Monday, October 08, 2018

Redefining rape

It's important that conservatives force liberals to be consistent. During the Kavanaugh hearings, liberals were reading from an old script. According to that script, biological men rape biological women. 

But according to transgenderism, those categories are defunct. According to the new script, a "transgender woman" (i.e. biological male who self-identifies as female) can rape a biological woman. But if you're supposed to believe women, which woman are you supposed to believe–the biological woman or the "transgender woman"? 

Or suppose, before "she" transitioned, the "transgender woman" was convicted of raping a biological woman. But according to GLAAD, transgender identity is retroactive:

So the rapist was never a man. But in that event, which "woman" are you supposed to believe? 

Or suppose a "transgender woman" rapes a gay adolescent boy. Who are you supposed to believe–the "woman" or the homosexual? 


  1. Deception is rarely, if ever, immediately consistent. The answer is, of course, we are supposed to believe whatever is most politically expedient. What I wonder most is, how many people who repeat these inconsistent ideas actually know that they are deceptions? If someone who propagates then knows they are deceptions, then the question becomes, what is their real agenda? Whatever agenda they truly have can't be something they believe will be publicly accepted, which necessitates the deception.