Having already written about some of the complicated racial dynamics of the Bay Area, I’ve decided to write about an example of the kind of loony gender liberalism that pervades much of the region. So what are these feminists and gender warriors griping about this time? Does it have something to do with rape and “rape culture,” since we evil men clearly can’t understand on a fundamental level that rape is wrong unless feminists enlighten us? Nope, well, domestic violence then?
No, our intrepid progressives are instead agitating on behalf of “proper” gender pronouns. It’s not quite what you think. While feminists frequently rail against “cisgender privilege” and insist that we respect the identities of transexuals, the matter of this crusade is a bit different:
“On high school and college campuses and in certain political and social media circles, the growing visibility of a small, but semantically committed cadre of young people who, like Crownover, self-identify as “genderqueer” — neither male nor female but an androgynous hybrid or rejection of both — is challenging anew the limits of Western comprehension and the English language.”
Challenging our comprehension of the English language indeed. I confess, in spite of my various journeys into the cesspool of cultural liberal lunacy, I did not know what “genderqueer” entails. The UC Berkeley Gender Equity Resource Center defines “genderqueer” as follows:
“A person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is some combination of genders. This identity is usually related to or in reaction to the social construction of gender, gender stereotypes and the gender binary system. Some genderequeer people identify under the transgender umbrella while others do not.”
Others do not? Since these people haven’t altered their parts and committed to becoming transgender, then how are they “genderqueer?” I knew girls back in high school who adopted certain masculine mannerisms and dress, in addition to participating in male oriented activities. That didn’t make them “genderqueer.” They were still biologically girls, but we preferred to classify them as “tomboys.” Sociological leftist terms were not needed. Likewise, guys who talked with lisps, had high pitch voices, or acted in effeminate manners were considered faggy (yes, even in the Bay Area, most young guys will still use that term), and weren’t provided special categorizations to legitimize their identity.
The part in the passage about this “genderqueer” identity being related to the social construction of gender is the most telling. In so many words, it wouldn’t seem like most of these girls actually have some unique biological condition that compels their behavior. Rather, they’re simply confused tomboys who want their bizarre proclivities endorsed by society through special classifications. World history is replete with various changes in culture, lifestyle, and even fashion, as I’m sure many feminists would remind me that pink used to be considered a manly color. I’m sure many would also insist that I’m some biological reductionist who doesn’t recognize that much of what we think of as “manly” and “feminine” today are culturally constructed. Just to be clear, I don’t have a problem with tomboys, and a few fashion statements are not too troubling. Rather the politicization of gender identity and attempts to erode gender distinctions are very concerning.
Some may wonder why any of us should care about how a few pampered, bohemian liberals decide to construct their identities. Rest assured, while these gender bending activists may be proliferating in female liberal arts schools now, masculinity itself will be the ultimate casualty. While these activists may claim that such people are simply embracing their natural identities in the face of “socially constructed” notions of gender, there is little that’s natural about such gender fluidity. Some might recall the case of the demented couple raising their young boy “genderless” up in Dota’s Canada. Nor are they the only ones. If these parents were truly interested in letting their kids explore their gender identities, then they would allow them to develop their “genderqueer” identities on their own. The fact that gender egalitarianism requires steps such as concealing gender is an indication of the inherent sickness that motivates this social engineering.
I must admit, as much as I may be pro-white, my people vex me at times. Exceptions notwithstanding, I can’t imagine that many Asian, Latino, Middle Eastern, or black parents would be caught dead letting their son dress up as a princess, much less hiding his gender. That white people are overrepresented among these “genderless” types is yet another manifestation of the white wimpiness we’ve all come to love.
Speaking of race, I have a thought. Considering that Mills College is over 40% white in a city that’s at most 25% white, it’s safe to say that these white gender benders aren’t too acquainted with Oakland’s most “diverse” elements. Therefore, if you see one of these “ze” types, be sure to point out that embracing radical gender bending is a manifestation of white privilege, as only pampered white people have the luxury to experiment with gender.
Hegemonic whiteness must be challenged!