Because feminism does not EVER acknowledge that some issues aren’t about them only.


  • Jessica de Bruin “I mean, hose down the house that’s on fire before the one that’s not? Men are 9x more likely to die a violent death than women. Let’s hose down that fire first, then, according to your logic! “So men are 9x more likely to die from domestic violence and sexual assault cases, which is clearly what I was talking about? Please cite your sources.If you meant that men are more likely to die in war or from suicide, you’d be correct. And those are a result of the patriarchy *which feminists oppose*. Men are taught by the patriarchy [[I respond to this in a bit]] that only men are fit to serve on the front lines and that having depression or other mental health problems isn’t “manly”. It’s the bullshit construct of stereotypical gender roles that is hurting BOTH genders. The sooner we can fix the notion that anything “weak” is associated with only one gender, we can start ridding society from problems that stem from the strict adherence to “masculinity” and “femininity”.”But NO! Because feminism does not EVER acknowledge that some issues aren’t about them only.”I just provided arguments proving you’re wrong. Also, nice job ignoring my earlier point in which I stated that it was the feminists who fought to include male victims in the legal definition of rape.


  • Aron Ra Yes Andre, I am an atheist and a feminist, which means I acknowledge there are issues of gender inequality which should be addressed. Obviously there are other atheists who cannot address those issues since they won’t even admit they exist. So you can’t say atheists advocate equality, because that’s not true for all of us.  [[I would argue that this is 100% true for most of us.  However, we do not agree that saying “god bless you” is a form of street harassment: , we do not believe patriarchy is a group of rich white men who nefariously control everything: , and we do not believe that women are objects because Mario saves the princess .  Links provided in case any of these get called strawmen (and of course they will).  But because we don’t agree with “shitty ideas” that Aron says he’ll criticize – but then never does – we’ll be called anti-feminist.]]


  • Carly Anne Isn’t it interesting how – with out fail – anti-feminists fail to understand even the most basic concepts involved in feminism [[I *STILL* have not seen anyone speak out against any of the rights held by women, nor demonstrate a lack of understanding of the “most basic concepts”.]]

[[And here we go.  I got banned after these next 3 posts.  Tell me if you can see why.]]

Athena Brown Okay, awake now. There’s a HEWG amount that got said, although I’m 1,000% confident that no one went through my links and actually refuted what was there. I can say that before I even start.

I’ll be going

>> point
^^^ by
>> point

though will only address the main arguments so this doesn’t turn into The World’s Longest Post. May still need 2 posts though.

Lets start with Aron Ra

>> The standard definition of ‘religion’ is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. [[In response to my link Feminism Is A Religion]] I have discovered that do not include gods. However even then, every religion universally accepted as such is a faith-based belief system which includes the notion that some element of self, (be it conciousness, memories, a soul or spirit) will somehow transcend the death of the physical body and continue on. By ANY definiton, feminism is definitely positively not remotely similar to a religion.

^^^ Alrighty, 2 key points.

1 – You did not actually address the reason *WHY* I said Third Wave Feminism is a religion. I put forward the 5 sacred tenets held by Third Wavers that cannot be questioned, are accepted on faith despite all evidence, and defended against no matter what evidence comes forward.

2. You’re saying there is no other possible definition of religion; it absolutely must involve a form of self which survives death. Using Socratic Inquiry, we would immediately ask if it is possible to have a religion without that requirement.

However, according to

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.”

I’m going to put forth that a religion does not necessarily need a sense of self that survives death. What if a Theravada Buddhist believed that once you die, you’re dead, and thats it – but continued devoutly believing everything else about Buddhism? Does it stop being a religion?

But alright, lets say Third Wavism is not a religion by strictest definitions. What would we call it then? What word do you give something that has utterly no evidence, is accepted on faith alone, and is defended no matter what evidence comes forward?

I’ll accept “ritualized superstition” if you insist on calling it something besides religion.

Next point:

>> Jaline and Athena, you’re both showing a lot of projection.

^^^ I work in the field of mental health and psychology.. I don’t think you’re using the term “projection” properly here.

Projection would mean that Jaline or myself have some form of anxiety or cognitive dissonance that we are assigning to someone else because we don’t feel comfortable addressing it while being the subject.

Lets stick with the arguments being put forward about feminism, unless you’re qualified to psychologize our motivations.

>> Feminism also does not only focus on women’s rights; they advocate men’s rights too, and I can show multiple examples of that. [[In response to Evan, who said feminism is sexist because it only focuses on one gender]]

^^^ Would like to see a few examples of Third Wavers fighting for men’s rights, if you don’t mind. Also I will agree that feminism is not sexist for the reason that it focuses on women. The NAACP is not racist because it focuses on blacks. Focusing on the needs of only one demographic makes it a “special interest group”, and there’s nothing wrong with feminism doing this.

In fact, that’s why I founded 4th Wave Feminism.

>> Feminism has no faith-based beliefs, does not deny sexual dimorphism, and does not hate men.

^^^ Sir? Did you not even bother to click link I posted earlier? Or are you just being disingenuous?…/is-feminism-a-religion/

5 Sacred Beliefs are:

— Male privilege. I provided a substantial list of all male privileges that are claimed to exist, and demonstrated why they are not privileges, by definition.

— Objectification. I provided the full published report of Objectification Theory, as hosted by the American Psychiatric Association, and provided a point-by-point break down of why it’s wrong.

— Wage Gap. There are now more than 50 PEER REVIEWED STUDIES demonstrating that it is **NOT** caused by sexism, yet Third Wavers maintain that it is. If a creationist did this, you’d give them an intellectual smack-down and call it a Foundational Falsehood.

— Patriarchy. I have 2 posts (both are linked later in this post) that refute patriarchy in step by step fashion.

— Rape Culture. I have a FIVE PART SERIES that exhaustively addresses each and every individual point, with sources cited from the US Department of Justice and other peer reviewed sources.

None of these have evidence. They are all accepted on bind faith. Again, if a Creationist tried this, you’d be all over them like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in Nazi Germany during a KKK meeting.


  • Athena Brown Okay, now for Hay Seed>> Okay Mike. I’ll try to unpack this for you. Again. The shirt, in context, was inappropriate. It was a mindless, inconsiderate move and i mean that literally. [[In regards to the shirt a scientist wore, which had women on it – said in another part of the discussion that wasn’t copied over to here]]

    ^^^ Here we see that men have to carefully consider what shirts they wear so they don’t offend women.Women can wear “I BATHE IN MALE TEARS” – and that’s perfectly 100% fine.And yet…. women are the ones who are oppressed, while men are privileged.>> Okay. You might not like to read this, but I don’t think your article supports your point quite as much as you think it does. [[And then posted a link to “Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science”, which shows how women are under-represented in the fields of science.]]

    ^^^ That’s because women choose not to enter into those fields of science. Think about it for a second. What’s stopping them?What’s preventing a woman from being a biologist? She signs up for college, and someone laughs at her and refuses to let her join because she’s a woman?

    She graduates, has a degree, but when she applies for jobs people laugh and wont hire her because she’s a woman?

    It’s strange that whenever men face such opposition, they’re expected to brave the storm, fight the good fight, and come out on top despite any social pressure. But whenever women face even the slightest obstacle, SOCIETY NEEDS TO CHANGE. If you apply once for a job and someone doesn’t hire you – sexism!

    As a man, I applied for over 200 jobs and heard nothing back. Sexism was never considered a cause. It was always “You’re just not trying hard enough”.

    As a woman, each time I apply to any company anywhere now, if I’m not hired, I always hear someone saying it’s because of my gender. It can’t ever be that I wasn’t picked because another candidate was more qualified.

    ……… and yet women are oppressed, and men are privileged.

    Dan Knype

    >> The proof is in the places where feminism is silent. ESPECIALLY in those areas where they are shouting on behalf of women, even when the issues equally affect men, or in some cases affect men more.

    ^^^ You raise a very good point.

    As stated earlier, Feminism works fine as a special interests group for women. It doesn’t need to include addressing men’s problems. However, you’re 100% right that we should at the very least *acknowledge* those issues you mentioned that men face.

    Most studies show that men face domestic violence just as often as women, yet when it happens to men, they get laughed at, and many agencies refuse to help them (I can post links to the studies if anyone wants). This should be acknowledged and validated, rather than dismissed with an eye roll because you’re a man, not a woman, and no one cares.

    Jessica de Bruin

    >> If you meant that men are more likely to die in war or from suicide, you’d be correct. And those are a result of the patriarchy *which feminists oppose*.

    ^^^ First, there is no such thing as patriarchy in the US


    Second, suicides are not caused “because penis”. They’re often crisis driven, and happen when the individual experiences a greater level of distress than they are able to cope.

    Wars are not caused “because penis”. They often have multiple direct and indirect factors which span across a spectrum of socio-economic causes.

    As I stated in my earlier link, the purpose of patriarchy (specificallly, it’s use by Third Wavers) is simply to reinterpret everything that happens in the world as a way of blaming men.

    That covers the bulk of what was said. Gotta go to work. Will be back later.


  • Aron Ra Well Athena, I did refute your false allegation that feminism is a religion.


Athena Brown ^^^ And I did answer your refutation.

Lets go ahead and say it’s not a religion then. It’s a faith based system of unfounded superstition, or whatever similar thing you want to call it.  [[This is the last time I got to post.  Aron decided to block me after this.]]

[[Yet, Aron responded later with the following]]

  • Aron Ra Eric, you’re proving my point, that anti-feminists can’;t even demonstrate understanding of the issues, and that’s why they can’t adequately criticize the movement as a whole.  [[Proudly demonstrating that he is going to ignore everything anyone has said thus far under the banner of “You don’t understand”.]]


Aron continues on for a while with the following arguments.

— You can’t support gender equality and deny exaggerated claims that Third Wavers make, because – without examination – all of those claims are true (he never actually addresses any of the claims to show WHY they’re true, or answer detractors when they point out right in front of them how and why they’re wrong)

— Feminism isn’t a religion because it doesn’t have a God, and you have to have a god for it to be a religion.

— If you don’t agree with Aron’s position, you’re an anti-feminist. Also, you’re projecting (a term he keeps using wrong even after I explained it to him).

— There is no 1st Wave, 2nd Wave, 3rd Wave, or 4th Waves of “feminism”.  They don’t exist.  Feminism is Feminism. It doesn’t matter that the differences between them are taught by accredited universities; according to Aron, they’re all the same thing, and feminism only ever means “equality for women” and nothing else, no matter what.

— If a man sleeps around, he’s a “player”. If a woman sleeps around, she’s a “slut”. This is proof of 1. male privilege, and 2. the need for equality.  This is about the only issue I’ve seen actually explained by Aron concerning women’s rights (he later goes on to admit he doesn’t know who Anita Sarkesian is, but make no mistake – it’s everyone else who doesn’t understand the issues).

But before I move on, Jessica de Bruin finally did come back to answer my post above.  Of course I was blocked and couldn’t answer her.

Because I don’t resort to censorship as a tactic, and because my position can withstand any level of scrutiny, I want to give her a voice here.  If you’re reading this Jessica, and you want to continue the discussion in the comments section below, rest assured your comments will be accepted.  This goes for absolutely everyone.  Just know that you will be responded to with facts and evidence, and nearly everyone who’s tried to engage me so far this way has either rage-quit, or resorted to blocking / banning me, the same way Aron did.


  • Jessica de Bruin Athena Brown: You claim you addressed the “bulk” of my arguments when in fact you didn’t address even one. You just made up strawman arguments that are nowhere close to what I even said and called the matter settled.”Wars are not caused ‘because penis’?” “Suicide is not caused ‘because penis’?” Whaaaa? When did I say anything remotely like this?  [[This is what the claim of patriarchy generally is.  You’re saying men are in charge only because they are men, and not because of merit or any other cause.  It boils down to literally “because penis”.]]What I *actually* said was this: the patriarchy is responsible for creating an atmosphere in which men, and only men, are expected to join wars simply because that’s supposedly “being a man” and “not being a bitch”. [[I posted not one, but two links prior, that exhaustively covers all these points.  She apparently decided not to click on them, which seems to be a common Third Waver tactic.]] Because women (aka “bitches”) are perceived as weak and in need of protection and coddling, society has collectively decided that armies should primarily consist of men. [[That, or men cannot stand the thought of their mothers and daughters being bayoneted and machine gunned.  In a patriarchy.  Where men are valued and women are worthless.]] This is BAD. This is WRONG.  If such a thing as the draft must exist, then it should exist for BOTH men and women. Guess what? Feminists are the ones who have been fighting to make that a reality. The people who support the patriarchy – aka the upholding of traditional gender roles – have resisted making the army equal at every turn because they still cling to the notion that men should be one way and women should be another way.  [[And why would a system controlled by men, for men, and against women – constantly hurt men and help women?  I mean think about this.  If you found a society supposedly controlled by any other group – lets say Jews for example – and that society constantly hurt Jews and helped every other group, why would that happen?  Why would a government controlled by Jews have The Department for Violence Against Palestinians – AND NOT a similar department protecting Jews?  Unless that group *wasn’t* controlled by Jews, and all the observations you’re pointing to had naturalistic explanations.]]  As for suicide, the same rigid adherence to traditional gender roles (aka the patriarchy, since you seem to have trouble understanding what it means) makes men less likely to seek help when they are depressed and suicidal, because they feel like they just need to “man up” and solve their problems on their own.  [[And you’re absolutely 100% positive that such gender roles COULD NOT have evolved out of survival oriented behaviors in early human societies?  And that they absolutely *MUST* have been handed down by a secret society of rich white men who decided that white men must carry such a horrible punishments… for what purpose?  What possible benefit do these shadowy untouchable conspiratorial rich white men get from pressing their buttons, throwing their switches, and creating a society that acts this way?  Unless there is no secret group of rich white guys, and all the observations you’re pointing to have naturalistic explanations.]] They are also more likely to seek out more effective means to killing themselves (like shooting or hanging) compared to women, because men are taught that being a man should be all about strength and determination and willpower. In other words, suicidal women more often use suicide attempts are a cry for help, while men are taught that crying for help is unacceptable.This is why your claim that the patriarchy doesn’t exist is laughable. The patriarchy doesn’t have to manifest in the same extreme ways as in , say, Saudi-Arabia in order to exist. Just like you can have Westboro Baptist Christians and ultra-liberal, “Jesus was a hippie” Christians  [[Ironic statement, because patriarchy works just like creationism (which is why we call it a religion); any result or observation can only ever be interpreted in just one per-determined way.  The Recurrent laryngeal nerve in the neck of the giraffe only needs to be 2 inches long – yet it goes all the way down the neck, from the brain, wraps around the aorta, and comes all the way back up through the neck to the larynx, a process perfectly explained by evolution.  But it can’t be evolution because GOD JUST WANTED IT TO BE THAT WAY!!!!!11111111oneone.  Similarly, gender roles make perfect sense from the stand point of societal evolution and paleo-ecology, but that can’t be it because THE RICH WHITE MEN JUST WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY.]] The patriarchy can manifest in both subtle and violent ways. Both forms exist in today’s America.  [[God’s creations can manifest themselves in subtle and violent ways, so we can always say “God did it” or in this case, “Patriarchy does it”, and ignore all the obvious contradictions.  And if anyone disagrees, it’s only because they’re a sinner / anti-feminist.  And you wonder why this is called a religion.]]


And that’s it for this post.

Part 2 will be Jaline’s episode.