Guest post: Gender is the oppressed king

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Trans identitarianism benefits principally upper-class white men.

A current example might be the critique of “colorblindness”. While colorblindness is the desired state of affairs, adopting radical colorblindness prematurely renders one insatiable of recognizing racism. An intermediate state is required in which we “see color”.

Funny how this phase of “blindness” was reached so quickly with regards to women’s rights and equality. We never really “fixed” sexism. There was a little bit of a start, but it was interrupted by a combination of “choosie-choice feminism” and gender identitarianism. We skipped right over equal pay, equal political participation, freedom from male violence, etc. to “Sex Work is Work” and “Trans Women Are Women.” In exchange, we have the “cotton ceiling” and feminism=fascism. Women are painted as oppressors through the “Karen” meme and the “cis” slur. As for “blindness?” We’re now not supposed to see sex; not because we’ve acheived equality between women and men (as if), but because sex no longer exists. Women can no longer be named. If women had even half the power attributed to them by trans activists, they’d be better off than they are. They would have been able to resist the unprecedentedly rapid advances of trans-activism’s institutional capture, because they would have had a seat at the table. Women had no such seat at the table; they weren’t even in the goddamn room.

Here’s some convenient “blindness.” How many oppressed minorities have instant, backroom access outside of (and despite) the law, to shape policy in accord with its own peculiar, self-interested redefinitions, and against existing statutes? Gender is the oppressed king, calling the shots from its position of entrenched “marginalization.” If trans identifying men were really as powerless as they claim, they would be fucking nowhere.

2 Responses to “Guest post: Gender is the oppressed king”