I have come to the conclusion that feminism is a pseudoscience whose credibility is on par with other pseudosciences such as young earth creationism or geocentrism.

Typically when people label something as pseudoscientific, it is just a cheap way of destroying somebody’s credibility so that their opinion should no longer be taken seriously. It is for this reason that I think it is important for me to establish what qualifies as pseudoscience so that I can explain why feminism is one.

The 20th century philosopher Karl Popper created a fairly simple definition of pseudoscience that has gone on to become the accepted definition.

Popper stated that in order for something to qualify as a legitimate science, it must be falsifiable. The theory of gravity is a classic example of a legitimate science.

Gravitational theory states that an attractive force known as gravity exists between all material objects. This could potentially be disproven, thus it qualifies as a legitimate science.

Gravitational theory could be disproven by finding one example where this attractive force did not exist between material objects. If gravitational theory stated that an attractive force existed between all material objects, despite the existence of a known counterexample, then it would be pseudoscientific.

All variations of American third-wave feminism have the following unifying characteristics:

The primary source of the world’s evil is the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, which is a series of social systems designed to benefit white heterosexual men at everyone else’s expense.

Behavioral differences between men and women (known as gender roles) have no basis in biology and instead are social constructs created by the patriarchy.

Promoting gender equality, especially through the elimination of gender roles, is synonymous with toppling the patriarchy and creating a utopia.

Feminists promote the half-truth that feminism is a diverse ideology that allows for many conflicting viewpoints. In reality, feminism only allows for differing viewpoints so long as they are contained within these rigid confines.

It is true that feminists have what they consider to be evidence that these three principles are true, but still the question remains: are they falsifiable? The short answer is that they are not, thus feminism is a pseudoscience.

Feminists will entertain opposing viewpoints so long as they do not challenge their dogmatic principles. Feminists refuse to acknowledge all the evidence that indicates their dogmatic principles are false.

I understand it is difficult to prove that feminists consistently dismiss opposition in this manner, but in my experience this is the case. If you do not believe me, try debating a feminist.

They typically cite character flaws of their opposition (whether real or imaginary) for why they do not even need to refute their opinions. If you are able to point this out to them, they will still come up with reasons for why your opinion is not worth acknowledging.

Simply put, the patriarchy is real because they say it is. Its existence is so self-evident it is not even worth debating.

It is frustrating to find yourself in this situation, but if you do, take comfort in the fact that they are proving my point that feminism is a pseudoscience.