The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Tranny ‘Feminist’ @RileyJayDennis Is Here to Educate You About Science

Posted on | January 2, 2017 | 3 Comments

 

Justin Dennis, a/k/a Riley J. Dennis, is a transgender activist who describes himself/“herself” as an “intersectional feminist” who is “also super queer (transfeminine lesbian to be specific).” Justin/Riley become notorious in November after he/“she” declared it is “discriminatory” for anyone not to want to date him/“her.” Being normal is now a hate crime, according to the Cult of Social Justice to which Justin/Riley belongs.

“Riley J. Dennis is a polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary transwoman . . . educating people on the nuances of gender, sexuality, and intersectional feminism.”
Everyday Feminism

See? You’re ignorant about “nuances of gender,” which is why you need “educating” by “a polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary transwoman.”

“Hillary is our only option to prevent a Trump presidency. That’s the only reason I really needed.”
Justin “Riley J.” Dennis, Oct. 30, 2016

Did I mention he/“she” is a Democrat? Because, of course he/“she” is. If you want your kids to be polyamorous gender non-binary atheist intersectional feminists like Riley J. Dennis, vote Democrat.

Getting the endorsement of Justin/Riley didn’t help Hillary Clinton with blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but this doesn’t mean the election has caused Justin/Riley to reconsider his/“her” political ideology. In fact, he/“she” just released a new video explaining why there is no need to debate Trump supporters because Trump supporters are Nazis, and “not worthy of being debated”:

“And I know we’re always talking about how divided we’ve become as a country and how partisan, but I don’t think the answer is reaching across the aisle and shaking hands with a Nazi, because that’s exactly what this new administration is being filled with. Trump’s cabinet is already full of white nationalists. These are people who are openly misogynistic and anti-Semitic . . . The ‘alt-right’ people he surrounds himself with are modern-day neo-Nazis. . . . Because people tweet me or comment on my videos or something saying, ‘Ah, you won’t debate this idea. It’s because you’re afraid you’re gonna lose.’ . . . That’s not a logical conclusion to come to when someone doesn’t want to debate you. There’s like a million-and-a-half reasons someone might not want to debate you, but one of those might be, you just don’t have a valid viewpoint and you’re not worthy of being debated.”

 

See? If you disagree with Justin/Riley, that means “you just don’t have a valid viewpoint,” which means he/“she” doesn’t have to debate you.

You may wonder what makes Justin/Riley an expert qualified to determine what is or is not a “valid viewpoint.” Well, in addition to being a super queer transfeminine lesbian as well as a polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary transwoman, Justin/Riley is also a recent graduate of Whittier College, where the annual tuition is $44,574, plus $12,902 room and board. Because your parents didn’t spend $57,476 a year to send you to a private liberal arts college, you obviously are too stupid to understand what words like “valid” and “viewpoint” mean.

Even though I didn’t attend prestigious Whittier College, I did ace Principles of Logic at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, and I understand what a false analogy looks like, and I also know a straw man fallacy when I see one, so let’s quote some more Riley J. Dennis, OK?

“There are people living today, in 2016, who honestly believe that the Earth is flat. Now the thing is, those people are allowed to have that opinion. . . . But that doesn’t mean that that opinion is valid or that it should be part of our modern discourse. . . .”

(Can you guess where Justin/Riley is going with this?)

“Because I think we can all accept . . . that the Earth is not flat, the Earth is round. We live in a solar system, we orbit around the sun. And these are just basic facts that we have to accept because we know them to be true there’s a lot of scientific evidence. . . .”

(In addition to being a straw man — because no flat-earthers are actually arguing with Justin/Riley — he/“she” is also setting up a standard trick we can call the Progress Fallacy: “Here is this provably wrong idea that people held in the past, and therefore, all ideas from the past can be disregarded as invalid.” Except, of course, that the scientific method itself is based on very old ideas, dating to ancient Greece. Now, back to Justin/Riley and “modern discourse.”)

“Let’s take climate change, for example. There is a ton of scientific evidence for climate change, and yet there are still people who deny it, and we’re supposed to treat them like they have a valid argument, but they don’t, because the science is in and we know that climate change is happening. . . .”

(Except, of course, that the actual argument is about anthropogenic global warming [AGW], and it has been shown that the proponents of this claim have falsified “evidence” and disregarded alternative explanations for the observable changes in global temperatures. AGW proponents have engaged in fear-mongering and enlisted government authority to gain funding for themselves and to deny funding for their scientific critics. But please, Justin/Riley, continue to educate us.)

“Compromise is not always a good thing. One one side, we have people saying that LGBT-plus people deserve respect, should be treated equally under the law, and should be protected from discrimination. And on the other side, we have people saying that LGBT-plus should be denied their basic human rights and not be treated equally under the law.”

Here we arrive at the destination — the conclusion, the payoff — of Justin/Riley’s long and winding road of bad analogies. I’ve omitted, for the sake of brevity, the anti-vaccine analogy that Justin/Riley threw in as an example of invalid viewpoints that are not worthy to debate. You see the apples-and-oranges problem with going from (a) flat-Earth kooks, to (b) global warming, to (c) people who refuse to vaccinate their children, to (d) questions of law and policy regarding sexual behavior.

The preamble in Justin/Riley’s argument was a set-up for accusing conservatives of denying “basic human rights” to gay people. But what do these phrases mean? What does it mean, for example, to say that certain people, self-defined categorically by their sexual behavior or preferences, “deserve respect”? What does it mean to be “treated equally under the law”? What counts as “discrimination”? How is this offense defined, who is authorized to determine whether “discrimination” has occurred, and how shall this policy be enforced? These are not moot speculations, of course, because we know how advocates of soi-disant “basic human rights” operate — they file lawsuits, accusing people of illegal “discrimination,” in order to force people to do things they don’t want to do, e.g., employ “genderqueer” elementary school teachers:

A “transmasculine” teacher at an Oregon elementary school has been awarded $60,000 by her school district as compensation for harassment she claims to have suffered on the job, including being referred to by the wrong pronoun.
According to The Oregonian, Leo Soell was born a woman, but now prefers to identify as “transmasculine” and “genderqueer,” meaning she does not consider herself to be male or female . . .
The school conducted an internal investigation after Soell complained, but found no proof of harassment.
Eventually, Soell was able to cut a deal with the school to have her referred to by her preferred pronoun, “they,” but Soell said the harassment didn’t stop, so she finally hired an attorney and prepared to file an official complaint.
Oregon is a very friendly state for individuals who claim they have suffered discrimination based on gender identity. The state’s labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, forced a bakery to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple they wouldn’t bake a cake for, and he has also compelled a bar owner to pay a whopping $400,000 to a group of transgender customers he tried to ban from his bar.
Eager to avoid meeting a similar fate, district officials agreed to pay Soell $60,000 in compensation for her emotional distress, and they also agreed to adopt a whole battery of new policies to make the district more transgender-friendly.

Now, ask yourself this: If the school officials had suspected that Brina Soell was a transmasculine genderqueer when she applied for the job, would they have hired her? But having once hired Brina, were school officials then obligated to play along with her gender-identity game when she changed her name to “Leo,” got her breasts amputated, and demanded to be referred to with the pronoun “they”?

We may be ignorant about “nuances of gender,” but we are not naïve as to how claims of “discrimination” operate in the real world. When people start blabbering about “basic human rights” and claiming they’re denied “equal treatment under the law,” what they’re really saying is, “Hand me that whip, so I can boss you around and make you do what I say.”

Declaring yourself a Victim of Social Injustice can be a pretty lucrative racket, if you can get a sharp lawyer and a friendly judge. Calling yourself a super queer transfeminine lesbian and a polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary transwoman — well, Justin/Riley is a federal lawsuit just waiting to happen, isn’t he/“she”? For some reason, however, I’ve got a hunch that Preisdent Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions aren’t going to make the “basic human rights” of gender non-binary queer trans feminists a top priority at the Justice Department.

Anyway, Riley J. Dennis wants to give you some sex advice:

And some more sex advice:

And here, have some more sex advice:

Remember: Riley J. Dennis went to prestigious Whittier College and is an expert. You are ignorant and don’t know anything about sex, which is why he/“she” is educating people on the nuances of gender and sexuality. If you disagree with him/“her,” that’s because “you just don’t have a valid viewpoint and you’re not worthy of being debated.”

Riley J. Dennis has dedicated his/“her” life to insulting people — you’re ignorant if you disagree with him/“her” — and yet he/“she” is shocked to discover that people resent being lectured so insultingly.



 

Comments