The Internet is a powerful tool, and evil people have learned to exploit it for dangerous purposes. Last year, I became aware of what seems to be a rapidly spreading phenomenon: Teenagers who, after an intense period of online “research,” suddenly decide they’re transgender. There is a sort of online cult — Web sites, Tumblr blogs, YouTubers, etc. — promoting “gender transition” as the panacea to adolescent angst. Parents describe being shocked at the suddenness with which their children, who had previously been typical teenagers, decide that they must “transition,” demanding hormone treatment, and accusing their parents of “hate” if they do not accept their child’s new “gender identity.” The shocking part is that there is a sort of Transgender-Industrial Complex of psychologists and physicians who are cashing in on this weird trend and, thanks to ObamaCare’s mandates, the costs are being passed on to everybody who pays for health insurance. The teenage transgender phenomenon is, therefore, both a cult and a money-making racket.
If readers know any families dealing with this issue, please pass along this post to let them know (a) they’re not alone, and (b) there are professionals and activists — including many feminists — who are trying to help fight this wicked 21st-century cult phenomenon.
Here’s some news for Riley Dennis: Men and women are different.
No matter what they teach in college Gender Studies classes, the truth is still the truth, and the truth is men and women are different. Feminists can shriek all they want about “gender essentialism,” and lecture us from the Cliff Notes version of Judith Butler — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — but they still can never change the fact that men and women are different.
Orwellian word games, in which other people’s personal preferences are condemned as illegitimate — racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. — are an attempt to impose a totalitarian regime on society. By invoking the concept of “civil rights” and accusing others of discrimination and prejudice, the “social justice” totalitarians seek to silence criticism, by implying that all opposition to their views is analogous Bull Connor unleashing police dogs against black people in Birmingham in 1963.
“Because we associate penises with men and vaginas with women” (gosh, I wonder why?) “some people think they could never date a trans man with a vagina or a trans woman with a penis.”
Riley J. Dennis majored in English at Whittier College, so perhaps he/“she” might contemplate the meaning of the word could, as opposed to the word would or the word should. We are not dealing with hypotheticals here, and thus the word “could” is inappropriate. You could do many things, conceivably, that you never actually would do. If you were to ask me what you should do, my advice would be to stay away from the kind of weirdos who go to Whittier College. But please, continue . . .
“But I think that people are more than their genitals” (as if this were a startling discovery) “I think that you could feel attraction to someone without knowing what’s between their legs.” Here again we have the word “could” used to suggest a hypothetical, and the word “attraction” is extracted from any practical context. What is the teleologicalpurpose of “attraction”? Riley J. Dennis is talking about genitals — “what’s between their legs” — and therefore we might ask, why do genitals matter in terms of “attraction”? Do you really need me to explain this? Didn’t your mother give you the where-do-babies-come-from talk when you were a child?
Unlike kids at Whittier College, when I was in school, we not only studied grammar, logic and rhetoric, but we also studied science
Sex is about reproductive biology. Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex.
Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details. Young people have to figure out how to attract potential partners, how to choose a good partner from among the prospective candidates, and how to negotiate a relationship that will lead toward lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — i.e., a successful marriage — because this is the ideal situation in which to raise children.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)
This is very simple. Sex is about procreation, and therefore sexual success can be measured. There are winners — the ones who are blessed, in obedience to the divine commandment — and there are losers.
All of my ancestors were successful in this regard, or else I wouldn’t be here. As the descendant of a long line of sexual winners, therefore, I have inherited a legacy of winning, much the same way the University of Alabama football team has inherited its own winning legacy. Carrying on that victorious tradition, I’ve got six children of my own — the oldest three already married, with two grandchildren so far — and dare to hope that future generations of my descendants will continue this reproductive winning streak. Meanwhile, there’s the intersectional feminist . . .
“I’m very atheist. Like atheist with all of my soul. Except I don’t have a soul, so just like with all of my being. . . . I was raised Christian, and I don’t think I ever bought into it like 100 percent, but it was sometime around eighth grade when I decided like, for sure, I am an atheist.”
— Riley J. Dennis, May 2016
In eighth grade, Justin Dennis decided he was an atheist, and now, at age 23, Riley J. Dennis has decided “she” is a “transfeminine lesbian.” Gosh, it’s almost as if there were a “strong delusion” involved here.
How is your “transphobic” prejudice different from, or worse than, Riley J. Dennis’s blatant prejudice against normal people? Riley J. Dennis is abnormal, and expects the rest of us to tolerate his/“her” preference for female clothing and effeminate mannerisms. Most of us do grant such tolerance, so long as these weirdos stay away from our children. If you want to live your life like an extra from the cast of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, you are free to move to San Francisco and let your freak flag fly. And I’ll keep my kids 2,500 miles away from San Francisco.
Under the First Amendment of the Constitution, I have the right to say that Riley J. Dennis is crazy, and I also have the right to tell you that Riley J. Dennis is a selfish liar, promoting a false concept of “discrimination” for his/“her” personal gain. Riley J. Dennis hopes to get rich selling “intersectional feminism” like Colonel Sanders got rich selling fried chicken. Feminism is being sold as a commodity, and these ideological vendors do not work for free. Riley J. Dennis claims to be an atheist, but he/“she” is in fact a fanatical member of a quasi-religious cult.
Why do devotees of the “intersectional feminist” cult make these false accusations of “discrimination” against their critics? For the same reason that the pagan silversmith Demetrius slandered the early Christians, provoking a famous riot: “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”
Because their livelihood depends on public acceptance of feminism — there are jobs to be had and money to be made by promoting this ideology — the cult leaders preach to their followers that anyone who criticizes feminism is a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. Therefore, feminists have succeeded in banishing critics from university campuses, which function as temple shrines of the feminist cult.
Why does Riley J. Dennis believe he/“she” has the authority to condemn other people’s romantic attractions as “discrimination”? Because he/“she” is a recent graduate of Whittier College where the annual tuition is $44,574, plus $12,902 room and board, and a Special Snowflake™ who attends that kind of private liberal arts college is not accustomed to hearing the word “no.” For $57,476 a year, whatever the Special Snowflake™ wants, the Special Snowflake™ gets. The faculty at Whittier College kowtow to their precious little darlings, and after four years of being pampered, these impudent young brats consider themselves qualified to lecture the rest of us about . . . Well, everything.
Beware of pretty faces that you find.
A pretty face can hide an evil mind . . .
Oh, don’t you let you let the wrong word slip
While kissing persuasive lips.
Odds are you won’t live to see tomorrow.
— Johnny Rivers, “Secret Agent Man,” 1966
My blog buddy The Political Hat has taken to posting some of my articles on radical feminism to Reddit’s “Men’s Rights” forum. As I have sometimes remarked, I am not a men’s rights activist (MRA) because, as a conservative, I do not believe in the idea of group “rights.”
We have no more rights than we are willing to die defending. All your rights under the Constitution — including your First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion — are ultimately dependent on your Second Amendment right to defend yourself against anyone who would wrongfully deprive you of your life, liberty or property.
Therefore, to speak of “rights” in terms of identity groups is to incite hostility between these groups, an invitation to the Hobbesian nightmare of anarchy and civil war — bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all — and the destruction of civilization:
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man. . . . In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the feminist’s destructive purposes make her an enemy of everyone who values the benefits of civil society, especially including what Jefferson called “the pursuit of happiness.” Feminists are as much anti-happiness as they are anti-male, anti-capitalist and anti-Christian.
When you understand what feminism actually is, you understand why I say, never argue with a feminist. Simply quote them, and the evil of their ideology should be self-evident to every intelligent person. Consider the case of lesbian feminist Hannah Rose McShane.
She was voted “Outstanding Student” in the Gender and Sexuality Studies program at Georgia State University. How can one “argue” with her total hatred of heterosexual men (“cishet white boy tears”)? If a lesbian feminist asserts that “men are trash,” what can you say in reply? Hatred is an emotion, and not subject to factual dispute. America is a free country, and Hannah Rose McShane is therefore free to hate men. All I did was to quote her (e.g., “F**k the patriarchy”) in order to demonstrate the anti-male hate propaganda being taught by her professors at Georgia State University, where Ms. Shane was hired as a student assistant. The taxpayers and legislators of Georgia may wish to investigate why a state university is promoting “Lesbian and queer organizing . . . feminist and queer theory,” to quote one of Ms. McShane’s professors, but that’s up to them. My job is merely to research and document the facts.
About 15 hours work went into that carefully researched article, and when it was posted to Reddit by The Political Hat, the first commenter said, “Just another radicalised feminist. It’s not even worth trying to debate these sorts of people with sound reasoning, facts, and logic. All you’ll get back is abuse.” To which another commenter replied: “No do it, debate them, but make sure other people are watching. Drag them into the light.” As I say, however, there is no point debating feminists. You can’t argue with hate, which is what feminism is.
You cannot argue with these people — they are clearly beyond the reach of rational discourse — but you can expose them:
What bothers me is how, when we are engaged in a war of ideas, so many people continue to be deceived by appearances. Whenever I blog about feminism, this attracts comments from men who disparage the looks of women like Andrea Dworkin — “ugly fat man-hating dyke,” etc. — rather than engaging with the monstrous ideology such women promoted. . . .
For more than two years, I’ve been researching radical feminism . . . to demonstrate what feminism really is. People keep laughing, as if no one could possibly believe such things, and yet this anti-male/anti-heterosexual hate propaganda is promoted in “10,000 courses teaching over 90,000 students at 700 colleges and universities across the nation.” What will happen when, in 10 or 15 years, the alumnae of these Women’s Studies are indoctrinating the next generation of young fools? And what will opponents say when the man-hating dykes are not so fat and ugly? . . .
You can read the rest of that at The Patriarch Tree. The problem posed by feminists who put a pretty face on this ugly ideology is that young men are not trained to beware that “a pretty face can hide an evil mind.” This is also why young men so often suffer romantic misfortune.
Ask yourself, what was James Bond’s job? He was an intelligence operative, whose most basic task was gathering information. One must apply one’s self diligently to preparing for the mission:
Luck is the intersection of preparation and opportunity, as they say, and the Boy Scout motto “Be Prepared” is the secret to being lucky in love. . . .
When people tell me how lucky I am to have such a wonderful wife, I smile and say: “Luck? No, it was skill.” The difference between talent and skill is that skill may be improved by practice. Work hard at something — 10,000 hours, as Malcolm Gladwell said — and you are certain to improve your skill. . . .
