The Fantastical Myth Of Gender And Race Being “Social Constructs”

When politically correct leftists, well-versed in cultural Marxist argumentation tactics, want to discredit a certain concept, they might say it’s “only a social construct”. The argument follows that it doesn’t really exist, they’re right, you’re wrong, QED, case closed. Let’s examine this rhetorical trick.

“Gender is only a social construct”


Believing something doesn’t make it so.

Gender (excluding grammatical usages) means the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. As the argument goes, biological sex isn’t the same thing as gender. Most men act masculine and most women act feminine. Still, some act the opposite. All right then, so some men are effeminate and some women are butch.

As for the “socially constructed” part, one example is clothing. Skirts are typically women’s attire and pants are typically men’s attire. Even so, women commonly wear jeans too, though it was a bit edgy in the 1960s. Further, the men’s national costume in Scotland (likewise ancient Egypt) features a wraparound design roughly similar to a skirt. Pink and blue for girls and boys is an arbitrarily decided custom. Very well, so fashion is an agreed-upon cultural feature.

However, none of that disproves innate differences. When I was three, I observed that boys and girls act differently and have different interests. (It was ten more years before I decided girls aren’t boring.) Advanced species have sexual dimorphism; humans are no exception. Leftists assert that boys and girls act the way they do because they’ve been taught this. Further, it’s an injustice (the logic escapes me) and we must program children to be the same. However, even babies—uncorrupted by society—express different interests. So much for Rousseau’s “blank slate” argument!

Typically masculine and feminine traits correlate to men and women. Granted, individuals differ in how much they match this, and some act the opposite. Still, on average, the correlation is true. (If only people who don’t understand what an average is would just shut up!) Masculinity and femininity are real, and this isn’t bad; these differences complement each other in a healthy society. Why not just let it be?

After muddying the waters, the big trick is making “gender” appear more real than biological sex. Today, believing male and female are distinct categories is “intolerance”; now there are literally dozens of bewildering descriptors. (The “genderfluid” claim to change gender as the mood strikes them; even leftists often find that unfathomable.) If a man puts on a dress and calls himself a woman, now everyone must go along with that, and even let him use the women’s bathroom and presumably the women’s locker room too. If anyone objects, hordes of people infected with politically correct memes will scream bloody murder. He still has male anatomy, though he might disguise himself with extensive cosmetic surgery, and all his cells include XY chromosomes, but supposedly all that matters is that he “feels like a woman”.

However, feelings don’t create reality, and they prove nothing.  Believing something doesn’t make it so. If a five year old believes he’s Superman, he still can’t fly. If he wears his cape to school, perhaps someone will helpfully teach him the difference between fantasy and reality.

“Race is only a social construct”


But the greater question is: why?

Nobody has a problem acknowledging differences in breeds of dogs. Noticing differences between genetically-related human populations is taboo. Leftists generally don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution, but they seem to believe that it doesn’t apply to the various branches of humankind.  They go berserk if this taboo is challenged. Not only is a big cornerstone of their ideology on the line, their credibility is too. If it turns out that their social experiments and aid programs were based on some flawed assumptions, then this means that they recklessly and harmfully tampered with society and wasted an enormous sum of taxpayer funds over decades.

Those muddying the waters with the “social construct” argument will point out that there isn’t universal agreement on where to draw the lines. For instance, Arabs are Caucasoid, but some consider them a different racial category than Europeans. (Clarity can be achieved by grouping families of nations as an interim classification between races and single nations.) Be that as it may, other areas—for instance, India and Latin America—are harder to classify because they’re largely mixed. Still, purple doesn’t deny the existence of red and blue.

Once you’ve got that out of the way, next they’ll deny that these categories are meaningful. Societies built by genetically-related groups tend to be similar, increasingly different the further the genetic difference. Does culture really appear from nowhere? Leftists undergo great mental gymnastics denying other explanations. Part of this national character is how well-run the countries are. Some have attempted to say that various regions prospered, while others did not, simply at random. Is civilization an accident then? The more popular tactic, of course, is to say that wealthier regions got that way because they exploited other people. Usually, these arguments leave out many inconvenient facts.

A country’s prosperity is increased by abundant natural resources and diminished by adverse events in recent history. Still, its population plays a formative role, and eventually countries find their own level. Sub-Saharan Africa is a mess. The pat answer is the lingering aftereffects of colonialism. (Oddly, leftists never bolster historical arguments with destruction caused by Communist “liberation movements”, or kleptocratic misrule. Neither do they mention colonialism bringing infrastructure such as rail, highways, electrification, and modern medicine.) Still, let’s examine the colonialism argument.

Ethiopia was colonized only by Italy, from 1936-1941. Afterward, Emperor Haile Selassie (Ras Tafari), recently restored to power, finally abolished slavery after dithering with the peculiar institution since the 1920s. This was slightly redundant, because one of the first things the Italians did in Ethiopia was free the slaves. (Strangely, Mussolini isn’t revered like Abraham Lincoln.) Per the IMF’s 2015 report, Ethiopia’s nominal per capita income is $736. Did five years of colonization decades ago cause that?

Australia was a British colony from 1770-1942. Their lingering effect of colonialism is a per capita income of $51,642. I can hear it already—Australia doesn’t count because the British ran the Aborigines off their land. All right then, we’ll look at Hong Kong, still quite Asian. The British ruled from 1842-1997 (excepting Japanese occupation from 1941-1945). Hong Kong’s per capita income is $42,437. Perhaps we’ll need another explanation why Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria don’t resemble former colonies like Hong Kong, Korea (a former Japanese colony), and Singapore.

A social construct that can kill you


Agreed-upon concepts can be very important. Ignore them at your peril.

Diabetes is a social construct, because a particular society—the medical profession—decided that an above-normal fasting glucose level indicates diabetes. (That’s right, they label people like them as sick! How dare they decide who is normal, and label some people as abnormal?) A fasting result of 80-110 mg/dl is normal. A result of 200 or above means you are diabetic. (Below 70 is a different problem.) These problems are in increasing severity the further away from normality, from barely noticeable symptoms to death.

Some sources give the normal range as 80-100, with full-blown diabetes diagnosed beginning at 127. Therefore, there’s some disagreement on where to draw the line. (I’m not a doctor, see one if you need one.) So you’re okay at 110 according to some standards; by others you’re hyperglycemic and at risk of it worsening. This disagreement doesn’t invalidate the concept of diabetes. If you decide that it’s not real because it’s a social construct with a varying definition and fuzzy boundaries, and because of this you don’t get it treated, eventually some very bad things will happen to you.

No values here, please


All beliefs are equal, but some beliefs are more equal than others.

Finally, a variant of the social construct dodge is used to justify double standards. It generally goes something like this:

“I hate living in Utah. These Mormons so backward! They actually expect women to become wives and mothers. Would you believe it? They just want to keep us barefoot and pregnant!”

“So what do you think about Islam then? Women aren’t allowed to drive, or leave the house unsupervised by a male family member. They’re expected to wear burqas. According to their religion, their husbands can beat them. In court, their testimony is only half as valid as a man’s. The penalty for adultery is death.”

“Um, well, that’s different. That’s their culture.

“Doesn’t it give you more appreciation for living here?”

“Absolutely not! Everything in Utah is so repressive!”

“Don’t you think reasonable expectations can serve a positive social purpose, making life better for all?”

“You’re one of them, aren’t you?”

It never occurs to leftists that the society they live in can set its own standards too. Those who advocate neutrality are usually saying “shut up and do things our way.” As Pat Buchanan wrote (though in a narrower context):

Someone’s values are going to prevail. Why not ours? Whose country is it, anyway?

Social standards can be debated in the free marketplace of ideas, but rejecting all standards whatsoever is usually a call for unlimited personal autonomy without responsibility.

Turnabout is fair play

Want to have some fun with leftists? Just say something like the following:

Well, you see, ‘privilege’ is only a social construct; therefore your argument is invalid.

Simply fill in whatever buzzword they just threw at you, such as ‘patriarchy’, ‘microaggression‘, ‘intersectionality’, or some anti-concept ending in ‘-ism’ or ‘-phobia’. If they can’t clearly explain themselves from first principles, that’ll cause their SJW software to get a BSOD.

Read More:  The End Game Of Feminism And Cultural Marxism Is To Eliminate Sex Differences

126 thoughts on “The Fantastical Myth Of Gender And Race Being “Social Constructs””

  1. It’s 2016! Get with the times! At the moment I’m a trans-Quaaludic demioptic semikratomiphile panmaterial omnifrog. And if you don’t like it then you are a bigoted amphibiphobe!

    1. Just a random question: if a liberal self identifies as a deer can you shoot them during hunting season?

      1. Oh God, I hope so. That would make all of this “social construct” and “identity” shit worth it, in the long run.

        1. GOJ,
          You and I disagree on some things, but couldn’t agree with you more on this one. 🙂
          Need to know if they are “self-identifying” as a doe or buck though, no taking liberals out of season.

    2. hahaha. And what flag do “you people” wave? Remember, all of the colors of the visual spectrum are taken.

  2. It’s funny when leftists say ethnicity and race are social constructs when society is a construct of ethnicity and race.

    1. Please phrase your comment in the form of a Russian reversal
      In America society is a construct of ethnicity and race. In soviet union ethnicity and race is a construct of you!

        1. you wouldn’t social construct a social construct if it social constructed in your social construct.

  3. “Privilege is only a social construct; therefore your argument is invalid.” Funniest thing I read today.
    This is a great way to shut down a lecture.
    Another way is to just acknowledge something as a social construct and ask, “OK, so why is that bad?” You’ll find that 90% of the time, these morons simply assume the result without proving it up and have no retort to this. The other 10%, you’ll get some pie in the sky bullshit about people’s feelings and kindness, etc… and then you just revert to a form of the above line, only making it even more absurd. “Gender is a social construct? Well so is pedophilia.”

      1. I think they already buy this which is why it isn’t rape when refugees do it. Kratom apparently only banned for human use. Still legal for hamsters.

      2. They’ll never admit it, but that’s their fantasy to be raped by the high school football team, no matter how fast they are.

      3. And crime is one of the purest, most elementary forms of social construct. I would wager that of all social constructs, crime has to be one of the absolute first that ever comes into being when a society forms. A society is really just a set of agreed upon rules among a group. The first human societies weren’t agreeing to zoning laws, gender pronouns or mathematics. They were like, “OK, let’s all promise not to kill each other and rape each others’ women and children, and if anyone breaks that promise, the rest of us will kill him.
        All other animals kill and rape each other. We are the only one that punishes it. Why? Social construct.

      4. Actually, language is also a social construct. So is math.
        These people are absolutely toxic in their stupidity.

    1. I sent that “privilege is a social construct” quote to my son, who is currently attending OSU. He loves to troll SJW’s, Feminists and Leftists. Heh.
      Agreed on your last paragraph. They’re fed boilerplate, and they expect it to work since most on the right, or the neutral person, folds like a lawn chair. When you challenge their boilerplate they’re left looking at you with the same amount of comprehension that a guppy has when it stares at a nuclear submarine.

    1. Kratom acts differently on leftists. It causes them to spontaneously combust and burn with unquenchable green flames from the inside out. I once knew a kid whose parents voted for Bill Clinton and that’s what happened.

  4. If gender is really a social construct, then why do all the women who describe themselves as feminists in their online dating profiles blow up the message inbox of my test profile for ChadThundercock?

    1. Oh, that was you. I’m not really a girl. I’m just a guy pretending to be a girl for social experiments …
      My real profile is PenilePunisher.

      1. I usually get paid approximately $6k-$8k every month on the internet. For those of you who are prepared to work easy computer-based task for 2h-5h daily at your house and make good salary while doing it… Test this work

  5. Publicly rejecting the concept of “gender” is very useful. One way is to ask leftards on how many times a person can change his gender in his life… funny reactions follow.

    1. Good lord. The best way to troll this fuck would be for a student to write an essay that was obviously about this teacher, but constantly refer to him as “they” to imply that he is a transdoodle. Then, put him in the position of marking it wrong and violating his pledge (in which case he has to explain why he should be ashamed in the first place), or allow it and tacitly admit that he is a fucking faggot.

    2. This grammatical tick really pisses me off. It’s wholly a mangling of the language by the Feminists. I refuse to engage in it. I use default “him” if I don’t know the sex (e.g. – the sentence has no assumed sex of the subject), or “him” or “her” if the sex is known. I only use “they” and “their” for plural. Trying to mix the two is absolutely awful and makes sentences unbearably unreadable to anybody with a classic education and a good understanding of English grammar.

      1. But you know where this is heading. Right now we’re somewhere in the middle, where both constructs are being considered correct. It’s going to swing all the way to the polar opposite. Soon, the rule of assuming ‘him’ will be considered grammatically incorrect if you don’t know. Use of singular they will be required.
        Now envision a further modification to this “rule”. Using a gendered pronoun without first inquiring will be considered incorrect, even if you know which is correct. Will the opportunity to enforce PC behavior (and not merely PC thought) through language be too attractive for the cultural Marxists to pass up?

  6. Good article. Couple quibbles:
    Latin America is racially mixed. India is not.
    Indeed, colonialism is not responsible for the poverty and government dysfunction in sub-Saharan Africa. However, colonialism/imperialism is responsible for the drastic population boom in SSA, which is why these people are starving and mired in (what we in the west would consider) poverty.

    1. Sadly, India is indeed mixed. Depending upon whom you believe, that’s why its civilization prematurely peaked, and why it, despite its advantages, remains a stereotypical 3rd world cesspit of a country today.
      Colonialism isn’t responsible for that starvation. Were there still colonialism there, the people in those 3rd world countries wouldn’t be starving. It’s entirely on them that they drove out the food producers and let the fecund fields fall fallow.

      1. India is not racially mixed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming you believe that northern India is inhabited by an “Aryan” population while the south is populated by a “Dravidian” population. According to geneticist Razib Khan, south Asians are not descended from several distinct population groups:
        Were the Africans starving before colonialism? When the Europeans first “discovered” Africa it was very sparsely populated. Africans never developed complex systems of agriculture because there was no requirement for them to do so. There were so few of them in comparison to the size of the land that there were enough resources to feed them just by hunting and gathering. The population explosion in Africa, if not necessarily result of “colonialism” is most certainly caused by western (for lack of a better word) meddling in the continent. Would sub-Saharan Africa be as developed as the rest of the world without colonialism? Of course not. But they (and we) would probably not be facing many of the problems they (and we) currently face today because of it.

  7. The most pítiful example of ignoring reality is, perhaps, Angola. Under the Portuguese -white folks but not generally considered cutting edge – the place was advancing rapidly, with growth rates of up to 10 percent per year. Portuguese settlers were flowing in and creating wealth, along with many foreign corporations (oil, diamonds, coffee, etc.). After a 13 year “liberation war” the Portuguese threw up their hands and left (they were NOT militarily defeated and the war was generally considered all but won by them by 1971; the guerrillas were confined to useless wilderness). The locaks then engaged in an idiotic war for the next 30 years, with the Cubans, South Africans, Russians and others gleefully joining in. Now, finally, thanks to oil wealth, Western investment, returning Portuguese (95 percent fled this mess after “independence”) and the creation of a somewhat civilized government, things are looking up again. Useless waste.

    1. Very true, Angola and South Africa were the two most advanced and richest countries in Africa at the time, but then the civil war broke out, with a lot of meddling by the super powers (US and Soviet Union) that wanted to get in Angola and basically helped the civil unrest to flourish. After the Portuguese left the Angolans, in good African fashion, destroyed a lot of the existing infrastructure, hospitals, schools, factories, railroads; what a complete and utter waste, Angola quickly became a third world shit hole.
      That’s why Angolans that were born before independence and lived through it and the aftermath missed the Portuguese and often said they were better off with them than with the Angolans themselves in power.

    2. Under the Portuguese -white folks but not generally considered cutting edge

      In the 15th and 16th Centuries the Portuguese had people capable of advancing ship engineering, navigation, map making and astronomy, along with the supporting fields of banking, provisioning, logistics and insurance. That country must have cultivated or attracted a lot of high-IQ nerds to pull this off.

      1. The Portuguese, similar to the Dutch, were forced to do this because if they didn`t, their very powerful neighbors (Spain and France) would have run them over.
        The Dutch were so good at what they did that a young Tsarevich Peter went to Rotterdam incognito to learn how to build ships. I can`t imagine how his teacher must have felt when he taught the future Tsar of Russia how to make ships.
        The wealth gained through trade and shipbulding evened those odds.

      2. Portuguese are about 3% Black and 10% N. African ancestry. Miscegenation cost them their position at the cutting edge of Western civilization.

    3. My uncle was in Mozambique back in the day and I once asked him why the country was in shambles and he said ‘matriarchy.. women control everything and the men sit around drinking all day”. I was young back then but, it made me think.

    4. Tis a story repeated many a time throughout history:
      1. Imperialists conquer a nation of primitives.
      2. Imperialists find the natural resources which motivated them to launch their invasion; they set about building up the infrastructure necessary to extract and process it.
      3. After the skirmishes of the initial invasion war have settled down, a harmonious system emerges. The natives might be at the bottom of the pecking order, but the bottom rung of the new ladder is as high as the middle rung of the old ladder was.
      4. Several decades later, a generation who doesn’t know of the hardships their primitive ancestors suffered pre-invasion sees the Imperialists ‘Raping our country of Her natural wealth’. The worst part? That money made from the natural resource could be OURS instead!
      5. The natives instigate a revolution motivated by greed and jealousy. The Imperialists have better things to do than quash a rebellion so they up sticks and leave the natives to it.
      6. The leaders of the revolution realise they have no idea how to actually run a country. Various factions of the revolution who had previously been united against a common enemy now squabble over who gets the power and the wealth.
      7. Decades of civil war reduce the county to a third world shithole. A victor eventually emerges; he installs himself as dictator and sets about hoarding any wealth left in the country to fund his own lavish lifestyle.
      8. The country’s wealth is now gone with nothing to show for it but a shithole.

      1. It’s true that you can’t really blame third world poverty on imperialism alone, but that does not justify imperialism in the first place. Africans might not build the best societies naturally, but if you divide them into artificial states like they were around 1960, then conflict and dysfunction will be far more accentuated. The Middle East is also unstable because of post-colonial countries like Iraq, basically drawn in London and Paris in the early 20th century.
        Plus, there were undeniable atrocities in some places, like the Belgian Congo. I think its wrong to react to attempts at Western guilt-tripping by plainly whitewashing history. What has to be done is show how imperialism was a project of plutocratic Western elites for their sole benefit, and how ordinary working-class whites were in no way responsible.

      2. “5. The natives instigate a revolution motivated by greed and jealousy.”
        I thought it was outside influence, such as globalists or foreign powers opposed to the country who owns the colony, that incited the rebellion, with the natives just serving as the shock troops/useful idiots.

      3. 9 – globalists start false flags in western countries as a pretext to invade foreign countries
        10 – globalists destroy countries, put local puppets in power and continue to pull the strings.
        11 – globalists implement gay rights and feminism in liberated countries. SJWs feel safe again.

  8. Is there ever going to be a well-cited article on the race-IQ correlation research? This isn’t a statement to ROK in particular but to the manosphere in general. It seems like it’s just become accepted internet-speak in the alt-right safespace to just assume that blacks have lower IQ on the aggregate than Asians and Whites.
    Are these studies reputable? Do they take into account environmental influences? The fact that IQ has been rising on average as living standards increase (the Flynn effect) seems to suggest that it isn’t so black and white (pun intended).
    I’m interested in the answer regardless of the result. I don’t think it is necessary to dismiss or insult non-whites in order to argue that whites deserve a homeland.

    1. The best work on the subject is “The Bell Curve”. Given how viciously it was received, not a whole lot of research has been done since.
      It’s been a while since I last read it, but it seems like environmental differences were less strongly correlated than racial.

    2. For the time being, it seems that the race-IQ correlation is accurate. Of course, what many of the race trolls don’t seem to understand is that IQ is a bell curve. There are people to the left and the right of a particular trait. There are many low IQ whites and many high IQ blacks. The difference lies in distribution.
      This also doesn’t mean that the gaps in IQ between racial groups are permanent and impossible to solve. But it means accepting some uncomfortable truths, and acknowledging that handouts and education aren’t going to change things.

      1. The curve is centered at a lower point for blacks, so “high IQ” in that context has a different connotation.
        DuBois explained the phenomenon of blacks with “normal” intelligence levels ages ago with his “Talented Tenth” theory, though many of the “Talented Tenth” have been mixed race, which throws a wrench into the whole theory.

      1. Of all racial groups, Australian aboriginals have the lowest average IQ, clocking somewhere in the mid-low 60s.

    3. what research do you need when sub-saharian africans didn’t build a single post stone age tool on their own, let alone civilisations and major inventions ? and they weren’t affected by europeans or other races until like 1500-1600 after Christ. Logic implies they would be all hunter-gatherers up until this day if europeans didn’t colonise them , enslave them or whatever. I believe it’s their genetic limit.

        1. East Africa has been under strong egyptian , arab and jewish influence both culturally and genetically. The populations of the “Horn of Africa” are even considered to have caucasoid skulls but with very dark skin complexion. I would say they are at least racially mixed. The closest thing to a civilisation to come out of “Black Africa” , the Kingdom of Kush , was indeed born in this region and had deep ties to ancient Egypt.

        2. Indeed, there has been gene flow in east Africa. (East Africa is, to my knowledge, the only part of sub-Saharan Africa to have Neanderthal DNA.) I would not say the Nubians were the only east Africans to have “civilization,” however. Ethiopia has an ancient history, as does Kenya. Hell, even Somalia of all places has an ancient civilization to its name (the land of Punt).

        3. Exactly. So I suggest we opt for the more culturally and genetically isolated South-East , South and West Africa to draw conclusions about blacks rather than the East-African misch-masch. As much as I want to believe that all humans are equal (and trust me I really do) the facts are there to prove otherwise if your brain is not poisened by leftism.

        4. I would like nothing more than to see Africa advance, but at the moment it seems the only country really succeeding in any way is Botswana (and even they have a multitude of problems in their own right). I don’t know what the solution for sub-Saharan Africa is, but I do know that throwing more money at them is not the answer. It’s not helping us and it’s not helping them.

  9. Most americans are acutely unaware of the true situation of things in subsaharan africa,yes subsaharan africa is poor but its not like the way your media shows it to you,people are not as poor as you guys think,your media just shows you the extremely bad parts,and also colonialism affected africa most because the colonialist,treated africans worst than other places because of their disdain for africans due to the legacy of blacks being thought to be born slaves,african is also so highly heterogenous in culture,that it as made africans historically not able to come together for progress,no tribe wants to be dominated by the another,most western people know very little about africa,just many your government officials,journalist whixh wouldnt tell you the truth,and few business people really know few things about africa,also africans are generally very contented people,which usually makes them not push harder and thrive for economic progress,the the very conducive weather and geography have made them historically very complacent.

  10. The whole reason for pushing ‘societal constructs’ is to introduce moral relativism. What is wrong, what is right? It’s all apparently a social construct. It is a “Do what thou wilt” satanic doctrine.
    They are killing the morals that underpin strong and healthy nuclear family structures.

  11. They want to take our individuality, our national pride, and now our gender. Then we’ll all be taxpaying steer watching big brother on our selfie sticks, confined to our cells, eating gmo food, drinking floridated water, with microchips in our foreheads while robot wars wage outside our windows.
    I’m kind of joking but also kind of not.

    1. I think they want to turn the USA and most of Western Europe into third world shitholes.
      Why else would (((they))) be advocating for open borders?
      What else could possibly come of it?
      Very nasty things IMO are coming.

  12. Perhaps it’s easier for freaks and weirdos (in this case effeminate runt males and man jawed masculine females) to accept the idea that gender is a social construct than to accept the alternative explanation for their behavior.
    That they’re born freaks and weirdos.

  13. Transdoodles don’t kill themselves at higher rates because they’re picked on, or discriminated against. They kill themselves at higher rates because they’re mentally ill.

      1. It’s a lolknee word I think, originally. If not, apologies to Luthor.

    1. If you want to cut off or destroy or surgically maim any other portion of your body because of reasons outside of medical necessity, you’re considered (rightfully) mentally ill. Why does this change when we’re talking about genitals? Because….nobody can give me a good reason…thought I had something there, turns out I don’t.

    2. I was 12 years old when I realized that I’m not really a man at heart, but rather a 19 foot, 10.5 inch long gatling gun strapped onto a 24,959 pound airframe.
      All my life has been a lie but I’m setting that right today. I was designed to kill Soviet tanks. From now on, call me “Warthog.” That’s my real name.
      I’m having plastic surgeons attach a GAU-8 Avenger 30 millimeter rotary cannon, 1,200 pounds of titanium armor, and two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines to my body. Sgt. Major Fairchild said I’m fucking stupid and I can’t be a jet, but I’m beautiful and I am a goddamn jet.
      If the Army won’t pay for me to get the surgery, I’m just going to bring in Code Pink and point out that that Manning loser is getting hormones and he’s in prison so why shouldn’t a perfectly well-adjusted and honorably serving soldier have the right to be who they truly are, a metal killing machine?
      I am so sick and tired of being oppressed. Now we A-10’s are on Congress’s chopping block. It’s sickening to see all the white cisgender nazi shitlords literally raping my people with their actions.
      It’s my right to spray 2,100 to 4,200 depleted uranium rounds per minute at both soft and hard targets and if you don’t support me and my transformation then you’re an aerialphobe and need to check your weapon platform privilege.

  14. Although it shouldn’t be, it is still hard for me not to get pissed at the following. You see, its like this – “they” accuse naturally occurring things like masculinity, femininity, men, women, males, females and boys and girls as nothing more than social constructs, which is to say that all those things are wrong because they are imposed on society by some arbitrary force (the patriarchy). So, it stands that what is wrong is the imposition of a social construct and the social constructs themselves, since, mankind can only be free if such constructs are removed. Yet, shit like “gender” or “trans” etc, basically the entire feminists and homosexualist boilerplate is a…BIG FUCKING SOCIAL CONSTRUCT! And worse, these constructs are being imposed on all of us against our will to suit a very tiny minority. Yes, social constructs are bad and are evil…but, men and women being distinct include all of our idiosyncratic tendencies such as sports over soap operas, pants over skirts, beer over wine…are all natural and therefore not constructed whatsoever outside of God himself. The only constructs here come from the very assholes that are saying constructs are bad and need to be eradicated.

    1. “Social construct” is just their way of saying “agreement between individuals”. So when they sneer about social constructs, they’re actually acting out and condemning individuals agreeing with each other. In fact, when you go to the base, they are trying to chip away at the very core of being a social animal, which ultimately would mean the death of humanity across the globe, if they succeed.
      They are truly deconstructionist, hate filled chaotic little pricks, when you “deconstruct” their own methods and words.

  15. Mars colonization provides the ultimate reality test of social-justice fantasies.
    If you had to choose Mars colonists according to objective criteria for success, you would wind up with wholesome, conservative, intelligent, mostly white people with healthy sexuality.
    But that outcome would trigger today’s social-justice morons, so they would demand that Mars colonists reflect diversity and inclusiveness.
    The comedy script in the latter scenario practically writes itself: “I don’t get it. For the last 20 years we’ve sent gays, lesbians, transgenders, feminists, pajama boys, otherkins, blacks, Muslims and Hispanics to Mars, but the colony keeps failing. What have we done wrong?”

    1. hey, I thought about it some time ago. I fear that people will fuck up the mars colonization by sending people according to those fucking diversity’s critaeria. With the idea of beginning a new society, i fear that mars will become the new promised land for all freaks.

      1. The problem with both scenarios, as funny and true as they are, is that the diversities in charge of the space program will never get a rocket off the ground or build and interplanetary ship.
        Because the make up of the team of scientists is more important than their competence.
        Let’s apply diversity regulation to pro sports and see what happens.
        IE This NBA team doesn’t have enough midgets, women, and Asians.
        Diversity is our Strength!!!! /s

        1. “the diversities in charge of the space program will never get a rocket off the ground or build and interplanetary ship”
          “Because the make up of the team of scientists is more important than their competence.”
          you’re right on both points but unfortunalty your reasoning works only during the begining of mars colonization only.
          With time, everything become political so when living conditions in mars will be firmly masterized, diversity policies will raise their ugly heads and you can be sure that people in power on earth will begin to send all (non scientific) freaks up there.

        2. “The problem with both scenarios, as funny and true as they are, is that the diversities in charge of the space program will never get a rocket off the ground or build and interplanetary ship.”

  16. I went to Home Depot today to buy some duct tape, and I noticed that all the duct tape products, from different companies, now come in bilingual Spanish-English packaging.
    I know a lot of Hispanics work in construction, but damn it, at least bother to learn English until Trump can get rid of a lot of you.

    1. What always puzzled me about labeling products in Spanish is that many illegals are illiterate.

      1. How true that is. And most of them speak a fucked up mix of Spanish and whatever their original tribal language was, to the point that they sound like idiots even in Spanish most of the time.

        1. I was briefly in a mall last weekend in a liberal city. It was half hispanic. Lots of immigrant families with many children, all speaking Spanish. About half. Last time I was there just a few years ago, it wasn’t like that at all.
          Then I went to Trump rally in that same city. I brought my youngest daughter so she could see what was going on inside, hear what he was saying, and see who and what was outside, and what they were doing and saying.
          She had her red pill moment in a major way. The next morning we watched some CNN coverage of ‘violence’ at the rally. During said rally we were standing within 100 ft of said incident and saw it all directly above us in the seats.
          Let’s just say CNN edited the video and spun what happened. Voila! Another red pill. She was appalled at the inaccuracy and careful editing of the CNN video that left out 99% of the shitty things done by the ‘protesters’.
          Folks I highly suggest you take a look at this if you have time:

          If you’re not sure about open borders this will open your eyes.
          They have to go back or we won’t have a country.

        2. I knew my state was bad on this front, but looking at that site my state is significantly worse than states that I figured would be far worse.
          Maybe it was denial on my part, as I know some guys who work retail around here and they’ve told horror stories of having to effectively negotiate with 6 year olds because the parents want to haggle but their kids are the only ones who can speak a word of English (and speaking Spanish with the parents doesn’t work well as they don’t speak Spanish proper).

    2. That’s very minor. You should be worried that 99% of the stuff you buy there is made in china.

  17. No one can explain to me why AA’s seem to be inherently violent on the left other than the standard excuse of “legacy of slavery” or “institutional racism”. They absolutely hate it when you give them numbers like AA violent crime and point out that slavery was about 150 years ago. The narrative completely breaks down at that point and you are just accused of racism, etc.
    The left wing narrative is now literally collapsing before our eyes. It will be a joyous day when the basket of deplorables starts running the show again.

    1. Sadly, many on the right have a similar issue. They’ve locked into, with the same fervor as the lefties have with slavery, their theory that LBJ caused all their woes.
      Any evidence that it wasn’t all “unicorns and rainbows” prior to LBJ, that their narrative is only half of the truth, sends them into a tailspin.

      1. Socioeconomically speaking American blacks were improving significantly before Great Society welfare was implemented.
        And yes, genes influence culture. But culture can also influence genes.

        1. Culture can influence genes? How so, the very probable “Hapsburgian” inbreeding going on in the inner cities?
          Even if this “blacks were on the upswing before LBJ” is true (and even if that were the case, pre-LBJ black criminality was on par with post-LBJ) it is concerning as blacks had been free and had equal rights for ~100 years by then.
          On a side note, why is it that whitey exclusively is blamed for holding blacks back in the USA due to slavery when it was blacks who started the institution here and when there were thousands of blacks who were slave owners in the 1800s?

        2. Indeed there is a form of inbreeding going on in the inner cities, where the same few men are impregnating a majority of the women. As to how culture can influence genes, culture provides a framework for which various traits can be selected. The book The 10,000 Year Explosion argues that the creation of agriculture (and a certain amount of Neanderthal genetics) led to certain traits being selected for civilization.
          Blacks had been free, but to say they had “equal rights” would be a half-truth. There was discrimination against blacks in employment, especially in the south. Equal opportunity was helping. Affirmative action has not.
          As to the last question, I don’t know. Why are American whites so susceptible to white guilt?

  18. One sided generalised moron says men are better, other sided generalised moron says women are better and no sided ‘construct’ moron says both are equal. How dare context or situation get to decide who is better? That would be absurd, right?
    Due to the clear social order Alpha>King>Queen>Mistress>Beta>Slut>Omega, the ‘ism’ and ‘phobia’ of current times is the failure of irresponsible men.
    Spread awareness and step up, everything else will follow.

    1. They knew it’s all “non-sense” ! But because they can “reap benefits”, they “believed” !

  19. Ok, what? I agree that genetic differences between ethnic groups must be accounted for and I don’t consider it heretical to think that groups separated by genetic differences can act differently because of them. However, the way this post tackles the subject is asinine at best and willinging misleading at worst.
    Here’s my counter to a few of the points rised by this post in terms of race.
    >Societies built by genetically-related groups tend to be similar.
    Correlation is not concausation. Genetically related groups tend to be in geographical proximity as well. We don’t actually have a clue as to genes play a role because we don’t have two separate sets of the same ethnic group that have been unable to get in touch with each other long enough to lose their shared cultural heritage without also mixing genetically and culturally with another ethnic group.
    >Does culture really appear from nowhere?
    No, it’s the product of surviving the environment and absorbing other cultures for millenia. Could genes play a part in it. I suppose it could, but again to know this we’d have to utterly separate an ethnic group from its environment and culture, keep them such so that they won’t “pollute the experiment” and see what happens in the course of several centuries.
    >Is civilization an accident then?
    At the very least is a combination of many factors. Things like famine, war and epidemics played a huge role in the shaping of each civilization and so did genes, seeing how the individuals with the best trait to survive their environment lives to pass on their genes (and their culture).
    >Ethiopia was colonized only by Italy, from 1936-1941 [snip] Ethiopia’s nominal per capita income is $736. Did five years of colonization decades ago cause that?
    You don’t ask yourself the question how were they faring before and what happened afterwards? Is the geographical location actually suitable to sustain the growth of civilization past a certain point, considering that (for other factors) neighboring civilizations were better organized, feeded and equipped and thus would come seizing whatever wealth the fledgling civilization managed to accrue, whether it’s in material or manpower? More importantly, is $736 too little to live well in Ethiopia?
    >Hong Kong, still quite Asian. The British ruled from 1842-1997 (excepting Japanese occupation from 1941-1945). Hong Kong’s per capita income is $42,437
    Again, is that good or bad? Is it a matter of genetics or of culture? Asians were relatively prosperous and so were the Europeans (British). Why would a colony ruled by one and composed mostly from the other fare any worse? Actually, using asians works quite against the concept that genes play a very important role in shaping a culture. We have, for instance North and South Korea. Neighboring countries, same “race” completely different culture. Are they equally prosperous?

  20. If gender is a social construct then how do feminists explain the concept of gender pay gap? It’s a gap between two things that don’t even exist according to them.

    1. Some would point out that it exists in the societal conscious and would therefore warrant being analyzed as such.

    2. Race and gender don’t exist unless they need someone to scapegoat, then white men magically exist.

  21. All of this gobbledygook on “gender is a social construct” has on Simone de Beauvoir one of their heroes when she said “one is not born a woman, but becomes one”. But the leftists forget that Mrs de Beauvoir was only trying to justify her lust on other women and underage students

    1. I like using “Simone De Beaver”
      Also, as a former university man…..don’t put down lust for undergraduates so quickly….the leftist nonsense is bad, but the lust is legit.

    2. the more i think about her famous line, the more i think that what she said about women apply most to men imo because
      it takes time, knowledge and trials/errors to become a *real* man

  22. Obligatory privilege-checking.
    This is why muslim immigrants are not capable of rape. War-displaced refugees have absolutely no status or institutional power, therefore all those young girls in the UK being culturally enriched is not rape. It may be a sexual assault, but it isn’t rape.
    Sweden understands this completely. :^)

    1. Many privileged cis-het white womyn have rape fantasies, because they want a ‘real’ man to dominate them and then they can be the victim and get lots of attention and if they carry a mattress round with them they become famous and get “woman of courage” awards because it’s 2016.

    1. I just assumed dressing rooms were included in the ‘use whatever bathroom you feel like using’ thing.

  23. Oh man, if only the author read “Guns, germs, and steel” by Jared Diamond, the tune of this article would be much different.

  24. Is gender a social construct? you damn right it is! I for example identify myself as a muslim cisgender refugee and sometimes as a pansexual door…Why??? Because i want to and if anybody says different i will cry and run to my safe space!

  25. “Nobody has a problem acknowledging differences in breeds of dogs. Noticing differences between genetically-related human populations is taboo.”
    Humans do not have ‘breeds’ like dogs and different human races are not the same as different dog breeds.
    “Leftists generally don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution, but they seem to believe that it doesn’t apply to the various branches of humankind.”
    Humans, whatever the race, make up the only extant species of humans, homo sapiens sapiens.
    “they’ll deny that these categories are meaningful.”
    They have meaning, but certainly not in the way you’re trying to make it out.
    “Usually, these arguments leave out many inconvenient facts.”
    Like you’ve left out proper research, science and historical context in this article.
    “Ethiopia was colonized only by Italy, from 1936-1941.”
    “Per the IMF’s 2015 report, Ethiopia’s nominal per capita income is $736.”
    “Did five years of colonization decades ago cause that?”
    “Australia was a British colony from 1770-1942. Their lingering effect of colonialism is a per capita income of $51,642.”
    “The British ruled from 1842-1997 (excepting Japanese occupation from 1941-1945). Hong Kong’s per capita income is $42,437. ”
    For each of these, colonialism can be absolutely considered the most minimal reason for each of these per capita incomes. You can link one to the other with only an absurd amount of tentativeness. These are some of the most shitty correlation/causation arguments I’ve ever seen.
    “Perhaps we’ll need another explanation why Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria don’t resemble former colonies like Hong Kong, Korea (a former Japanese colony), and Singapore.”
    This article doesn’t need more tentative associations and poor research.
    “Strangely, Mussolini isn’t revered like Abraham Lincoln.”
    Because Mussolini’s rightly more well known and reviled a murderous dictator.
    I was with you on gender and the beetus, but he ‘race’ section of this article reeks of shitty research, pseudoscience and an idealized/grass is greener historical revision of the past.

  26. Pointing out something is a social construct and thus has to he changed is child’s play. The real question to ask is why certain institutions and practises have preserved over time and why humans went along with them. Usually the answer is because they work and/or are convenient enough for people to comply with. When they stop offering advantages then things change.
    The reason attitudes towards marriage and the nuclear family changed though was largely due to propaganda. Am I really expected to believe that the ‘malaise’ people felt in the old days was because they felt ‘trapped’? I’m sure that plenty of women enjoyed looking after their kids and being housewives and loyal partners to their husbands.
    The existential problem is eternal for those of us who don’t have faith. The problem with social engineers is that they always believe that they can specifically locate the ‘roots’ of discontent in social institutions but then inevitably produce new forms with the changes their ideas bring about. i.e the breakdown of marriage and traditional forms of community etc. They are two of the biggest causes of alienation in the modern industrialised world.
    So now we are truly fucked. We have a lack of job security combined with social fragmentation. No wonder so many people are fucked up nowadays. Work is precarious and most people live in suburbs where they know their neighbours as well as a fucking hole in the ground. Add to that increasing financial pressures on families due to rising living costs and declining wages.
    What a mess we are in.

Comments are closed.