Everyone involved in the gender debate knows that compassion only flows one way. For example, when men and boys want to compete in women’s sports, we are told they must be allowed to do this to make them feel included and protect their mental health. If you bring up the mental health, safety, inclusion, opportunities, and dreams of the female athletes, you hear either crickets or accusations of bigotry. When a man like fully intact contract killer “Fallon Aubee” wants to be moved to a women’s prison for validation and comfort, Canada says “Come on in!” But if women raise concerns about the impact of these transfers on their own comfort and safety, they are ignored, told to suck it up, called bigots, or even reprimanded. This pattern extends to all women’s spaces and services.
Why are gender ideologues, who try to paint themselves as highly compassionate people, incapable of feeling compassion for those hurt in these situations? Because they don’t actually value compassion for its own sake. They value compassion—or, rather, the showing of complete and utter deference—only when directed at the “correct” group of people.
And who is the correct group to show compassion to? It all comes down to a calculation of who is deemed the most oppressed. The “victim” is always right, and the “oppressor” is always wrong. So, in these cases, the oppressed trans-identified man who wants access to women’s sports and spaces must always be shown deference because “cis” people are the oppressors.
Of course, this is not reflective of actual power dynamics in the real world. It is absurd to think that a man becomes oppressed just because he starts calling himself a woman. In fact, it is the height of privilege that such a declaration grants him unbridled access to female spaces, sports, and services.
But what do the so-called “allies” get out of this—the people who aren’t in the victim group but who defer and show reverence to them? I often feel that these people are treated as punching bags, and yet they take it. Why? Well, because they do get quite a lot, both psychologically and socially, out of playing the Rescuer role in the drama triangle of Victim-Persecutor-Rescuer.
Playing the Rescuer allows them to feel morally superior and, depending on their social circles, may give them a lot of clout. Focusing on being the Rescuer also allows them to ignore their own personal worries and failings because they are too busy partaking in an important fight against the evil Persecutor. In reality, however, all they do is enable the Victim, keeping them dependent and stuck in their persecutory fantasies.
The drama triangle and the subjective moral framework that says Victim=Good Guys and Persecutor=Bad Guys extends far beyond gender ideology and is a mainstay feature of modern critical social justice movements as a whole. It is a worldview inherent to critical and queer theory, which make up the philosophical underpinnings of radical progressivism.
It is the progressives that currently wield social, political, and cultural power who decide where on the oppression hierarchy everyone sits based on factors like sex, race, and “gender identity.” These calculations are often made by using rhetoric and emotion rather than any kind of honest investigation into reality.
But it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to think that this subjective, grievance-based moral system will stay or ever truly only lived solely on the left. Right-wing grievance-based identitarianism absolutely exists, and I fear it is growing in response to what has happened on the left. This system has been shown to provide those who wield it with a lot of power. It captures people of all stripes and traps them in the destructive mode of interaction inherent to the drama triangle.
Anyone can fall into the mistake of treating people as atomized versions of their identity categories. The real goal, whether tackling gender ideology or any other type of critical social justice movement, is not to turn around and become exactly what you’ve been fighting.
I think it's probably time to drop the term "ally" when it comes to those promoting and enabling trans people. It would be more accurate to call these destructive, useful idiots "collaborators" or Quislings because they are colluding with the enormously oppressive power of male supremacy, which crushes women all over the world. These collaborators have blood on their hands. I never consider the "male left" as anything but a covert-right, which beneath a thin veneer of magnanimity seethes a barely hidden contempt for women. Such men share this emotion with the likes of Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, incels, pick-up artists and the Taliban. They are often a self-pitying bunch of men on both the left and the right resenting women because we aren't deferential enough and protest when they rape, kill and economically exploit us or when we petition for child-support. Having fought against violence against women for over a half century I see the trans terrorist's collaborators colluding with these men to destroy decades of work to establish facilities like shelters and rape crises centers. These women and men reap where they haven’t sown. They already have blood on their hands; the blood of the women who are no longer able to use the facilities created for them because they are now potentially being occupied by men in drag who would exterminate all women if they could. These men have no compassion for women as is clearly demonstrated by serial killers and murderers like Douglas Donna Perry, Haddon Clark, Archie Tally, Yesenia Patino, Snochia Moseley, Marcel Harvey, Sinthya Luis Morales, Dana Rivers and the thousands other men in drag who intimidate, harass and attack women and their collaborators who enable them.
Gays and lesbians are people who are attracted to others of the same biological sex. We are not attracted to "gender identities," I would never want to bed a "trans man," and a lesbian would not be interested in "trans women." This isn't bigotry; nobody has control over whom they find attractive, and the only people who have sex with others they aren't attracted to are prostitutes.
But then we have the genderborg, whose social mission is the elimination of the idea of biological sex and its replacement with the vaporous notion of "gender identity." They are therefore opposed to LGB and specifically opposed to same-sex marriage, since its foundation is the acknowledgement of biological sex.
So any time you see the acronym extended past the B, raise an objection. The TQs are the enemies of the LGB, we are not allies, and one of us can win this social conflict only if the other loses.
Since LGB people are real and TQ people are not, I want my side to prevail.