What is a woman? Gender weirdness and the burden of proof

 

I don't know what a woman is and don't need to care. Conservative treat this like some sort of gotcha but then you look into the issue and you find out that there are all kinds of weird little intersex conditions that can make you have female parts while being a male or have male parts while being a female. There's a whole discussion on the subject of intersex individuals so defining a woman as a person with two X chromosomes doesn't quite work. Defining a woman as a person with larger gametes also doesn't quite work. Defining a person based on how they present externally doesn't work either because of the very same surgical modifications that transgender individuals practice. Then there's a second entire discussion about what constitutes gender. There is one discussion about biological sex and another about gender, and that adds even more confusion to the issue. I think that all of this is a giant red herring that distracts from the real thing that needs to be discussed, and it isn't the gotcha that conservatives think it is—and makes you look quite stupid when you bang on and on about "define a woman!" "See, you can't even define it!" Yeah but that's the point, they can't define it because nobody can. 

Everyone's missing the real issue here. 

Which is that patriarchy, or heteronormativity, or whatever feminists want to call it, is undoubtedly required for the continued survival of the species. You can't just deconstruct something is ancient as male dominance and expect humans to continue to survive and reproduce. The oppressive structures (and I say that with no irony) that feminist rage against are probably the reason we all exist. 

Whatever the case, there is a non-zero probability that deconstructing those oppressive structures will result in the termination of the species. With such drastic consequences at stake the burden of proof is on anyone tampering with it to establish beyond any doubt—not just a reasonable doubt—that it is safe to do so. Sorry bitch, you have to prove that abolishing patriarchy is safe. We look around and we see that the more education women receive the less children they have. We see that allowing women to have access to the internet has ruined their mental health (far more than it has affected men). Every statistic is pointing to the conclusion that giving women freedom crashes birth rates. 

Feminism, and genderfuckery in general, need to meet the following minimum requirements and burdens of proof to be taken seriously;

1. That the human species will have the numbers to continue even with women liberated.
2. That these numbers will skew sufficiently in favor of the high IQ to prevent the dysgenic collapse of civilization.
3. As a contingency regardless of the above two;
1. Come up with a configuration for a system to replace patriarchy that guarantees the survival and reproduction of the species, and establish that this new system has a high probability of working 
2. Describe in detail the methods by which the species will continue to survive: artificial wombs? Education and lifestyle choices? Men hooked up to sperm milking farms? Trad lifestyle with safe words?

The discussion is completely backwards because they have shifted the burden of proof to you to argue against change even when such change may be disastrous. No one is obligated to consider the opinion of someone who is engineering the collapse of the species and won't even consider that what they are doing is disastrous. No one is required to respect these people. It is dishonorable, dishonest, weasel behavior to use vague terminology to evade responsibility for one's program, to pretend one doesn't have a program or system, to pretend that one only wants to deconstruct the existing system, to ignore the potential implications of that deconstruction. Feminism proposes an alternate system even when it refuses to propose anything. The burden of proof is on the weasel to establish that humanity will continue.

And this goes to an entire problem with modernity; the problem that people who question technological progress are treated as mad and not the people engendering revolutionary change. There's micro plastic in our balls for God's sake, and you want me to have blind faith in revolution? We have endured a thousand revolutions already and gotten for our troubles: global warming, microplastics, ocean acidification, low sperm counts, collapsing birth rates, transgender suicides, 95 million dead from communism, mass migrations, dysgenic demographic change, the loneliness epidemic, porn addiction, a fentanyl epidemic, political tribalism from smartphones, should I continue? Every technology is a revolution. Every social change is a revolution.

Demanding proof before another revolution is not oppressive. It is revolution which is oppressive, it is revolutionary change which is oppressive, and it is all the revolutions of the past that must be cancelled if humanity is to survive. Technology must once again be made to serve man and not man to serve it. That is going to mean drastically limiting its use. It is going to mean canceling gender ideology and feminism and everything else revolutionary.