Category: Men and Women

A Jungian Analysis of the Transgender Lunacy of Some Progressive Females

The following comment by Vito B. Caiati on an earlier post of mine deserves to be brought to the top of the queue.  Minor edits and bracketed content added; otherwise verbatim. The above title is mine. Vito would probably not use the polemical word ‘lunacy.’ Comments of mine are in 10-point below.

Consider for a moment the fact that the personae of so many progressive women are structured around solidarity with designated marginalized groups, such as biological men suffering from gender dysphoria who identify as females and demand the right to participate in women’s sports and share women’s private spaces.

In this case, persons with egos of some strength are able simultaneously to hold onto (1) the observable fact that human sexual dimorphism results in marked disparities in strength, speed, and endurance between the sexes and that (2) opposing discrimination against marginalized groups is a worthy public policy position. Thus, a healthy ego rejects any resolution of this tension by simply effacing the rights of women in sports or private spaces.

Both (1) and (2) make a strong claim on our acceptance, although the nature of the discrimination mentioned in (2) needs to be spelled out. And yet the two propositions are in tension: although the merits of each ought to be acknowledged, they cannot both be accepted.  How resolve the tension? A sane (non-lunatic) solution is by holding fast to what is empirically evident, namely, (1), and then reformulating (2) so as to make it logically compatible with (1).  That is what I would say, and I am sure Vito would agree. The question then arises: why don’t our opponents on this issue agree?  Read on.

For progressive women, however, once the status of marginalized groups is elevated inside their personae to a sanctified status, then any acknowledgement of sexual differences, however empirically evident, appears as a betrayal; such perceptions are thus repressed or relativized (“sex is a spectrum,” etc.). These repressed perceptions pile up in [what Carl Gustav Jung calls] “the shadow,” where they are intensified and distorted, and are projected onto critics, who are viciously attacked, their arguments denounced as “hate,” rather than countered rationally, as in the case of J.K. Rowling and so many other advocates of women’s rights. This all ends up in enantiodromia, and the abandonment of earlier, hard fought for, feminist goals. [‘Enantiodromia’ is Jung’s term for the tendency of any extreme to produce its opposite.]

In the above paragraph, Vito is doing two things. He is first of all giving a Jungian psychological explanation of why our opponents will not accept what to Vito and to me  is obviously the case, namely, the fact of sexual differences between men and women, differences that make it unfair to allow biological males to compete against biological females in sporting events.  One could ask, of course, whether the Jungian psychological explanation is the best explanation. Might there be a better one?  There is also the meta-question: Is it ever logically kosher to refute a proposition by psychologizing those who advance the proposition?

The second thing Vito is doing in the above paragraph is pointing out that the extreme transgenderist  position of feminists who traditionally demanded equal rights generates its opposite, namely, the violation of the rights of women and girls to privacy and fairness.

“O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall / Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed.” (Gerard Manley Hopkins, “No Worst, There is None”)

Epic Life Elements

Vlastimil Vohanka  tells me he met  online with Marin Zhelezov on June 13, 2026 and discussed the nature and examples of epic life.  VV solicits my comments. Consume cum grano salis. I have not read Zhelezov beyond what he is quoted as saying below.  Here are the elements of an epic life, as formulated by Zhelezov as reported by VV.   My comments are signaled by ‘BV.’

1. Travel — must have, adventures unfold with travel.

BV: True! To the young, in particular, I say: get out there and take the risks. “A man sits as many risks as he runs.” (Henry David Thoreau) See the world to appreciate the homeland. Go alone, travel light, like a man, not a suitcase, swot up as much of the local lingo as you can, and try to make it back home alive. Take pictures, keep a journal. If you make it back, you won’t regret your adventures. Then you can boast, “Been there, done that.” Forever after you will enjoy the having done what the old man, having had enough of this vain world, would no longer  want to do.

But be careful! Especially you women who too often are trusting to the point of being  pollyannish.  See The Young and the Restless: The Cautionary Deaths of Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan.

2. Meaningful goal, not just entertainment.

BV: Of course. No ‘killing time.’ Make good use of your incarnation, your time in the human body. Serious games for entertainment, games that require concentration and deep study to play well: chess and Go, for example.

3. A sense of leveling up, catching progressively stronger pokemon —> boss battle.

BV:  The formulation here is too sloppy for it to be worth my time trying to make sense of it.

4. Flow state, act at the edge of your competence.

BV: There are two ideas here that ought to be separated.  You can perform at the edge of your competence without entering the flow state, but if you enter said state it will probably be at the edge of your competence.  Take it to the limit to see where your limits lie.  The trick is to go to the limit without falling into the abyss.

In the late ’70s, training for a marathon, I pushed as hard as I could. One day after a training run, I urinated blood. I had taken it to the limit. A one-time event. Never pissed blood again. I had the good sense to back off. But if you don’t push hard, you won’t know where your limits lie.

During that marathon training  I had gotten myself into the shape you have to be in to experience the flow state called the ‘runner’s high.’ I experienced  it a few times. It is rare, like a mystical experience, but it is not a mystical experience. It is a form of ‘mundane transcendence’ in which your vehicle is no longer  a Volkswagen bus but a supercharged Corvette.

As a a young man I drove many a time from Dayton, Ohio where I had a teaching job to Boston, Massachusetts where I had girlfriends, without stopping except for gas. 18-20 hours of driving. Thermos coffee and sandwiches for body fuel. The first ten hours were a warm-up.  I then entered the flow state, in touch with my inner Neal Cassady,  ready for some serious driving.  “Put me on a highway/Show me a sign/ Take it to the limit/One more time.” (Eagles, 1975)

Some years later I traded in the VW bus for  a 1988 Jeep Cherokee base model: five-speed manual tranny, 4.0 liter, six-cylinder engine, four-wheel drive, off-road shocks, oversized tires, and manual air conditioning. Bought it in Ohio, but kept it in Arizona despite the fact that I live in the infernal Valle del Sol — from which I don’t escape in the summer like some snowbird wimps I could mention.

Manual air  conditioning: if you want air, you use your God-given hands to roll  down the windows. In this part of the country manual AC is also know to the politically incorrect as ‘Mexican air conditioning.’ “Roll down the windows, Manuel!”

One blazingly hot August I drove straight through from Bishop, California up on U.S. 395 to Chandler, Arizona, 600 miles, alone. Stopping for gas in Blythe, on the California side of the Colorado river, I noted that the afternoon temperature was 115 degrees Fahrenheit in the shade. Bouncing along Interstate-10 I saw that the only people with their windows down were me and the Mexicans.

It’s no big deal, really, driving through 115 degree heat in the middle of the day in the middle of the desert with the windows down.  You take a bandanna and soak it in the ice water in your cooler and wrap it around your neck. When the dry blast of desert wind hits the wet bandanna some serious evaporation takes place, cooling your neck and with it the rest of your body. Feeling a little drowsy after four hundred miles of nonstop driving? Stoke up a cheap cigar, say that Swisher Sweet that’s been aging under the seat alongside those oily shop rags, and throw another audio tape into the deck. May I recommend Dave  Brubeck? Or how about Kerouac reading to the piano accompaniment of Steve Allen? Or perhaps that latter-day beat, Tom Waits.

With four on the road, one in the hand, a cigar in the mouth, some boiling hot McDonald’s drive-through java in the other hand, Brubeck on the box,  proudly enthroned at the helm of a solid chunk of Detroit iron, rolling down a wide-open American road, with a woman waiting at the end of the line, you’re feeling fine.

5. Winning = you must defeat someone, curing cancer is meaningful but it won’t feel epic.

BV:  I agree if the one you attempt to defeat is your own lower self. But why must one defeat someone other than oneself?  The above reads like a  ‘manospheric’ compensatory reaction to the feminization of boys, a reaction by boys who were prevented from exercising their innate masculine aggressiveness in the schoolyard or on the playing fields.

I recall reading about the schoolyard  ‘tug of war’ being replaced by a ‘tug of peace’ along with the dodge ball we played back in the day.  Sickening! I of course oppose such asinine feminization. But I also oppose the mindless reaction thereto: the abuse and denigration of women.

6. Element of collecting, like Diablo 2, collecting items, making you stronger, proof of past adventures.

BV: I am a collector of trophies, ribbons, photographs, religious and secular mementos, not to mention  books, books, and more books all as proof of past adventures, literary and otherwise, especially during my Wanderjarhren.  I don’t understand people who get rid of their books.  Many of my books are like treasured photographs. I can tell you exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first read Nikos Kazantzakis’ Zorba the Greek. That book, like so many others with their inscribed accession date, marginalia,  tell-tale bookmarks, love letters, dedications, and what-not are treasured mementos.

It is not clear to me, however, how this vast pile-up of personal antiquities makes one stronger.

7. Esoteric knowledge put in practice, secrets.

BV: I need some examples.

8. Coadventurers, RPG party, guild, sense of belonging to an exclusive identity (wizard’s guild). Builds frenship [sic]

BV:  What’s the RPG party?  The Reactionary Philatelic Gastroenterologists? The Royal Patrons of Goombahs? The promiscuous use of unexplained abbreviations rankles my ass. And we can’t have that.

9. Winning a battle brings a maiden as a reward.

BV: Here the toxic masculinity of these argonauts of the ‘manosphere’ again  rears its ugly head.  How much of this is mere reaction, reflexive as opposed to reflective, to their feminization? And as I have stated many times, masculinity as such is not toxic, any more than femininity as such. But there are forms of masculinity that are appropriately described as ‘toxic,’ meaning poisonous and destructive to their agents and even more to their victims.  Anyone who can’t see that is a combination of stupid and morally obtuse.

Few are the women these days who fancy themselves ‘damsels in distress’ waiting for a heroic male in shining armor to come along and save them.  Few are the ‘maidens’ these days who see themselves as rewards or trophies.  They will not object to being mounted, in a context of love and commitment, but not on a wall.

10. Must have some form of risk.

BV: I agree. Life is for living. No living to the full without some risk-taking. The risks are all out there waiting to be taken, in matters of money, of love, of the spiritual quest.  In the latter, the serious seeker must face the risk of demonic assault.  The demons hate us and want to destroy us. There is Unseen Warfare; Lorenzo Scupoli calls it Combattimento Spirituale.    So the highest warrior is the spiritual warrior. Take no risks without prior calculation: look before you leap. On the other hand, he who hesitates is lost. Balance your maxims. Better to sit or better to run? “A man sits as many risks as he runs.”  (Henry David Thoreau)

Later addition, after the podcast:

11. To be epic, your goal must save (some part of) the world or transcend death in the spiritual realm.

BV: Agreed.

Richard Yates and Bovarysme

The two favorite novels of Richard Yates were Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby.  You now can guess what bovarysme means. An A. I. bot, cribbing from the 2008 New Yorker article Like Men Betrayed by James Wood explains the term and Yates’s use of it in Revolutionary Road.

Richard Yates utilized the concept of bovarysme—the delusional desire to escape one’s reality through romantic fantasy, derived from Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary—as a central critique of mid-century American masculinity and suburban life. In his novel Revolutionary Road, the protagonist Frank Wheeler exhibits this trait by clinging to the dream of a creative life in Paris while remaining trapped in a mundane job and domestic routine. 

The narrative serves as a “savage inversion” of Flaubert’s work: whereas Emma Bovary’s delusions lead to her suicide, April Wheeler dies trying to break free from suburban stagnation, while Frank ultimately “wins” by retreating into the safe, conformist stability she despised. Yates portrays Frank as a “rank escapist” who arrogantly claims the right to dream of adventure while secretly craving the timidity and security of the status quo.

This theme extends beyond Revolutionary Road to Yates’s broader body of work, where male characters are depicted as anxious, hysterical, and easily provoked by female resistance. Their bovarysme functions as a defense mechanism against feelings of inadequacy, often exacerbated by their perceived failures to live up to patriarchal or wartime expectations.  Critics note that this obsessive focus on male anxiety and the failure of romantic delusions makes Yates’s work a radical, albeit traditional, indictment of the “American solitude” found in post-war suburbia. 

Hypatia and Her Lover

An excerpt from the journal of Basile Yanovsky, M.D. reprinted in Michael Rubin, Men Without Masks: Writings from the Journals of Modern Men (Addison-Wesley, 1980), p. 206:

A woman philosopher and religious teacher of the fourth century, Hypatia of Alexandria, had a striking discussion with her lover. To discourage his earthly temptations, she addressed him, at the most passionate moment of their relations, in the following manner: “See what it is you adore, Archytas, this foul matter, this corruption, with its secretions, its excrements and its infections. . . .”

But the tenacious and passionate Archytas gave her this answer: “It is not matter I love, but form.”

How many times, discouraged and depressed in the V. D. clinic, have I repeated these saintly words of Archytas. . . .

In the New York Review of Books, in Veni, Vici, V. D., W. H. Auden reviews Dr. Yanovsky’s The Dark Fields of Venus: From a Doctor’s Logbook.

Who Put the ‘Man’ in ‘Manufacture’?

A congresswoman asked the question recently. It is a  question from a fem-Dem that exposes her ignorance.

There is no 'man' in 'manufacture' in the way there is a 'bomp' in the "bomp bah bomp bah bomp" and a 'ram' in the "rama lama  ding dong."  

'Manufacture' is built out of two Latin words, manus, manus (fourth declension, feminine) meaning hand, and the verb facere, meaning to make.  Etymologically, to manufacture something it to make it by hand, which is something women can do and often do better than men.

It is also interesting to note that manus, manus (the singular and the plural are the same except that the 'u' is  short in the singular, long in the plural) is one of the few Latin nouns that is both feminine and ends in -us. Herewith, another reason why there is no 'man' in 'manufacture.'

I could easily go on, and you hope I won't.

But it does raise a question: why are Dems so ignorant? The person in question is a "white, educated female" like so many Never- and Anti-Trumpers. Educated?  Here is another word currently badly misused. Graduating with a degree from a leftist seminary doesn't make one educated in  any serious sense of the term.  We live in a time of inflation and not just of the monetary variety.

Why do Dems and 'liberals' generally have such low standards?  It is almost as if they have never met a standard they did not want  to erase, erode, eviscerate, eradicate.  

I have a lot to say on this topic, but it is time to get to work on more serious writing.  There is more to life than sanitizing the spaces befouled by leftists.  'Sanitize' in the sense of cleaning and making sane. 

MASA! Make America sane again! 

On the ‘Congressional Catfight’

Some friends to my Right think women have no place in politics. I strongly disagree. But there's no denying that the recent 'catfight' in Congress supplies these extreme Righties with ammo.  

Tulsi Gabbard is one member of the distaff contingent who has more right to be in politics than a lot of men I could mention. Here she takes on the stupidest bunch of women on TV. 

Universal Suffrage

I wrote, on 4 March, 

The war is over the soul of America.  The question concerns whether we should (i) preserve what remains of America as she was founded to be, and (ii) restore those good elements of the system bequeathed to us by the Founders, while (iii) preserving the legitimate progress that has been made (e.g. universal suffrage), OR whether we should replace the political system of the Founders with an incompatible system which can be described as culturally Marxist.

As I was writing clause (iii) I realized that some to my Right, people I consider friends, whose intellect and judgment I respect, and with whom I agree on many fundamentals, would take issue with my endorsement of universal suffrage. They are against it. Two points in response.

The first is that the 19th Amendment, ratified 18 August 1920, will never be overturned.  The Amendment states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And so the question whether female citizens should have the right to vote, while of historical and theoretical interest, has no practical importance whatsoever. 

The second point is that, even if it could be overturned, it ought not be. Now I concede to my friends on the Right that women as as a group are not as politically astute as men as a group.  Their political judgment is inferior to that of men. This is a fact, and a fact is a fact whether you like it or not. We conservatives stand on the terra firma of a reality antecedent to human wishes and dreams. 

What I have just asserted is enough to bring down the wrath of  many feminists upon my head. They will hurl the 'sexist' epithet at me. And I will reply: It can't be sexist if it is true, and it is true.  This is a special case of a general principle: It cannot be X-ist if it is true.  Candidate substituends for the variable include 'age,' 'race,' 'species,' 'able,' and others. Particularly knuckleheaded is the accusation of 'ableism.' 

I have said enough to establish my conservative bona fides.

Why shouldn't the 19th Amendment be overturned?

Yesterday, on C-SPAN, I watched Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) rake Christopher Wray, FBI Director, over the coals. She did a superb job, a job as good as any man could do. So I put the question to my friends on the Right: Do you think that Stefanik should not have the right to vote and participate in the political life of the country?

To nail down my point, here is a list, off the top of my head, in no particular order, of just a few females  who are lot better politically than a lot of men I could mention:

Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, K. T. McFarland, Tulsi Gabbard, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Mollie Hemingway, Tammy Bruce, Faulkner Harris, Diane West, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Heather MacDonald.

Will the friends to my Right dismiss these women as wholly unrepresentative outliers? Do they have arguments? What might they be?

On the Gender-Neutral Use of ‘Man’

Top o' the Stack.

Roger Donway writes,

As I understand it, there are no "gender-neutral" nouns or pronouns in English. There is the masculine gender, the feminine gender, the neuter gender, and the common gender. The last applies to entities which have sex, but in contexts where both sexes are included or the sex is undetermined. "Someone has forgotten his umbrella." "Someone" and "his" are in the common gender. So, they do possess grammatical gender. They are not "gender neutral." Not positive about this, however.

Excellent comment, Mr. Donway. You're right. Strictly speaking, gender is a grammatical category with the four subcategories you mention. I was being sloppy in violation of my own principles.  Properly expressed, my point was that 'man' has a legitimate sex-neutral use in standard English. When used to refer to both males and females, it is sex-neutral but not gender-neutral for precisely the reason you supplied: so used, the term's gender is common. 

The sex of an animal is biologically based and therefore not a linguistic construct. This fact notwithstanding, it strikes me as legitimate to extend the sense of 'gender' so as to cover social roles. For example, traditionally women as a group have instantiated the nurse role and not the doctor role. No surprise: women can give birth, which biological fact makes women as a group more nurturing than men as a group and suits them for the nurse role. I have no objection to referring to the nurse role, a social role, as a gender role, midway as it is between the biotic/biological and the grammatical. 

But this is an extended use of 'gender.' Strictly speaking, gender is a grammatical category!

Masculinity

Out and about yesterday, I caught a bit of Dennis Prager's radio show. He defended Daniel Penny's behavior in his confrontation with Jordan Neely as masculine, using the word correctly. In our infantilized, feminized, and left-dominated and therefore crime-tolerant society, Penny's behavior will be called toxically masculine by our political enemies. But to anyone who can think straight, there is a difference between the masculine and the toxically masculine.

On the other hand, there are people to my right, politically speaking, who deny that there is any toxic masculinity.  I must oppose them too.  I say to them: Are you seriously going to maintain that there are no instances of machismo that are not reasonably described as 'toxic'?

Consider the sad case of Cynthia Garcia. This foolish middle-aged woman and mother thought it would be fun to party with the Hells (no apostrophe!) Angels in their Mesa, Arizona clubhouse of a Saturday night. The 'Angels' of course demanded sex; she showed disrespect, even after they stomped her, and so they brutally murdered her. There are differing accounts of the exact details.  But the upshot was indeed brutal. Two of them stabbed her to death and attempted to cut her head off,  dumping her remains in the desert proximal to the Rio Salado shooting range.
 
Of course, normal masculine behavior such as that displayed by Penny is not toxic, and the feminization of boys is a serious threat to social stability and the survival of the Republic. But just as a Nazi is no cure for a commie, a biker brute is no cure for a feminized boy.
 
The subversion of language is the mother of all subversion. 
 
You should no more allow the Left's theft of perfectly good English words than you should allow their question-begging and question-burying coinages such as 'Islamophobia' and 'homophobia' and 'transphobia.' I have gone over this many times and I am not in the mood to repeat myself.  Enough compromising with our political enemies; resist them on every front.
 
Addendum
 
William Voegli weighs in on the Penny-Neely encounter at City Journal: 

Are New York’s subways safer, its homeless population less dangerous, than is generally believed? Than Tarannum and, perhaps, Daniel Penny seemed to think? The Times pointed out in February that the rate of violent felonies on the subway system was twice as high in 2022 as it had been in 2019. The system saw ten people murdered in 2022, compared with an average of two per year from 2015 through 2019. On the other hand, the Times pointed out that even after this increase, there were 1.2 violent crimes for every 1 million subway rides, which works out to about the likelihood of being injured during a two-mile automobile trip. Readers deliberating how much reassurance to derive from such statistics may reflect on the Times’s utter lack of such restraint and sobriety following the death of George Floyd in 2020, when the paper made no attempt to caution against sweeping generalizations based on the anomalous death of an unarmed black man in police custody.

You might want to bear in mind that truth is not a leftist value, and that leftists have a strange propensity to celebrate the dysfunctional, the transgressive, the grotesque, and the socially worthless as part of their nihilist drive to normalize deviant behavior, all the while attacking the sane, the decent, the socially useful, including the subway commuters on their way to work.  

This brings up a second point raised by Rahnuma Tarannum, about how the authorities not doing their job puts civilians in a position where they either do it themselves or suffer the consequences of no one doing it. 

Abdication of authority has dire consequences. Leftists unwittingly (or is it wittingly?) promote vigilantism. Remember Bernie Goetz, the subway gunman? In the same way, leftists unwittingly (or is it wittingly?) promote increased gun ownership among civilians. Either unable or unwilling to distinguish weapon from wielder, lefties unrelentingly repeat that guns cause crime. But then demonstrating their lack of common sense, they agitate for the defunding of police, the ratcheting down of criminal penalties, etc. So the people arm themselves. Surprise! How stupid can a 'liberal' be?

I am a staunch supported of 2A rights, but being sane and reasonable I don't want more and more untrained civilians packing heat.

It is true, as Bouie says, that no one on Jordan Neely’s subway car had any way to know that he had been arrested 42 times, including at least four times for punching people, two of which occurred in the subway system. Nor could they have known that Neely was on “the ‘Top 50’ list,” which, the Times explained, is a “roster maintained by the city of . . . people living on the street whom officials consider most urgently in need of assistance and treatment.” Lacking such knowledge, Bouie contends, Neely’s fellow passengers were obligated to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

The Double Denial by the ‘Woke’

It is not unreasonable to maintain that there is no God and that nature alone exists. But suppose you take it a step further and deny nature as well. Then you are in the precincts of 'woke' lunacy.  Call it the Double Denial.

One way to deny nature is by denying that the biotic underpins the social and that as a consequence the difference between men and women is a matter of social construction and not a matter of biology.  But any sane person will grasp instantly that one cannot change one's sex by merely thinking of oneself as belonging to the opposite sex. It is also obvious that sartorial and cosmetic modifications will not turn the trick.

Less obvious, but equally true, is that chemical and surgical alteration of one's body cannot change one's sex even if the surgical alteration is of a deeply structural sort:  reduction of muscle mass, heart and lung volume,  bone density, size of hands, and length of limbs even unto the removal of portions of bones to make the altered person shorter.

Procrustes' BedBut of course the 'transgendered' biological men who compete in, and win, women's sporting events do not and would not submit to the modern-day equivalent of the Bed of Procrustes: they are not about to be modified in the drastic ways just mentioned.  And yet such men are allowed to pass themselves off as women.  To add insult to injury, some of these impostors are then awarded 'woman of the year' titles.

What is going on here? It is one thing to condemn the injustice to women and overall idiocy of this, quite another to understand how it could arise and be taken seriously by otherwise sane people.

One thing that needs explaining is how leftists, who are supposedly for women and against their oppression by men and 'the patriarchy,' could embrace something so antifeminist as the allowance of male interference with women's sports. I suggest that what we are witnessing here is a collision of motifs on the Left. One such is the oppressor-oppressed motif. Another is the hyper-constructivist denial-of-reality motif. These motifs are in tension with each other. If men oppress women, then women need their 'safe spaces' where they can feel secure against real or merely perceived micro- and macro-aggression. Accordingly, there is obvious need for  sexual segregation in certain areas such as sports competitions, locker rooms, restrooms, prisons, etc.  But if everything is a matter of social construction, as per the second motif, then so are sexual differences in which case they are not innate and immutable, but malleable. A man can 're-identify' as a woman with or without chemical and surgical alteration. Add in a third motif that of expressive individualism and for good measure throw in the 'my truth' meme.  If 'my truth' is that I am a woman, then I am a woman and can compete against women. (There is little or no chance that any woman will 're-identify' as a man so as to compete against them.)

The conflict of leftist motifs explains the utter absurdity of wokesters who tolerate the grotesquely unjust penetration of biological males into female spaces.

Why are Women ‘Over-Represented’ among Realtors?

Here is my Substack answer to the title question together with a healthy serving of conceptual analysis as part of  my ongoing quest to disembarrass sad wokeheads and Dementocrats of their fatuities, fallacies, and overall intellectual feculence. ('Feculence' as you may know is from feces.)  I am being polite. I am showing some 'class.' 

But here is something very important for you to know.

In the political sphere, and not just there, the ability to kick ass is far more important than class. The first value clearly trumps the second. It is a mark of a RINO not to understand this.

So I predict that, even if the Republicans gain control of both the House and the Senate come November, they will not deploy their majorities in an effective way against their political enemies. Little will get done to reverse the assault on the Republic. And that is because they, as a group and because of the large number of RINOs, do not have the civil courage to punch back in the manner in which they are punched at. 

Trump tried to teach them how to fight, but they ignored his clear message, or, more likely, they simply lack the civil courage to implement it.  Of the four cardinal virtues, courage is the most difficult to display. For it, unlike the other three, exacts a high cost.  I myself lack the courage, not to mention the social skills, to enter the political arena. I'm Italian, a lover not a fighter — until pushed to the wall.

In any case, no true philosopher could consider the political the locus of ultimate reality.