I recently caught wind of a new netflix original show called Sense8, I’m roughly halfway through the second episode and I don’t know what to make of it from my first impression, there are some moments when theres interesting, believable dialogue and other moments when it’s cheesy and lame. All I know thus far from watching is that it follows eight strangers dispersed throughout the world who are somehow linked telepathically in an as of yet unexplained way. The increasingly popular hallucinogenic DMT is mentioned briefly and I suppose that somehow, this substance is going to be used to explain the linking of the minds of these separate individuals. On this premise alone, given my fascination with Gaspar Noé’s psychedelic masterpiece — enter the void, the series warrants at least a preliminary watch, I’ll give it a few more episodes and see if it pans out. I do not mind diverse characters coming from different backgrounds, it keeps things interesting at times and it seems like Sense8 will be treating the viewer to the increasingly common utilization of “backstory cinema” a la lost or orange is the new black where the story is continuously progressing in time, but also takes the occasional foray into a characters past in order to eventually explain current events in the progressing story line. At times though, it comes off as trying a little too hard in selling us a healthy dose of “we are the world”… Diversity, after all, works when its voluntary, not when its rammed down our throats in typical social justice warrior fashion and this is what, at times, seems to happen in the series. It is also early in the series and I’ve not had enough time to suitably asses Sense8 , this is just my first impression.

You’ll have to pardon my ignorance on all things genderfluid, I am, after all, mere cis scum, and male at that… but I assure you I have checked the shit out of my privilege and flogged myself repeatedly in hopes of gaining understanding of such matters. There is the issue of two characters, Nomi Marks, a male to female transgender woman played by Jamie Clayton and her girlfriend Amanita (more psychedelic references?) played by the actress Freema Agyeman. Sex scenes abound in the Sense8 universe and these two star-crossed lovers are introduced to us in the midst of a strapon sex scene, after which a flashback gives us a glimpse into a day in their lives at a local annual gay pride parade. Amanita introduces her transgender girlfriend to a group of lesbian feminists, she is received not as a friend or ally as one would expect in the moral, compassionate tolerant world of lesbian feminism, but instead as an enemy, a testosterone infused usurper of the cause… a screencap says it all.



Well well, how tolerant no? My cis scum ears and eyes may be deceiving me, causing this act of tolerance and compassion to be perceived negatively, but this looks a bit like…bigotry? that catch all phrase that feminists constantly hurl at men?… well I’ll let you decide by giving you a summary of the entire exchange.

Nomi and Anamita introduce themselves to lesbian feminists:

Amanita : Hey y’all this is the one of been talking about (as she introduces Nomi)

Lesbian feminist 1 (blue bandana): Wait, I know you. You’re the tranny that blogs about politics. I totally disagree with what you said about dropping LGBT

Lesbian feminist 2 (tattoos, plad shirt): Hey c’mon relax. It’s a party.

Lesbian feminist 1(blue bandana): We fought hard for that recognition

Nomi: I just though that the distinctions were separating us

Lesbian feminist 1 (blue bandana) : Bullshit. Just another colonizing male trying to take up any space left to women.

This, gentleman is why I do not get mad at feminism, but simply seek to understand it, and by all accounts it seems to be a movement driven not by any explicit hatred, not even of men, but instead by female supremacism and the acquisition of positions of privilege for the female sex at the expense of others, especially men. Their veneer of tolerance is a facade, plain and simple. Feminists use the gay rights movement, when it suits them, they ally with gay men…when it suits them, and they make nice with the trans community…when it suits them, but make no mistake about it, feminism exists as a means of perpetuating gynocentrism and men, having all those pesky androgens in their physiology have no real place in that operation. This goes for gay men, and this also applies to male to female trans women. Male to female trans women, despite the fact that they appear female, or that they identify as female, are still born with the caul of the y-chromosome. They will never have a place in feminist discourse, they are, according to feminists, much like David Futrelle, curious, token sideshow exhibits in the feminist circus. Make no mistake however, feminists and women are the ringleaders.

This being a fictional show, I will without a doubt be accused of embellishment and asked to show real world examples of feminist displaying these attitudes toward men, so I’ll take this as an opportunity to do just that. The following article is titled How The Hypersexual Trans Movement Hurts Feminism and boy is it replete with hypocrisy, it starts off by saying:

A central theme of modern, or third-wave feminism is that women should not be treated merely as sexual objects. A central theme of the trans movement is the presentation of trans women as hypersexual objects. Feminism is not big enough for both of these themes. Either being a woman is essentially defined as being alluring to men, or it isn’t. Either the playboy bunny defines the essence of womanhood, or it doesn’t. At the moment, the trans movement opposes more than a century of feminism on this point. Third-wave feminists, in their eagerness to be allies, have abandoned this basic tenet. It must be reclaimed.

Pass me my pitchforks and torches cleetus, them thar homo varmints are sussin up our feminism…seein’ as how they have danglers and all. I got’s me a triple distilled batch o’ tolerance and compassion moonshine brewin in the shed and I’ll be damned if those penis havin transgenders gonna get them some’it. this be murican feminism! not in my country I’ll tell ya’ hwut!

The article continues and says:

How have we arrived at a point in which feminists fundamentally alter their definition of womanhood to accommodate men? Last year, Laverne Cox became the first trans woman on the cover of Time magazine. It was a glamour shot—a slinky blue dress, long blonde hair, and a come-hither look. Not to be outdone, the former Bruce Jenner introduced his new gender to the world this week on the cover ofVanity Fair in a bit of white lingerie, also with that come-hither look. Should feminists really be chanting, “This is what a real woman looks like?” Are we sure?

What exactly does a trans woman think it means to feel like a woman? When a person identifies as female, what is being defined as female? Is it the breasts? Lips? Ass? Slim waist? Small hands? Batting eyelashes? Flirtatious smile? Long hair? Finger-nail polish? Eyeliner? Lipstick? Submissiveness? Thighs? Heels? Demureness? A want to be taken care of? A want to be adored? Cat-called? Beautified? Idealized? Softness? Quietness? Is there some feeling inherent to the placement of ovaries, other than monthly cramps and bleeding, that can be attributed to a feeling of femaleness?



These supposed and stereotypical traits, while traditionally identified as feminine, are not innate to females—as the trans movement shows us. Men can feel feminine, too, women can feel masculine. These societally defined traits of sex do not define a sex. Feminists have been fighting for decades, since the suffragettes, to vocalize the non-feminineness of females. We can vote, we can fight, we can wear pants and flats, we can boss a whole room of employees without demurring. To allow the trans movement to objectify women is to accept the oppression of the female sex by the male sex, and to further accept male definitions of what it is to be female.

Ahh the hypocrisy is mind boggling isn’t it? Feminists, the author claims, have fought long and hard to vocalize the “non-feminineness” of females but don’t like it when someone like Caitlyn Jenner emulates the feminineness that feminists have fought hard to distance themselves from? Again, I’m just cis-scum, oppressing everyone with my heterosexuality and all that, but methinks that its possible that these women know very well the advantages that women can and do garner by leveraging their sexuality and they don’t want a filthy man getting in on that action. Personally, I like women, I like the female form, and don’t think that the things that make women physically attractive can be simulated via plastic surgery or hormone therapy convincingly given the current state of medical science, but this isn’t about me, this is about men as a whole, and some men do find transgendered male to female individuals attractive, perhaps even more so than they do the opposite sex?… could that be what the author is worried about?

I guess it’s a good a time as any to give my humble opinion on transgendered folks, since I’m on the topic already. frankly, I do not understand what the big deal is, I tend to view them as I view all other human beings, as people, reacting to environmental pressures, nothing more nothing less, but in the last few months, given the fact that a high profile celebrity, Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner, has made this male to female transition it is going to be receiving an unprecedented amount of attention and dialogue, I know this will infuriate some but I do want to make the distinction that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is not, in any true sense a woman. I am a transhumanist, I believe that in the future we will be able to develop the surgical means to install the genitalia of either sex, into a person of the opposite sex, I believe that we will combine this with a form of gene and hormonal therapy that will change someones gender, in a way that, for all intents and purposes, this person will become that gender. I believe that in the far future it may even be possible to change a man to a woman or vice versa on the chromosomal level, and as a transhumanist who believes that all people should be free to use technology to augment or improve themselves in whichever way they see fit, I see nothing wrong with this. With all of that said, we cannot ignore the fact that in every way that modern science defines gender, apart from his mental state, Jenner is still, in all ways a man. He still has a penis, he still has an XY chromosome written into his DNA, He is a man who has undergone facial femeninization surgery, a tracheal shave, breast augmentation and other cosmetic procedures in order to appear more feminine. He is a member of the male sex, that is a fact. How he identifies mentally is what is up for debate here.

It is human nature, whether the person expressing it is male or female, to want to belong. Human beings crave acceptance from other human beings, that is simply what we do. There comes a point in the pursuance of that acceptance however where one is compromising so much of their identity and what they believe makes them, them, that the acceptance of others simply is not worth it to them.

When this happens, the person who sacrificed his acceptance usually has a strong desire to express to society, in a visible way, the reasons why they rejected societies acceptance in the first place, perhaps this is some kind of attempt at bringing others who feel alienated for the same reasons into the fold, an attempt to start a community of the like minded. Maybe it is a subconscious admission that the outcast still craves the acceptance of society, or even a combination of both. But I do believe that a person like Jenner is not willing to go to such great lengths including risky surgeries, social ostracization from many elements in society and all of these things if he didn’t feel he had a damned good reason for doing so. Jenner, in taking such extreme action must be an individual that feels so stifled in his male body that he needs out, and is willing to take drastic action to do so…he is not comfortable in his own skin, so he changed it, at great social and financial cost to himself I’m sure. That is really all I have to say about Jenner, that he should be free to change his body any way he sees fit if he feels so stifled by the body he was born with, I do not pretend to know what type of psychological dynamics causes someone to seek out such a radical transformation, and frankly I don’t very much care, if this is what makes Jenner happy, well we live in a free country, he should be able to do as he pleases.

Feminists, and indeed not just feminists, but many every day women as well as traditionalist conservative moral posturizers would disagree. Feminists dont like Caitlyn Jenner because although, according to them women should “move away from their femininity”, men like Caitlyn Jenner better damn well stay away from it…just in case they ever want it back. Traditionalist conservatives dont like Caitlyn Jenner because their Gynocentric abrahamic patriarchs in the sky told them not to…among other reasons, as we all know tradcons worship women, they don’t want a “woman-like” man getting in the way of their protecting and providing, the fact that men like Jenner are emulating female physical beauty (at least attempting to, they’re not very convincing imo) shows the tradcon that his fantasy, his worship of the female form is cheap. She is a false God, and modern science is beginning to recreate the venerated Aphrodite on a male canvas, Jenner shows them that there is nothing special about female beauty, it’s not worth providing for, it’s not worth protecting, and it doesn’t make you a “real man” if you do, tradcons fear this tremendously. The article continues:

The problem here is how Annie Leibowitz and Vanity Fair set about showing us that Jenner is truly a woman. They did it by painting precisely the pinup we teach our daughters to reject as their central aspiration. The sexual objectification of trans women is used as proof of their womanness, but the sexual objectification of non-trans women is considered demeaning because it associates their primary worth in relation to male desire. Being oppressed by men is being oppressed by men, even if those men are wearing dresses.

These people lack the ability to be content, no matter what is done to try to satiate these toxic little people it will never be enough. This is why we should never give them an inch, because anything we give them will immediately be thrown into their grievance meat grinder, as soon as they stuff whatever you give them into their miserable little gullets, they’ll demand more and curse you for giving it to them, they don’t want to be sexually objectified but then they do want to be sexually objectified, or at least they don’t want anyone else to actually enjoy the harmless trivial shit that they deem “objectification”.

These carpet-baggers to womanhood are trying to prove to all of us that what it really means to be a woman is to pose in a playboy bunny outfit and make kissy faces at men. They reinforce this idea to teenage girls: go put on the miniskirt, honey, celebrate Jenner’s beauty, and try to exemplify it in your own life. Make sure the boys think you’re pretty. And also make sure to recognize and check your privilege as a person whose womanhood, unlike Jenner’s, is never questioned. You don’t even have to fight for it.

Me, ME MEE, MEE, MEEEEEE! waaaah! Finally we see a picture begin to emerge here… trans men who wish to emulate women are “carpet baggers” you see. The real problem here is that MEN, are infringing on women’s “turf”, they don’t like that a man dare attempt to look feminine, and they don’t like that girls are possibly urged to please men with Jenner as an unlikely catalyst. In a way I’m glad all of this is happening, I’m glad that the poisoned well of social justice warrior grievance politics has become so toxic that skirmishes are starting to break out between their various factions. Cracks are starting to show, perhaps the damn is about to burst? Only time will tell but either way its great fun to watch.

Take for instance a post titled MSNBC insanity: Abortion language excludes transgenders – ‘women’ now politically incorrect term I’ve embedded the video, as well as a brief excerpt from the article:

An MSNBC panel agreed earlier this week that to be politically correct, we should avoid using the word “women” when speaking about abortions because it excludes trans men, or female to male transexuals. While discussing media “reaction to Caitlyn Jenner” during the June 2 airing of “All In With Chris Hayes,” Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer for The Nation, suggested that using the word “women” in abortion language “excludes trans men.” Her statement was prompted by a general agreement among the panelists that younger people can more easily understand a fluid gender, one having no connection to biology. “Well, yeah, I mean, among young people, you know. I’ve had this conversation. I’ve written about this and they’re some conflicts especially within feminism over these issues,” Goldberg said, as a lead-n to her abortion argument. “So a lot of the younger feminists, for example at the abortions funds,” she said, “no longer want to use the word ‘woman’ in relation to abortion because it excludes trans men.”

It’s a beautiful thing to witness isn’t it? the implosion of the victimhood politik equivalent of a hyper red-giant. Feminists have cannibalized one too many movements that don’t specifically align with their agenda (gynocentrism) and now they cant even practice their own lingo without appearing as bigots, I love watching these passive aggressive bullies now have to walk on the same eggshells they littered civilization with for fear of not sounding “offensive”, they’re slipping up more and more often. This controversy may seem as though it is a relatively new one, but over a decade ago influential feminists like Germaine Greer were expressing their blatant disgust toward male to female transgendered people. Take this excerpt from the chapter “Pantomime dames” in her book The Whole Woman:

“The only way a man can get rid of healthy genitals is to say that he is convinced that he is a woman. Then another man will remove them and gladly. In order to justify sex-change surgery a new disorder called gender dysphoria has come into being. The disease has no biological marker; its presence is discerned by a history of inappropriately gendered behaviour, social disability and affective disorder. … Governments that consist of very few women have hurried to recognize as women men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it, because they see women not as another sex but as a non-sex. No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. The insistence that manmade women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males. The biological truth is the opposite; all biologists know that males are defective females. Though external genitalia are the expression of the chromosomal defect, their removal will not alter the chromosomal fact, any more than removal of the tails of puppies will produce a tailless breed. “Sex-change operations” can only be carried out in Swift’s Laputa. As Dwight D. Billings and Robert Urban argued in 1982: Transsexualism is a relational process sustained in medical practice and marketed in public testimony … The legitimization, rationalization and commodification of sex-change operations have produced an identity category -transsexual- for a diverse group of sexual deviants and victims of severe gender role distress. As sufferers from gender role distress themselves, women must sympathize with transsexuals but a feminist must argue that the treatment for gender role distress is not mutilation of the sufferer but radical change of gender roles. Throughout their history women who could not carry out their prescribed gender roles have suffered all kinds of ghastly gynecological procedures and, like transsexuals, they have been grateful to their abusers. Women could hardly now condone the elaborate mutilations practiced on individuals of both sexes, even though the victims argue that such mutilations are their right.

Except Germaine, my dear, that it is their right. Millions of women go under the knife and ask for tummy tucks, breast augmentation, vaginal rejuvenation, and a myriad of other procedures. They sign a medical document stating they know the risks associated with these surgeries and then they consent to a trained medical professional cutting into them and, essentially mutilating their body in a controlled way so as to furnish a more aesthetically pleasing look, this is their right and well within the confines of informed consent, the same goes for male to female transgenders.

The insistence that manmade women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males. The biological truth is the opposite; all biologists know that males are defective females.

There is so much stupidity going on here it’s incredible. All biologists know that males are “defective females”?… Really?

Not only is this scientifically incorrect, it’s dripping with projection, penis envy at its worst. Women like Germaine Greer look at a world filled with amazing male accomplishment and they bristle, they hate that men are beautiful, they look at the peafowl, and then to the peacock and hate his magnificent plumage, ignoring all along that the peafowl evolved to prefer that plumage in the peacock. She looks around at the worlds manifestations of male brilliance, their contributions to science, the skylines they’ve engineered and built in the majority, and she hates men for building them, but knows that her entire comfortable little existence could not be possible without the men that she hates. This is why she and feminists like her so vehemently guard their “femaleness”, they understand that men created civilization and the concomitant wonders therein, mostly for the benefit of women, and thus any attempt on the part of men to emulate female sexual appeal is seen as a threat to that benefit. This is why Greer says the following:

No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight.

More projection. You’re witnessing the modus operandi of feminism here.

-We aren’t our vaginas, we aren’t our uterus, women can do anything that men do, gender is a social construct!

and in the same rant…

-Well if men Just had a uterus they would understand our suffering!

This is what I mean when I say that feminism is a toxic form of some of the worst parts of female nature and tendencies, this is literally the unhappy wife bitching at her husband no matter what he does to please her, it just so happens to be on a scale that encompasses enough people that it can be called a type of gendered social contract. Feminists know what side their bread is buttered on and frankly, so do women, despite the occasional lip service from anti feminist women who themselves consist largely of conservative women who want disposable husbands or progressive women that think only “modern” or third wave feminism is toxic.

Women will continue to support feminism politically in the majority, because feminism is simply a state sponsored manifestation of a part of female nature that is obsessed with her safety and provision. The male instinct to provide and protect for women is just as much the culprit in this of course, we have talked about male servility here at length, so I do not want this to be misconstrued as solely a problem regarding female nature, this is human nature. It is a tendency of our species to be gynocentric, not of men or of women but of men and women. For this post however our analysis will concentrate on the relationship between women, and the state sponsored female advocacy movement known as feminism. The funny thing is that when Greer herself saw men trying to replicate the female uterus… that is, when Elton John and his husband David Furnish had children via ivf, Greer had this to say about it:

Sometimes I think that really the problem is the concept of motherhood, which we can’t give any real structure to. Sir Elton John and his “wife” David Furnish have entered on the birth certificate of their two sons that David Furnish is the mother. I’m sorry. That will give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood has emptied out. It’s gone. It’s been deconstructed.

This is incorrect, Furnish did not ask to be cited as the “mother” on the birth certificate, the law allowed for him to be listed simply as “parent” along with Elton John, gender never came into the picture, but her reaction to the mistaken title speaks volumes, she doesnt want the domain of womankind, the promethean fire of the womb, to be in the hands of men… especially gay men, since of course, they cannot be sexually manipulated by women. The not so distant future holds the promise of the complete seperation of humanity from our original forms of reproduction, for those that want it that way. Ectogenesis, artificial wombs and perhaps the correct manipulation of primordial germ cells will make it so that anyone can reproduce with anyone else. Feminists, predictably have a long history of opposing the artificial womb as well, as famed feminist Andrea Dworkin makes clear in her book titled “right wing woman” about the development of a means of artificial reproduction

She writes:

‘Reproductive technology is now changing the terms on which men control reproduction. The social control of women who re­produce—the sloppy, messy kind of control—is being replaced by medical control much more precise, much closer to the efficiency of the brothel model. This change-over—applying the brothel model to reproduction—is just beginning. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore or explain all the new technological intrusions into conception, gestation, and birth,* except to say that reproduction will become the kind of commodity that sex is now. Artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, sex selection, genetic engineering, fetal monitoring, artificial wombs that keep the fetus alive out­ side the mother’s body, fetal surgery, embryo transplants, and eventual cloning—all these reproductive intrusions make the womb the province of the doctor, not the woman; all make the womb extractable from the woman as a whole person in the same way the vagina (or sex) is now; some make the womb extraneous altogether or eventually extraneous; all make reproduction controllable by men on a scale heretofore unimaginable. The issue is not the particular innovation itself—whether it is intrinsically good or bad; the issue is how it will be used in a system in which women are sexual and reproductive commodities already, exploited, with lives that are worthless when not serving a specific sexual or reproductive purpose. … The ideology of male control of reproduction will stay what it is; the hatred of women will stay what it is; what will change will be the means of expressing both the ideology and the hatred. The means will give conception, gestation, and birth over to men—eventually, the whole process of the creation of life will be in their hands. The new means will enable men—at last— really to have women for sex and women for reproduction, both controlled with sadistic precision by men.’

You see radical feminists like Dworkin actually understand feminism quite well, they have no pretenses they jealously guard female power, whilst using a victim narrative to attack all forms of male power, this is a power struggle, and feminism is designed as I’ve said, as a perpetual female advocacy machine dedicated towards increasing female power, and this is why the prospect of men obtaining an alternative method of reproduction scares her, she knows, clearly that the power to incubate human life is an immense power, and a tactician such I as myself understands that it must be obtained for men. To be clear I will explain exactly what I’m proposing here, the technology must be developed, so that men can, if they so chose, reproduce without women. The ability for humanity to reproduce the old fashioned way will remain, but another option will be present, one that men, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual can take. This along with male contraception will go a very long way in remedieng the damage that feminism has done.

Now then, we will attempt to put forth an explanation of what feminism is and does from an evolutionary perspective. Any one who has studied feminism in any detail knows that, while they tend to agree on several core tenets, the wage gap or the all encompassing miasma of patriarchy theory, the various sub factions of feminism are far from acting in unison. I do not like to use the term “Radical” feminist because in some form or another, feminists of all stripes elicit extremism toward the male sex deserving of the word, but for the sake of distinction I will note that “radical” feminists often bicker with “sex positive” feminists and other less than…sapphic? manifestations of gynocentric feminism, accusing them of veiled capitulation to the male sex drive for their less than prudish attitudes toward the safe-guarding of female sexuality. The truth of course is that while radical feminists prefer a type of perpetual Lysistrata against the male sex, sex positive feminists go the hyper sexual route, both camps generally seek the same goal, the manipulation of men via female sexuality. The “radicals” on a subconscious level, seek to attack the male sex by rousing the unofficial sisterhood into manufacturing sexual scarcity, either through encouraging women to pursue lesbian relationships (nothing wrong with lesbian relationships btw… just sayin) or via the further criminalization of the male sex drive as we’ve seen with their attempts to constantly move the goal post that defines consent. Here are some examples of how this dynamic can work.

Lets first tackle the notion of age of consent. age of consent and the concept behind it fascinates me because it attempts to give a standard age to which adulthood is intangibly conferred, in order to understand the age of consent we have to understand its biological origins, an analysis of the life expectancy of human beings from the late paleolithic and early neolithic give us the following

We can see that for a very long period, the average life expectancy was only three decades or so. This chart neglects to factor in infant/child mortality and thus the figures we see aren’t completely accurate since they are being driven down by the deaths of infants and young children. There are also studies that correct for infant mortality showing that, in the environment we evolved in, the human bieng has an approximate “natural” life span of about 70 years. One such study looked at the lifespans of current exisiting hunter gatherer tribes and came to the following conclusions:

Our conclusion is that there is a characteristic life span for our species, in which mortality decreases sharply from infancy through childhood, followed by a period in which mortality rates remain essentially constant to about age 40 years, after which mortality rises steadily in Gompertz fashion. The modal age of adult death is about seven decades, before which time humans remain vigorous producers, and after which senescence rapidly

occurs and people die.

We hypothesize that human bodies are designed to function well for about seven decades in the environment in which our species evolved. Mortality rates differ among populations and among periods,

especially in risks of violent death. However, those differences are small in a

comparative cross-species perspective, and the similarity in mortality proﬁles

of traditional peoples living in varying environments is impressive. … Infant mortality is over 30 times greater among hunter-gatherers, and early child mortality is over 100 times greater than encountered in the United States.