- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Dictatorship Of The Dimwits

Below, an extraordinary short video making the rounds. A 5’9″ white guy goes onto the University of Washington campus and asks students to explain why he isn’t a 6’5″ Chinese female child in first grade. They can’t do it. They are so afraid of being judgmental, and offending against the sacred dogma of Self-Definition that they are unable to deny anything he claims about himself. (Not strictly true: one woman of the bunch politely doubts that he is 6’5″.) You have to watch this:

He’s making a point about gender identity, with reference to the bathroom/locker room debate.

This is a freaky thing to watch. These are actual college students. Adults who have the right to vote. And their reason is so compromised that they are unsure what the man in front of them is, so terrified are they of saying the wrong thing.

Ah yes, students at the University of Washington, where they are scared out of their minds by the possibility of seeing a Halloween costume [1] that makes them turn tail and run for their Safe Space™. These people are ripe for dictatorship. They will not let themselves see reality if it offends against the party line.

Meanwhile, Frank Rosier, a British infantryman who went ashore in Normandy on D-Day, was rather more prepared to see reality [2] than these nitwits:

Ahead of the commemorations, Mr Rosier described how the troops consisted largely of teenage volunteers who wanted to do their bit in the war effort, and how he would never describe the horrors he saw on that beach, even to the Queen.

He said: ‘This 18-year-old “Look out Hitler here I come” came to a grinding halt for a few seconds. What lay on that beach wasn’t for an 18-year-old to see.”

He said the determination of the troops, who were woefully ill-equipped, led to the operation being a success.

He said: ‘The boys who joined up as infantry had no rifles. They were sent to Dunkirk, one rifle to defend the whole battery, those boys at Dunkirk were fighting Tiger tanks with their fists but such was that anger and that anger stayed with us throughout the war.’

He said the other weapon was the soldiers’ resilience.

And these 18-year-old American college students can’t even muster the courage to keep men out of the women’s bathroom. We’re doomed. But you knew that.

174 Comments (Open | Close)

174 Comments To "Dictatorship Of The Dimwits"

#1 Comment By Perichoresis On April 18, 2016 @ 6:35 pm

@Oakinhou (quoting Catechism): ““2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

No one disputes that some people experience a transgender identity subjectively, or that the psychological genesis of this experience remains largely unexplained. That doesn’t change the objective, empirical reality of whether they are male or female. There could be a chemical cause of the belief that they are male and not female, or vice versa. Why would that change the empirical reality of whether they are male or female?

#2 Comment By Chris 1 On April 18, 2016 @ 7:14 pm

I predict public outcry at concert halls and sporting venues if they eliminate the trough from lavatories.

In modern facilities they’re already gone because they waste a ton of H2O. The thing today is a waterless urinal…even at the ballpark.

#3 Comment By WillW On April 18, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

Chris 1, ok, I was wondering I haven’t seen the trough deal since Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, which was torn down 20 years ago. Guess the other commenters live where there are older venues still standing.

#4 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On April 18, 2016 @ 8:58 pm

Why should people’s psychological perceptions (biologically based or not) trump anatomical realities?”

Because the brain is the seat of identity.

Identity has NOTHING to do with it. Restrooms and locker rooms are segregated by sex because most women don’t want men around when they are undressed, and vice versa for most men, hard though it may be for some virile hedonists to believe. This is not about affirming anyone’s identity. That’s a false criterion. If you don’t fit, we can provide you your own private cubicle. Nobody is entitled to more.

#5 Comment By Brutus On April 18, 2016 @ 9:28 pm

The article is inaccurate. It quotes someone who is inaccurate concerning WWII armor. First of all, the British had plenty of rifles at Dunkirk. The problem was that the Germans encircled them at Dunkirk and cut them off from the French army. That’s it. The only German tanks at Dunkirk were the Panzer I, II, and III. Most of the tanks were Panzer II. Second of all, the German tanks didn’t make it to the Normandy beaches at all. Hitler didn’t believe the invasion was the real thing, so for three days, the German tanks did nothing at all. The tanks held in reserve at that time were the Panzer IV, V, and VI. The Panzer V was known as the Panther, and the Panzer VI was known as the Tiger. You’d think people would have a modest amount of historical knowledge.

[NFR: But then we would have no use for you, [3]. — RD]

#6 Comment By Carlo On April 18, 2016 @ 9:48 pm

John:

“Because the brain is the seat of identity.”

Boh, that’s a very vague notion. What is “identity” exactly? Does it exist independently of our biological,physical, social circumstances? I am very skeptical that it does, and I am very skeptical that there is such a thing as a “male identity” separate from having the experience of a male body. A woman may psychologically “feel male” but by definition that is a projection of what she imagines biological males feel like.

But ultimately I am convinced that the source of our identity are our relationships: with our parents, with the history of our country, with our friends, with God. If one “feels” one’s identity as a purely psychological phenomenon, to me it suggests that she or he does not have one and is looking for a surrogate.

#7 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On April 18, 2016 @ 10:10 pm

If only people of today knew at least the basics of polemics. If they did, it would roughly look like:

Interviewer: How do you know I’m not a Chinese girl?
Interlocutor: Since you ain’t.
Interviewer: Prove it.
Interlocutor: What’s the color of the grass behind my back / that car over yonder / any stuff?
Interviewer: Green / red / whatever.
Interlocutor: Prove it.
[Silence falls]

Even if he manages to carry out a field pigment analysis somehow, it can be rhetorically derided and invalidated. In the essence it is the same parry, and, much like the fencing one, it is way more effective than either dumb blocking or rushing berserker.

#8 Comment By Aaron Gross On April 19, 2016 @ 1:31 am

@Carlo, so I guessed wrong on the biological details of your beliefs on gender. The point remains that you, Rod, and all the other “gender = biology” people are not arguing that biology determines gender. You’re arguing that some specific biological facts—chromosomes—determine gender and that other biological facts—anatomy, sex hormone levels—are irrelevant to the question of gender.

Whether you’re right or wrong in your beliefs, a good step that maybe we can all agree on is to stop mischaracterizing them as “biological” or “gender is biological sex.”

#9 Comment By culchan On April 19, 2016 @ 2:19 am

[NFR: Had you gone around campuses in the 1980s, no matter how liberal, you would have gotten perfectly sensible answers from most people. Things have changed. — RD]

If you had gone around my campus in the late 1980’s, you might have seen a bunch of booths for student organizations, including one for gay students. And you might have seen a young man at that booth, blowing soap bubbles into the air. And as the bubbles drifted over to the next booth, you might have heard a young man at the second booth shout to the first student, “Hey, stop blowing your AIDS bubbles on me!” Then you might have seen everyone within earshot laughing, or later retelling the hilarious anecdote about the AIDS bubble joke in the cafeteria. Perfectly sensible responses by perfectly sensible young adults.

So you’re right, things have changed.

#10 Comment By Rick On April 19, 2016 @ 2:56 am

Yes because half baked (or fully baked) 20 year old students “politely” responding/humoring a random moron’s idiotic questions CLEARLY indicates how they’d react when faced with a brutal dictatorship raping an entire continent with murderous genocidal efficiency.

Hasty generalize much Rod?

I’m sure if some man had approached hung over 20 year old’s on WU campus in 1940 and said “I’m a Chinese 7 year old many would have humored him in a different but ultimately similar way — “Yeah sure whatever, sure ok, etc., etc.”

Now if this dweeb had said to the UW students “I’m Adolph Hitler and I want to kill your mother because she’s a Jew and burn your city to the ground” you might find that toughness and tenacity you imply they lack bubble up.

Honestly, Rod this article is hack stuff — like Glenn Beck hack. You’re better than this.

#11 Comment By Alice On April 19, 2016 @ 6:43 am

Give men cubicle urinals

#12 Comment By grumpy realist On April 19, 2016 @ 7:51 am

If interest in STEM fields on the part of a supposed female is to be taken as potential evidence of being transsexual, well, then, I guess I’m transsexual. And here I thought it was due to having a father who was a chemistry professor.

Do you people realize how idiotic this all sounds? That just being interested in X means that you have inclinations towards being a member of the opposite sex? This is just as dumb and infuriating as listening to the rad-fems who claim that math and science is a masculinist plot because, well, linear equations and math and logic.

My inclination as to why more women aren’t interested in math and science is a) since Day One a lot of them are told that math and science are too difficult for their feeble little brains,(talking Barbie: “math is hard!”) b) it takes time and periods of isolation to learn how to have a sciencey mindset and most women are raised to constantly be interrupted to take care of other people. It’s EXPECTED. And c) those who do learn the math background usually decide to jump fully over the fence into engineering, since it pays better.

(The isolation and lack of being interrupted is important. Some of my best ideas for inventions I’ve developed while driving long boring interstate routes. And I absolutely detest being interrupted.)

#13 Comment By jacque sheete On April 19, 2016 @ 9:16 am

You have to be kidding! You use a fine example of a dupe as an example of right thinking and courage? Haven’t you read Butler’s “War is a Racket,” or Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War” ?

Meanwhile, Frank Rosier, a British infantryman who went ashore in Normandy on D-Day, was rather more prepared to see reality than these nitwits:

#14 Comment By arebel1 On April 19, 2016 @ 10:10 am

I would like to see the same interviews conducted outside the women’s locker room. See how accepting they are as they go prepare to take a shower, if they are willing to accept a 40 year old man suggesting he is a 20 year old girl.
I’m guessing their responses will differ.

#15 Comment By Carlo On April 19, 2016 @ 10:13 am

Aaron Gross:

“The point remains that you, Rod, and all the other “gender = biology” people are not arguing that biology determines gender. You’re arguing that some specific biological facts—chromosomes—determine gender and that other biological facts—anatomy, sex hormone levels—are irrelevant to the question of gender.”

No, I am doing that either. I was responding to John’s comment to the effect that the reason to embrace transgenderism is because it is biology-based. Go back and read the thread

For the record, I am not a nominalist. You are if you think that “woman” is a convenient label for a list of attributes, and one can switch by passing the 50% mark.

#16 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On April 19, 2016 @ 10:53 am

@grumpy realist, are you a chemist? If so you are braver than me. I was fine with NaOH, HCL, and fume hoods. But the warnings on some of the radioactive tracers we used in Chem 2 labs cured me of wanting to pursue chemistry.

tl;dr some chemicals are scarier than clowns.

#17 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On April 19, 2016 @ 11:57 am

Aaron Gross: gender is a grammatical term, not a state of being. Biology CREATED sexual dimorphism. It exists. It can’t be explained away by some cultural construct. Biology is imprecise, so there are a few people born of that imprecision. We should make a little room for them to live their lives. We owe them no more than that. And its really not a matter of great significance.

#18 Comment By Fran Macadam On April 19, 2016 @ 12:03 pm

I have to point out that 18 year olds are particularly vulnerable to any sort of peer pressure propaganda, whether of gung-ho “army of one” jingoism, or SJW righteousness.

Think of the mad rush of underage youth to sign up for the demented abattoir that was World War I. They may be taking selfies now, but they are looking around to see what gains virtue signaling approval from peers, in an entirely canned environment.

#19 Comment By grumpy realist On April 19, 2016 @ 3:17 pm

MH–naah, I ended up in theoretical physics. I found physics more fascinating than chemistry (hey, I was young and enamored with gauge theories…) and decided to stick to the theory side after experiencing an imploding Dewar and a lot of glass shards.

Before I skipped over to the theory side I did deal with thallium on one project, if you want to talk about nasty stuff….

#20 Comment By panda On April 19, 2016 @ 4:04 pm

“Aaron Gross: gender is a grammatical term, not a state of being. ”

Yep. Which is why the saying “man up” means grow an extra chromosome.

Seriously, don’t you ever get tired of making categorical pronouncements?

#21 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On April 19, 2016 @ 5:40 pm

don’t you ever get tired of making categorical pronouncements?

Only when I lose sight of the point of doing so. When it comes to restoring meaning to words, I delight in sticking pins into common delusions. On the matter of “gender” and “sex” there is a well-read Orthodox Talmudic scholar who makes the same point — which probably means nothing to a secular Jew of liberal bent, but the point is not a figment of my imagination.

#22 Comment By Vira De L’homme On April 19, 2016 @ 5:54 pm

How do you respond when someone tells you that they believe in ghosts? Or the supernatural?

Or that they believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural Divine Being who created the world in 7 days, then sent his only begotten Son to be born of a Virgin, with the Son being crucified only to resurrect himself and ascend unto the Heavens so that Believers on Earth would be forgiven of their sins, and saved from the fiery pits of Satan’s Hell?

The overwhelming majority of non-believers (in ghosts or divinities) nod politely and allow the person to persist in their beliefs without challenging them, not unlike these students here were doing. Of course, it was also pretty clear that this man’s assertions were not sincerely held, all the more reason not to engage with him.

One man’s crazy is another man’s identity- whether it’s a question of gods or gender, Virgins or vaginas, transgender or transubstantiation.

#23 Comment By I Am A Rock On April 20, 2016 @ 4:47 pm

This sort of nonsense used to be called radical skepticism. It’s very popular with kids, at least until they stub their toe on a rock that identifies as a marshmallow.

#24 Comment By Mia On April 20, 2016 @ 7:41 pm

It’s unfortunate that ethnicity and/or race has been fused onto the whole trans issue as being delusional when it is actually far more complicated than a single person’s skin tone. Most of the public discussion of that aspect of statements made by people who have been assimilated to minority cultures or who have actual ancestry of minority groups but who can “pass” as white seems devoid of any historical or scientific context.

If you investigate further instead of lumping all of this together, you would discover, for example, that many of the leaders of the NAACP in its history were white…mainly because of the one drop rule. Then if you look at genetics or skeletal analysis, you find that it is possible for recessive traits to surface in descendants or see that racial categories are very fluid and often political rather than some sort of certain physical category. The diatribes against these definitions really have led to low information readers to jump on the bandwagon, and it needs to stop.