You’ve Heard of Colorblind Racism, but What About Genderblind Sexism?

If you’ve been following the latest contradictory edicts of the “woke” crowd, then you’ve probably at least vaguely come across the term colorblind racism. For those unfamiliar, the idea is that while it seems anti-racist to say “I don’t see color”, it actually makes one blind to racial inequalities embedded in the system. According to this line of logic for an example, not acknowledging someone’s race (i.e. black) also makes one turn a blind eye to substantial inequalities they have to face specifically due to the exact racial identity you are “blind” to. To the Left, one is required to take race into consideration in treating others in order to not discriminate based on their race. (Yes, it’s quite the paradox!) 😉 In real life applications this ideology factors into affirmative action, “scaled” grading, adversity scoring, etc… You can take a guess at what my opinion on the matter is…

However, the concept brings up another idea the Left probably hasn’t thought of and certainly is doing: Genderblind sexism. Think of genderblind sexism the same way as colorblind racism only substitute gender for race. Sexism and misogyny are things the Left loves to accuse conservatives of. Conservative values oppress women, women are under a cis white male patriarchy, women are paid less for equal work, women are at the mercy of predatory men without any way to fight back, women and girls are more vulnerable to violence, being a stay at home mom is antiquated, marriage is patriarchal etc… Does sexism exist? Yes, and plenty of women face unfair circumstances in life including vulnerability to violence. However, is our country deeply entrenched in sexism against women on a systematic level? I’d argue no. Women today are more empowered than ever in this country to create their own lives and dreams. Just look at how they treat women in 3rd world countries. There are plenty of ways in which women are not the “damsels in distress” the Left loves to paint them as, needing saving from sexist microagressions!

That said, there are still ways women are not equal to men in life. Equality can come in many forms including equal opportunities and equal outcomes. Many inequalities are not socially designed or even human-made, such as physical and physiological differences between men and women. Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species, which means males and females are physically and physiologically different from each other. For examples beyond “the obvious” down-below, men on average are taller, have more upper body strength, denser muscle mass and are overall stronger than women. They can run faster, farther and have more physical strength. Women on average are shorter, distribute fat differently on their bodies, don’t grow facial hair like men, have enlarged breasts for nursing offspring, a wider pelvis, and less muscle mass than men. Studies have shown women are usually more adept at subjects like reading and language comprehension from a younger age, have a higher pain tolerance in some cases (probably for enduring childbirth), better verbal fluency, and more fine motor skills. Men have been shown to do better on mathematical/scientific tasks, have greater spatial awareness, and working memory for a few examples.

Now some argue that some of these differences could be due to social influences on raising boys and girls to gravitate to certain gender roles, but it seems a stretch to imagine gender roles somehow popped out of thin air with no basis in innate characteristics. Noting these differences should not be a construed as a value judgement, or that any characteristic is more preferable. Acknowledging that men and women do have biological and physiological differences in their bodies and brains does not put one at an advantage over the other as a whole. Where one may be stronger in one area, they are weaker in another and vice versa. Nor does this mean a man or woman cannot achieve proficiency or be above average in an area usually attributed to the other sex. There are plenty of gifted male writers and gifted female scientists and mathematicians. Generally speaking though, it is foolish to deny the very real differences between men and women as a whole.

This brings us back to genderblind sexism: What happens when we choose to ignore those very real differences, such as disparities in physical strength between men and women? Many unjust inequalities that do exist between men and women are exacerbated by factors like that. Just think of the odds of the average woman fighting off the average man in a fight. What about a woman trying to get away from a male attacker? Or outrun a predator? What about a man pinning her down? Yes, weapons and self defense techniques help, but the man usually still comes with an automatic advantage from the get-go. Why are women disproportionately the victims of physical violence? The Left cites a toxic masculine patriarchal culture, but on the practical level what about the woman’s ability to fight back? Another man may easily fight back and get away whereas the average woman may literally not be able to.

The example where genderblind sexism would come in here would be in the debate on transgender access to women’s spaces where women are vulnerable such as changing rooms and restrooms. The need for separate spaces for women has been common sense up until recently. Now, a truly transgender “woman” who lives as a woman is not the main threat, but the cisgender man pretending to be a trans-woman to gain access to women’s private spaces is. If we allow anyone in who simply claims to be transgender access to women and girls in compromising circumstances like a state of undress there is a probability of some having nefarious intentions leading to potential assaults. If we ignore that unique vulnerability of women, because they are different than men, we also ignore a real threat to their safety, and their equal right to be free from danger and victimization.

For a lower-stakes but significant contributor to women’s inequality is the debate on transgender women in women’s sports. This blatantly ignores very real differences in physical strength and endurance between men and women. Male athletes outperform even the best women in many sports. A good example being a biological male up against a woman in a sprinting competition where fractions of a second mean you win or lose. Male runners outperform even the best female runners. What about women’s football and other contact sports? A biological male, even transitioning into a more female-like body after puberty still retains a higher muscle mass and physical strength. If he smashes at full speed into a woman, she’ll be the one in the hospital! The playing field with trans-women is NOT equal by any stretch of the imagination. Ignoring this reality for the sake of gender ideology ensures real women will be outcompeted by a man every time they get out and play.

Another dimension to genderblind sexism goes beyond just the physical, but also societal and cultural: The erasure of women’s unique “lived experiences” in the words of the Left. I went into this in much greater detail in my post “My Gender is Not Your Costume“, but in essence by erasing objective differences between the sexes, it erases the unique experiences of each sex/gender. A person who is male simply cannot truly know what it is like to live as a female. This is rooted in biology, but also societal experiences. There is a reason cultures have gender roles, even ones where they are less ridged. Name one human culture where men and women are treated exactly the same. Not merely in similar opportunities, or social acceptance to do what the other gender does, but a psychological blindness to men and women, boys and girls being in any way different in personalities, temperament and abilities. We learn much of our gender expression from society, but where did society learn it? It is silly to deny the nature part of the equation as well as the nurture.

I’m honestly surprised in a sense how the Left, who loves to cite all the experiences women face that men will never truly understand, like the fear of assault or violence for instance, or the pressures on women in society, say it’s okay for a man to basically appropriate the identity of a woman. Or, as some say, if gender is merely a social construct and can be dismantled, so can the voices and stories of countless women in their unique experiences as women. This cultural and societal erasure of women and their lived experience is also consequence of the newfangled gender ideology sweeping our society.

If it is sexist to deny women an equal chance at protection from violence,

If it is sexist to deny women an equal playing field in her sport,

If it is sexist to deny women their unique “lived experiences” as a valid identity rooted in biology and in our culture,

Then it is sexist to pretend gender simply a social construct and a man can choose to be a woman merely because he feels like it.

A final point to reflect on is the idea of equity vs, equality. The Left loves this one: Equality in opportunities does not always yield equality of outcome. The “equal” playfield for trans-women makes it inherently unequal to biological women because they carry physical advantages over women. However equity is giving what a person or group needs based on their actual needs, not just blindly without considering disparities in circumstance. Giving women a private space to undress away from men is equitable as women are more vulnerable to assault by men, even though it’s a form of gendered segregation. Having all gender bathrooms in the name of equality erases the very real fear women have of assault in those kinds of spaces.

Now, some may argue that since I reject the idea of colorblind racism, then why would I advocate for seeing genderblind sexism? My answer is that unlike race, where there are significantly less differences between races rooted in objective biological criteria, there is far more evidence to support the idea of innate differences between both sexes. Most importantly, unlike many racial disparities, many differences between the sexes on average, are biological and innate and cannot be changed by changing society, such as overall disparities in physical strength being my “strongest” example.

If sexism is defined as inequality and disadvantage for one sex, and privilege for the other, genderblind sexism is sexism arising due to one’s “blindness” to real disparities between genders. Contrary to popular opinion, acknowledging real differences between men and women leads to more, not less equality. Equal does not always mean identical. Seeing women as just as worthy of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in this country as men also must mean understanding that what will make them be able to achieve that goal can and does differ from men. Women will not be equal to men in this country until gender ideologues realize the unique circumstances women face due to their gender, and not turn a blind eye to the biological and cultural differences that make it so.

What Does it Mean to Be “Affirmed”?

I’ve been thinking on this a while: What does it mean to be affirmed? You know, like the buzzword the Left loves to use to get everyone on board with one of their latest agendas. The official definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary is:

Affirm (verb)
af·​firm | \ ə-ˈfərm \
affirmed; affirming; affirms

1 a: VALIDATE, CONFIRM
He was affirmed as a candidate.
b: to state positively
He affirmed his innocence.

2: to assert (something, such as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
The court affirmed his conviction.

3: to show or express a strong belief in or dedication to (something, such as an important idea)
laws affirming the racial equality of all people

I think the closest definitions the Left uses is #1. to validate someone, such as their identity. The Left loves to speak of how the “affirm” this group or that group based on identity, or “affirm” their commitments to diversity and the like. Now, I think we can all agree that affirmation of identities we hold personally significant, or the affirmation of a fair minded principle is no cause for objection. By human nature, we all want to feel welcomed and respected by others, and feel included. We want our values and choices affirmed by others. If that is all affirmation is, then why hold objections or reservations? Thing is of course, there’s always a catch 😉 Perhaps the better question is what isn’t affirmation?

For the first common use of what it means to be affirmed in the eyes of the Left, affirming one’s identity, they make it sound like one can only be “affirmed” in society if their group is given complete deference free from any sort of criticism or critique and that their opinions are treated as infallible edicts! A common example is the use of “affirm” in relation to LGBTQ groups. Many people and institutions declare they’re LGBTQ affirming, and most moderates interpret it to simply mean that LGBTQ people are welcome there, and won’t be discriminated against and treated with respect. Now the majority including myself, have absolutely no objections to that definition of affirmation for any group. I don’t object to same-sex marriage or to the existence of LGBTQ people and believe they deserve the same respect as everyone else. However, I draw the line at special privileges such as taking affirmation to mean that if someone has a criticism of the LGBTQ community, such as the nature of its often far left-leaning political activism for one example, they are automatically “homophobic” and non-affirming! Just because someone critiques LGBTQ as an identity to use in identity politics doesn’t mean they’re against people choosing same sex relationships or marriage as a personal life decision.

On a related note, regarding the “T” for transgender in LGBTQ, affirmation should not mean bending biological facts or enacting laws that disregard physical gender differences or the opportunity for non- transgender people to take advantage of trans-friendly laws for their own nefarious intentions (i.e. women’s bathrooms opening to biological males). Transgender people deserve respect and compassion and the right to be free from harassment and persecution as much as anyone else. I am not arguing for segregation or ostracism of transgender people from society. However, affirming their “right” to deny biological, physical and physiological realities as genetic males and females despite their new gender identity is where I draw a line. Sure, many transgender men and women can live lives that for the most part, harm no one or impede upon anyone else’s freedom. That does not mean issues such as bathroom access, or sports for trans women, or certain careers for trans men that require increased physical strength and stamina don’t exist and whose implications and unintended consequences can be denied. Do I think genuinely trans men and women have some nefarious intent in pushing for breaking these boundaries? No. They want a life according to their gender identity and I can understand that. However unintended consequences such as non-transgender (regular old cis-gender) men taking advantage of transgender laws to gain access to women’s spaces, or be able to beat every other female in an all women’s sport are still here regardless of intent. What about a trans man wanting to be in an elite SEAL unit but not having the requisite physical strength and stamina as other men? Must we admit him or lower the bar so “he” can get a spot on the team? Does affirming the transgender community mean we must affirm even the unintended consequences of their desires? Can we show them respect and affirmation without infringing on other’s rights?

What about affirming the “lived experiences” of many minority groups most often, that claim we live in a country steeped in white supremacy and racism? Do I think everyone who has had a bad experience is lying or wrong? No, certainly bias and prejudice does exist! However, there can be other explanations, other factors for why someone had a negative interaction aside from racism and bias. For a few examples:

Someone could have had a bad day and took it out on you unintentionally.

Someone was in a rush so they didn’t see you when you said hi.

Someone had a completely different reason for a disagreement or conflict with you that had nothing to do with your race or ethnicity.

Someone said a comment they had no idea would come off as offensive or insensitive to you.

You weren’t truly qualified for the job you interviewed for or they hired someone they knew or came more recommended. Same for higher education acceptances, scholarships, internships etc… Same for most opportunities. That has happened to everyone including white males…

Your teacher or boss criticized your work because it actually needed improvement, not because you look different than the rest of the class.

You didn’t feel welcome at work or school because maybe, the dynamic between those coworkers or other students/professors didn’t fit your style of socializing or learning. Not every workplace or school is right for you and you should find a better fit. Not that anyone specifically had an agenda against you, but your style of relating just didn’t mesh with theirs. I think everyone has experienced this at least once in their career/education. You won’t instantly connect with everyone you meet.

In the course of your life, you will be in situations where you feel more apart, or even alienated from others around you. Sometimes they are being exclusionary and closed minded and unwelcoming. Other times, you and they simply don’t relate to each other as well. Not every workplace is for you. Not every school is for you. Not every friend group will be yours. Not every opportunity will be yours. Often times, this will have nothing to do with your race or any other identity but is simply one of the many setbacks in life. When we affirm the more identity-oriented interpretations of these events/experiences, to the exclusion of considering other factors before jumping to the worst interpretation, is this what affirmation should mean?

It can be hard as many, including me, genuinely don’t want to invalidate or belittle what others say were painful experiences. We wouldn’t want others to do that to us either! Many who cite negative experiences at school, work or socially are genuine in their pain. I think we should acknowlege that they feel that way, but at the same time, not be obligated to take their every word as infallible truth! How many times have we been upset due to a misunderstanding? That did not make what we felt any less real, but the facts surrounding the feelings were misperceived. Is that distinction, while a delicate balancing act especially when we ourselves don’t know the full story, too hard to understand? We can affirm someone’s emotions as genuine, but not blindly affirm their conclusions. Hear them out, but then seek out the facts before passing judgment.

A final thought, what about affirmation for my identity? Affirmation of my identity as a conservative and other fellow conservatives? In most major institutions such as schools and our workplaces, the mainstream media, much of government, family and friends etc… there is little to none. I and many others have had the “lived experience” of feeling uncomfortable to express our views in the classroom or at work while those around us express their freely. We’ve endured snide remarks from professors, teachers, bosses, even “friends” about how backward people like us are. We see every other group be treated as if they were untouchable, free from any criticism or reproach while we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Don’t call out for affirmation if you happen to be white, male and especially both! Don’t call out for affirmation if you’re a minority who is also a conservative since the Left thinks they own you and you’re a “race traitor”. No professor’s office or boss’ office ever had a “(insert group here)-friendly” sticker for conservatives to show that they too are welcome. The Left thinks of us as a malignant majority, but how can that be when the mainstream media, every school and work place, every authority figure, tv show, movie etc… are all affirming of the Left but not of us?

So, one can safely conclude like all the buzz words they like to use to sway the moderates on the fence who haven’t looked deeply into them, “affirmation” for the Left translates to “agree with our select groups and causes or else you’re a big meanie!”

A Tale of Two Protests…

A rally that was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration for patriots to stand up for Trump on January 6th disappointingly turned into a chaotic event. Scores of people occupied the Capitol building and some stepped over the line into fear tactics, and even violence. When the dust finally settled, 4 died, the National Guard had to be called, a curfew enforced in DC, and several arrests. I think we can all agree this violent mob chaos was a disgrace and does not represent the real patriot or mainstream Trump supporter. Indeed, many prominent conservatives, including our President openly decried and denounced the violence and chaos, reminding every fellow American that no matter what the cause, violence and fear is never the answer to create change in a democracy. Despite the widespread condemnation of the rotten apples who only hurt Trump’s cause and the conservative community, the liberal media is swarming over this as proof of “right wing” domestic terrorism and proof we are dangerous insurrectionists who need to be censored and banned. The left even went as far as to give Trump a permanent ban on Twitter, a heavily left leaning platform! In some ways not surprising, as they were looking for any excuse, and this seems to be the perfect one.

Now contrast the widespread (and justified) condemnation for the behavior shown at the Capitol Building with the BLM riots and “autonomous zones” from this past summer. Violent insurrection? Check. Calling the National Guard? Check. Curfews? Check. Destruction of property? Check. Making people fear for their safety? Check. Arrests? Check. We can go on and on… Yes, the cause may be different, the side may be different, even the scale and duration of events is different. But the chaos? The violence and fear? Nope! Those riots caused for more destruction and went on for longer and with more people in several cities across the country. Did their behavior honestly reflect the simple idea that black lives matter as much as any other life? Were their actions reflective of a movement who only wants equality and justice? No matter what your opinion is of BLM, violent riots, chaos and looting harms volumes more than it ever would help actual black lives.

Yet, there was no widespread condemnation from BLM leaders. They encouraged the riots in the name of “reparations”! The left did nothing to condemn and stop the chaos, and called anyone a racist for criticizing them. Despite it being also within a raging pandemic no one even blinked at the thought of thousands packed in the streets like sardines. As businesses shut down, they were broken into and looted while the business owners could only stand by and watch or face arrest. The famous “autonomous zone” CHAD, CHAZ, or CHOP or whatever else, stood for a whole month before being cleared out! Name a prominent left leaning politician or celebrity or any public figure who condemned the behavior shown over the past summer. Name anyone on the left who said the rioter’s behavior dishonored, not honored, the lives lost to alleged police brutality.

Now going back to the recent events on the Capitol: President Trump decried the violence. Several conservative politicians decried the violence. Fellow conservatives on social media all decried the violence. Even though we all dislike, even hate, the policies of many who work in the Capitol, we never said they deserve violence and to fear for their lives. True conservatives know a democracy and the rights we all have as Americans applies to all, not merely those who we agree with. We are deeply embarrassed and disgusted our peaceful event was corrupted into what it was. Thing is, new evidence is coming to light, (despite being suppressed by the leftist mainstream) that many of the actual rioters and violent agitators were Antifa and other far left groups disguised as Trump supporters to sabotage our peaceful event. Yes, every group has its wing-nuts and we’re no different, but the wing-nuts don’t represent the other 99%. At every other Trump inspired event, thousands of fellow patriots gathered together without incident. This is out of character with the other events led by conservatives for Trump and should have raised suspicions from the start.

Before all this, I watched a video by Vox, a heavily left leaning news site geared towards college age millennials and teenagers that argued that the news coverage of the violence in many cities over the past summer mischaracterized a vast majority peaceful movement. They argued that news often focuses on the outliers, the more extreme ends to sell a more interesting story, violence is more eye catching, and also because it can be hard to capture all nuances of the complex subjects protests can cover whereas focusing in on an extreme helps simplify it for outsiders. It wrapped up by saying not to buy into the media’s mischaracterization and oversimplification of their chosen movements by the actions of a few bad apples. Now, compare that attitude towards how the leftist media has covered this event! The left is blatantly turning a blind eye to violence from their own chosen causes, yet is quick to condemn the actions of a tiny minority within the 75 or so million who voted Trump in this past election. In contrast, as stated before, numerous conservatives including President Trump swiftly condemned the violet actions allegedly done in the name of conservatives and Trump. You can see the hypocrisy in black and white.

No one has the right to use violence and terror to get their way in this country or in any democratic society. This applies to any political party, religion, race, ethnic group, special interest groups etc… I and fellow conservatives have always upheld the rule of law for everyone, including ourselves. We aren’t justifying the violence that happened at the Capitol when we call out the utter hypocrisy of how it’s been covered compared to left leaning insurrectionists and their violence. I don’t care about your opinion on whether the election was stolen, or if BLM is a worthy movement reflective of the inherent value of black lives when you cross that line. Violence is violence no matter who it comes from, so why is one group’s violence covered up en masse, while another’s is characterized as representative of 75 million people of whom 99% are peaceful law abiding citizens? Why are our leaders condemning the bad apples in our barrel while theirs cover up, deny and then attack you for calling out their silence about theirs? Saying we condemn violence done in our name, yet we also condemn the double standards being applied to how it’s perceived compared to the left’s own share of violence and chaos is not mutually exclusive!

Patriots, we must show the country that those who took part in this disgrace were not us. This was never us. And most likely were literally not us!