Three years ago Vice ran one of their (in)famous panels debating ‘Feminism’ (you can watch the short version here, and the extended version here).
This week, Vice have released an updated panel with different people (here), and while the key questions and topics for discussion changed (for the worst, I would contend), a whole laundry list of issues with both panels either remained, or expanded beyond sanity.
Both panels pretend that people who are not truly female are, that issues that have little or nothing to do with feminism do, and that it is alright for people who hold to Ethnicity, Diversity and Inclusionist ideologies to defend themselves in a debate not with truth, fact or example - but by attacking the external characteristics of anyone who does not hold to those same opinions.
These woke ideologists structure their view of themselves with the victimhood labels they use to describe themselves - the labels they use to describe the many ways they see themselves as being victimised by society or the ways that their life is made challenging. However, and as Sydney Watson points out - if you are a person who responds in kind by trying to tell them about an experience you have had, they use those same labels, labels that they don’t like, to shoot you down and tell you that your opinion doesn’t count or your experience is invalid. While vehermently defending themselves and their right to not be shamed for the characteristics that define their chosen woke ideology, they shame whichever characteristic about the true female is most obvious.
The attacks on those panelists that did not hold to the woke ideologies included…
that true females or anyone who doesn’t agree with [insert woke ideology] held a capitalist feminist ideology
that true females or anyone that doesn’t agree with [insert woke ideology] are fascist and anti-feminist. Seriously - Eli Erlich who said these things was one of the natal males and an accused rapist of people who are and present as genetic females on the panel who portends (pretends?) to be female and, in choose-your-own-pronoun fashion, he/she/it carried these attacks against the natal female feminists on the panel out into the twitter and youtube ‘verses afterward. Absolutely #NoRespect for that.
that no matter how much larger or stronger the man was beforehand, male athletes who take female hormones ‘for a year or two’ (quote from Eli Erlich in the video) somehow have no advantage at all over genetic women athletes.
that you are automatically and unquestionally privileged by virtue of your being white, tall, or even pretty.
Pretty privilege?
What the actual eff is that?
Do these woke leftists even hear themselves speak?
In running these so-called panels, Vice encouraged ideology victimhood. Vice made it clear that they value the appearance of hypocritically supporting woke ideologies over supporting women who have allegedly been raped by one of the panel members…
…and the outcome is that they allow their host moderators to hitch up their metaphorical skirts, take out their male anatomical parts and urinate all over everything that women have fought for since sufferage.
Who did Vice choose to moderate both panels?
In both cases the moderator of the panel, that is to say the Vice ‘journalist’ asking what ostensibly should have been feminist - but in reality were leading, woke ideology and provocating questions, was genetically male. Let that sink in…
That’s right. Vice pre-loaded what were meant to be debates about feminist issues with a trans person moderator who is genetically male but purports to be female. They compounded this lapse in judgement by also populating both panels with several natal males trans people.
We need look no further to understand why in both videos the conversation very quickly descends from feminism into the agonising hellhole that is trans-activism.
Now, I could go down the route of arguing similar lines to Heather Heying that sex is binary and irrespective of what the two presenters want to claim to present as, they are natal male (heck, I would claim to identify as a hot male stud that the young and pretty ladies swoon over… but in spite of my presentation - and in fact many would argue that it is directly because of my presentation - the mere fact that I claim these things in no way has ever made them true). But even that is going too far along the argument and unnecessary. The fact remains, if you want to talk about the inherent struggles of growing up and being A WOMAN, the first and most important predicate should be that the person doing so…
… is actually female!
Not a fake wannabe female or an ‘i’m acting female because I think my insides and my outsides had an argument one afternoon over granola and a soy latte’ and attention-seeking won out over genetics. More power to you and you go “girl”. But seriously, these panels should be led and populated by real honest to goodness genetic females with the lived experience of having grown up as natal females in an unquestionably female body with, and only with, the attendant struggles that life presented them by virtue of being female. The idea that you can (dis)colour or cloud feminism with the struggles of another ideology or alternate lived experience is abhorrent and, as Sydney Watson would appear to suggest, disrespectful to womanhood and the real lived experience of genetic females. Every strong educated (genetic) female I know sees the issues of being female as standing apart from the other ideological issues that both videos seemed to muddle it up with - transphobia, racism, agism, ablism, -ism ism ism… blah blah blah.
No… while these other things might add layers to the onion that is being human, being female is first and foremost its own thing and feminism stands alone as its own body of thought and discourse separate from all these other ‘modern’ and sometimes made-up issues. The use of genetic (natal) males with long hair and squeaky but clearly masculine voices to lead a supposedly feminist discussion just reeks of dishonesty or, more correctly, woke hypocrisy. Vice grossly misrepresent the reasons for why these people were brought together, the stated aims, and the topic of feminism generally.
But have we come to expect anything less from such a leftist bought-and-paid-for shill media outlet?