Transgender women dating stealth

Justifying the Unjustifiable

When an argument is a train wreck

There is nothing easy about writing an unpopular opinion, for most people that is. It may be that I am a brave person although admittedly I’m burdened by the same fears, challenges and search for individual purpose as everyone else. When I was a child in the 80s I experienced daily verbal, emotional abuse and various forms of humiliation at the hands of my mother and all her alcoholic boyfriends. I recall being locked in a bedroom for nearly two months when I was nine years old. I was called stupid, ugly, worthless, retarded and I was often ignored during special events. I spent a lot of time alone in my room. I could not make friends because we were constantly having to move due to my mother not being able to pay rent for our crappy trailer.

My own borderline mother was the most evil person I ever knew, and her cruelty towards me even caused me to develop a disorder called selective mutism. Selective mutism is a severe anxiety disorder most commonly seen in children subjected to a life of verbal and emotional abuse. I was literally unable to speak to classmates at school or to relatives I did not see often out of fear I would say something stupid. I remember my sister used to tease me, "Naomi is a mute! Naomi is a mute!" But the teasing was nothing compared to the deep pain I felt in my heart, the isolation and absence of any self-esteem.

I remember being twelve years old, walking along an old country road for thirty minutes looking for a place to sleep because my mother was getting the crap kicked out of her by some drunk boyfriend. I remember eating raw potatoes because my drunk mother lost her welfare check in a bar. I know what it feels like to wear rags to school, to be thrown against the wall and have my hair pulled out. I've known unspeakable pain, most of which I chose never to speak about. Eventually I transitioned to the foster care system and it was no better. As a foster child I always knew that I was never as meaningful to my foster parents as their own biological child. I know what it feels like to see my foster mother cash that check from the state she got for having me only to use to buy her daughter a new leather jacket. I lived in foster homes that had mattresses on the floor, at night, I endured the sounds of screaming kids and banging walls. I've seen as many as five girls sleep in one room, some of them with their own kids.

When it comes to verbal and emotional abuse, I know that I understand it more than most people. I've learned how to deal with bullies, how to be strong and how to set boundaries. I've also been rescued from foster homes too. I've learned that wolves live on the left, on the right, and how to adapt myself without being a victim of any person's emotional terrorism. Fortunately, most people in this world are good and I've been lucky to know many of them.

Those dark days are long gone. I hardly think about them, and although it may be hard for many people to believe, they don't impact my day to day life.  I received some help along the way, and I also worked my tuchus off too so I feel entitled to what I've earned. 

I became an atheist in my early twenties and never looked back, although I would never try to take away someone else's religion for the same reason I would never take away a man's crutches. The Christians are long gone, but every now and again, an elitist member of the church of 'woke' tries manipulating me into their cult.  After all, I am a white, heterosexual woman who apparently needs to be 'schooled'' about what it means to suffer in this world by people who will never know the levels of suffering I’ve endured, nor the fortitude required to allow suffering to become part of my flesh, so that I may have the hope the sun will rise tomorrow. These people will never know my pain and they will never understand.

Today I write about a sickening argument a long time family friend told me. What came out of this person's mouth was so revolting to me, I felt like I wanted to stick my head in the toilet and take another look at the day's lunch because vomiting is a more pleasurable experience.

The triggering topic is this: Is there a moral duty to disclose to one’s partner that they are transgender? I argue that yes – there is a moral duty to disclose one is transgender to a partner before engaging in sexual activity. My woke family friend disagrees, presenting me with one of the weirdest arguments I’ve ever heard in my life. When I say weird, I mean barking mad. I found this particular argument especially egregious because it was plagiarized from the internet, predicated on emotional blackmail and rose to such a level of stupidity the mere fact he presented it to me was a insult to my intelligence.

For the purpose of this argument, I will call him "John".  John's argument was based on the idea that a biological man outraged that he unknowingly had sex with a passing transgender female is equal to a white racist male outraged he slept with a woman who is a quarter black. He argues that for biological males to sleep with a passing transgender woman is the same as if he slept with a woman who had a hysterectomy.   

Before examining this situation, it is important to gain an understanding of who John is. I have known him for a while, and know him to be a kindhearted individual who is actively involved in advocating for transgender youth and other issues he perceives as social injustices. John wants his peers to view him as highly intelligent and enlightened compared to other American men. Although he is a good person, he is also an extreme left-wing moral relativist who quickly conforms to social activism. He entertains thoughts about people, particularly Republicans, without any supporting evidence. He is more concerned with being right than producing rational conclusions supported by logic, reason, and data. He is strictly opposed to any form of compromise. Blue is always right. Red is always wrong. And don't event think of trying to make Purple.

In times that I’ve lost my way, John has always been there the best he could. If anything, I hope one understands that writing this blog is not easy for me. Who could write disparaging things about someone dearly loved? After some thought, I realized this blog is not entirely about John’s insane argument, his attempt at manipulating me or even the anger I feel knowing that every word that came out of his mouth was plagiarized from the internet. John is a metaphor for everything wrong with affiliating oneself with the Church of ‘Woke’. Although John is a real person and the experience was entirely real, I wish my readers to think of this person as many people, a collective unit moving though the world without carrying the burden of being a true individual. John is a metaphor for the masses, sacrificing their self-esteem to follow a herd. He is a metaphor for the Christian, Jew, Muslim - and all the conformists who join groups, partake in group think for the false sense of morality and righteousness that feeds that frail self esteem with the momentary high of any narcotic. John is a metaphor for all those people unwilling and unable to see objective reality for it's objectivity, because the priority for the religious and the woke is to get through the day anesthetized to the pain of living, to ease the passage of each day with an adopted delusion.

John and Don Quixote are one in the same, two sides of the same coin, tilting windmills with a chivalrous heart, charging in the righteous pursuit to rid the world of the hetero-normative Nazi demon that exists only in an imaginary world of speculation.

When Don Quixote and his companion Sancho Panza arrive upon the windmills, Panza sees windmills and sails turning by the wind while Quixote sees the giants arms. Panza tells Quixote these are only windmills, not giants. Quixote rationalizes Panza’s claim, explaining the difference in their perception is because Panza lacks experience, is fearful, and should just step aside while the wise Quixote engages in the giants battle. In this blog we will analyze John’s thought mechanisms, understanding the he and Quixote are two sides of the same coin. Our goal is to realize that he too rationalizes the irrational, and cannot see objective reality. John-Quixote’s thought mechanisms broadly represent our human potential for misguided fights romanticized in our minds.

The above video mathematically dismantles John-Quixote's irrational argument while this blog exposes what happens to the mind when it contracts the woke virus. The woke virus doesn't infect the brain like like a tumor because tumors can happen to anybody. The virus infects those with only certain psychological needs, the need to be on the side of righteousness, the need to be part of a group, the feeling of safety in numbers and the need to conform. The woke virus doesn't infect inherently bad people, it infects good people who believe they know what is right for eight billion people inhabiting this planet.

Lets get into it....

John: "If a white cis gender racist sleeps with a light skinned black female, discovers her African ancestry and is outraged. Naomi, can he sue her for not telling him?"  He compares that situation to a passing transgender woman who sleeps with a man without informing him that she was assigned male at birth. 

Naomi (that would be me), sits there silently listening.

John: "I don't understand Naomi, because the only difference between you and the passing transgender woman is that you have a uterus. If you had a hysterectomy, could a guy you are with sue you for not being a 'real woman' because the uterus is the only difference!" 

Naomi: "That sounds like a faulty analogy." And - I quite literally left it at that. Since then, I speak to John only when necessary and to keep other family members happy.  I don't know what was worse, listening to that perplexing argument or that time I was tricked into watched two girls one cup. According to John Quixote women with hysterectomies are the same as transgender women. By that logic post menopausal women are also transgender women. My head started to hurt, not because I needed an advil rather because someone just whacked me over the head with a stupid stick. In order to understand John's other worldly argument, one must first understand what it means to be an evangelical member of the church of Woke.

The term ‘woke’ is a lighthearted description of the sort of person who believes their mission in life is to correct the thought mechanisms of every other human being on planet earth. Members of the church of woke believe they own morality, they are performing the lord’s work, and pursue apocalyptic battles so the world will arrive at Utopia. John Quixote's Utopia, as far as this blog is concerned, is a magical place where all men are open to screw any passing transgender woman. If penis transplants were possible, all women are open to screwing trans men. It is a magical world where in the bedroom, chromosomes do not matter to any person who wants to have sex for the pure enjoyment of it. It is a world where morals are relative, lines easily shift and all people are willing to screw anyone in a beautiful, crying wonderland of gender equality. 

The woke utopia is a magical place where all heterosexual birdies are too infantile to know their own sexual orientation, necessitating daddy bird to fly into the nest, spitting his views of sexuality into their gaping mouths because apparently the chickadees never went through puberty and need to be told how to feel about their own sexuality. The underlying truth is that John Quixote enjoys being Daddy Bird a little too much. He enjoys treating adults like children, 'schooling'  them how they ought to feel about their own sexuality. Daddy Bird gets very angry when the chicks do not comply, knowing what to do to keep them in line - it's called shame. As if humanity hasn't been dealing with that crap for the last 2000 years.

You see, John Quixote's mission is to correct the thought mechanisms of every single heterosexual person, ensuring they have the same sexual orientation, same feelings about gender, same feelings about their bodies and same feelings about chromosomes in the bedroom. If anything this sounds like a rule thirty-four porn hub fetish one falls into because regular porn just doesn't do it for them anymore.

Historically, we cannot deny our history of misogyny, hatred for homosexuals and transgender people. The reality is that American society has gained equality in all realms, the woke believe the struggle isn’t over and that the battles are more serious now than at any point in the past. John and those like him present the false narrative that it’s never been worse for gays or transgender individuals in America than at any time in history. None of this is a fair estimation of society. 

In the real world, racists are pushed to the margins and have no position of power or authority. In the real world, transgender women have equal rights and are afforded the same opportunities as every other person. When a social injustice happens, as in the case of George Floyd, the woke cherry pick the incident, then present it throughout social media as if that one incident is a representation of American society, when in reality it is an outlier. I'd like to be clear that I've busted just as many Republicans cherry picking incidents, and portraying them as if those rare cases represent the average. Evangelical woke can see it happening when Republicans do it, but they cannot see when they do it. It's really no different than Christians laughing at silly Muslim superstitions, or Muslims taking a laugh at silly Jewish superstitions. These people are a group of pots calling another group of kettles black - and none of them see their own hypocrisy.

Any objective, rational person possessing reasonable intelligence knows men are NOT trans phobic bigots morally on par with racists for not wanting to sleep with passing transgender women. Every man has the sovereign right to his own body and mind, meaning each man decides for himself if having sex with a passing transgender woman is heterosexual or outside of heterosexuality. John and the woke-sheep think they are so smart and awesome, that they get to make that call for 166 million American men. Human beings (which just so happens to include straight men) come from different beliefs, values, norms, religions, sense of kinship, family and worldview, as such there is no person on earth qualified make this decision but the individual himself.  We may accept the expression that trans women are women in the social realm, but that does not translate to the intimate, sacred realm of bedroom.  

Woke is Religion

If John's weird argument proves anything: both liberals and hard-line Christians are two sides of the same coin. Hard line Christians, motivated by their moral authority school homosexuals that their feelings of attraction to the same sex are wrong. Christians argue homosexuals choose their orientation and should choose to be straight. Christians rely on emotional abuse, claiming all homosexuals will go to hell if they don't change their wicked ways. At the same time, members of the Church of Woke, like John try schooling straight men how they should feel about their own sexuality. John claims men choose to conform to "gender normative standards" and should choose to stop caring about chromosomes.  When straight men do not comply, the woke John Quixote's of the world emotionally abuse them, claiming they are trans-phobic bigots morally on par with racists. Clearly we see a pattern.

Both groups think they have the right to tell another person how they 'ought' to feel about their sexuality, be it sexual orientation or chromosomes. Both groups are motivated by their perceived moral authority giving them license to stick their noses into other people's bedrooms, shame and or threaten those who do not conform. 

Two Sides of the Same Coin

 

Both teams place themselves upon a pedestal, encompass an arrogant certainty that they are right. Christians and the Woke believe they are on the side of righteousness, they need to be perceived by their peers as the most enlightened, intelligent, moral human being without the cost of being an enlightened, intelligent moral being. They like to separate themselves from most other people espousing luxury beliefs and have no problem looking down on those who do not conform.

This behavior is in opposition of true moral integrity, which is based on a motivation to behave in accord with one's moral principals. In this case, the moral principal is to respect each person's bodily autonomy, and respect the person's private choice to decide if chromosomes matter in the sanctity of their bedroom. John is just as much a moral hypocrite as the Westboro Baptist Church. Far left extreme liberals like John and hard line Christians are two parts of the same thing.

In Western civilization, the bedrock of morality exists in the concept of individualism and that each individual has the inalienable, sovereign right to the pursuit of happiness. Individualism regards human beings - all people - as an independent entity who possesses an inalienable right to their own life, feelings, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. A civilized society, or any form of peaceful coexistence among people can only be on the basis of the recognition of individual rights and that a group has no right other than the individual rights of its members. In short, morality means we respect the rights of each individual person to live their lives as they see fit.

Do not make the ignorant mistake to think the individualist is a person who says: "I'll do what ever I want at everyone's expense. I'm going to be selfish." That is not true and not what I am saying. An individualist is a person who recognizes the absolute, inalienable rights of each individual - their own and the rights of others. This is the person who says, "I will not tell others how to live their lives, how to feel or how to be in the world - nor will I let anyone tell me how to live, feel or be in the world." Each individual has their own mind, their own feelings and thoughts about the world. There is no such thing as a collective brain. When people agree about a set of beliefs, this is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. The primary act of reasoning must be performed by each individual alone. Nobody has the right to deprive any person of this inalienable right.

"Slaves Obey Your Masters" Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22

From the standpoint of identity, it is not for other people to come in and decide for another human being what their experience is, how they should feel about chromosomes in the bedroom, how they should be in the world and what their political perspective should be. Any attempt to do so is an attempt to steal a person's identity.  It is one of the most dangerous and pernicious things I've seen. 

John’s ‘woke’ moral philosophy usurps man’s freedom of thought in ways chillingly similar to Abrahamic religions. For example, all Abrahamic religions place prohibitions on its members from doing certain things to their bodies such as getting a tattoo, an abortion or having sex during menstruation. Abrahamic religions hold they own morality, they are on the side of righteousness, giving them permission to dictate what people think and how they should think. In Wokeism we see something similar happening in so far as straight men are not allowed to have his own thoughts about his own sexual orientation, and whether or not he was tricked into partaking in gay sex with the unicorn. Men are not allowed to think these thoughts because the wokespeak term ‘trans women are women’ is a woke commandment etched in stone and any man with the audacity to not agree completely is a bigot needing to be reeducated.

You see, according to the church of woke men do not have the right to think the sex with trans women is gay or outside heterosexuality because doing so violates the commandment. They also believe that if they can get all straight men to think the same thoughts, transwomen would all get laid and that is good for society. According to the values of woke equity, the best interest of society always takes precedent over the individual because remember – woke has the monopoly on righteousness. John also stated that all of these men should not have the right to bring a lawsuit against transgender women because to him, she didn’t deceive him about anything.

Woke philosophy is a grotesque violation of a man's right to the pursuit of happiness and his sovereign right to exist as an individual free to do with his body as he pleases. It's as if all straight men are expected to say, "yes uh massa, I don't get to chose fo muh self...yes uh massa. Chromosomes dont matta to me in the bedroom massa." In Saint John's esoteric world view all men are seemingly too simple to decide for themselves what is acceptable within the sanctity of the private, intimate realm of his bed and they need to be 'schooled' and 'shamed' by him. If only Shakespeare were here to say, "John, there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt in your philosophy".

Dating Stealth: A Definition

If you've never heard the term "dating stealth", allow me to illuminate. Stealth dating means passing transgender women put up dating profiles on Match, Tinder, Bumble or any other dating site and do not disclose that she is transgender. Passing (post -op) transgender women sleep with men without informing him she was assigned male at birth, and they argue that being assigned male at birth is a not something men have the right to know before sex just as men don't have the right to know a woman had a hysterectomy. To them, it is no different than not disclosing that you have a black grandparent or that you contracted the chicken pox when you were fourteen. These women date stealth because the unfortunate reality is most men do not want to date transgender women, they know it, it makes them feel bad, and in their minds dating stealth is the only way they can get sex from men.

Passing trans women, aka 'Unicorns' are not like most transgender women. I know you guys think you can spot them, but you would be wrong. These rare individuals have been on T-blockers and hormone therapy for years, their bones have shrunk and they’ve lost a good amount of muscle mass in the process. As far as stature is concerned, they usually stand between 5'4 and 5'9 tall, an average height for an American woman. They are also post-op, meaning they’ve had both facial feminization surgery and bottom surgery. With the right health insurance, you would be surprised what modern medicine can accomplish.

Those who date stealth employ a vast amount of rationalizations excusing deception by omission. One common justification for this deception by omission is this statement: "you don't have to disclose everything about yourself before sleeping with someone, do you?" Another one I hear is, "well, trans women are women in the social realm, therefore that must translate into the sexual realm too." Then they maintain that so long as they pass completely as a female, any and all men should be willing to sleep with them and no man has the right to know she was assigned male at birth because that is some kind of a ....HIPPA violation.

Rationalization - it's what helps us sleep better at night. 

a public post on twitter

Wokespeak

Orson Welles coined the term "double-speak," and I propose the term "woke-speak" to describe the language used by the woke. Woke-speak consists of simplistic nouns and statements that are rarely, if ever, accompanied by adjectives. These narratives are designed to lack the complexity and nuance that would encourage critical thinking. In the same way that religion uses prayer to affirm faith and control the mind, the woke use woke-speak to manipulate and control the way people think. Similarly, the woke often use language in a way that distorts the true meaning of words, as exemplified by their claim that "trans women are women."

If the woke claim that trans women are women were true, it would follow that heterosexual men would be willing to date them. However, in reality, a vast majority of men do not want to have intimate relationships with transgender women. In fact, approximately 98% of heterosexual men do not express interest in this. It's worth noting that even among men who identify as being "woke," a significant percentage do not want to have sexual relationships with trans women. This suggests that the woke ideology does not reflect objective reality, but rather exists within an idealized vision of the world.

I wish to ask my heterosexual male readers to stop reading at this point, please take out a piece of paper. I wish to ask two questions for men who identify as complete heterosexual men. All you need do is answer these two questions honestly. Nobody will know the answer to these questions but you. You will know if you are lying, you will know if you are telling the truth. If you lie, the only person being cheated is yourself, so please be honest.

Do you have your paper? If so, write down the following:

#1

#2

Now that you have written down those numbers I am going to ask you two questions. Each question has three possible answers: “yes”, “no”, and “I do not know”.

#1: ““Do you think that you have the right to know a woman is transgender before you engage in vaginal, anal or oral sex with her?”

#2: “Are transwomen women?”

Double-think, as described in George Orwell's novel 1984, occurs when an individual deliberately holds two conflicting beliefs or ideas at the same time, knowing that one of them is false. The use of language and slogans is a common tool for manipulating people and promoting ideology, and the woke are no exception. The analogy used by John Quixote, comparing heterosexual men to racists, is meant to emotionally manipulate and guilt people into agreeing with him. By implying that anyone who does not agree with him is a bigot on par with a racist, he is trying to pressure people into accepting his perspective without truly considering it. It's important to be aware of these tactics and to think critically about the ideas and arguments being presented, rather than blindly accepting them out of fear or pressure.

Orwellian refers to the use of language to manipulate and deceive people, as described in George Orwell's novel 1984. It is often used to describe situations in which language is used to obscure the truth or to control the way people think. Orwell, who was opposed to all forms of tyranny, recognized the power of language in shaping thoughts and opinions. He believed that words are sometimes used not to convey meaning, but to undermine it. It's important to note that Orwellian does not necessarily imply authoritarianism, as Orwell was also opposed to all forms of tyranny.

 From the novel 1984 some examples of double think are: Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace and Ignorance is Strength. Examples of modern double-think:

• I value human rights and women should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

• Blacks moving into a white neighborhood is good, while whites moving into a black neighborhood is bad.

Now it is time to look at your paper and the questions you answered.  If you answered "I don't know" to either of these questions, there is nothing I can do for someone who doesn't know themself, so you should stop reading this blog until you know who you are. I have never met a person who did not know by Junior High School if they were gay, straight, or bi-sexual. So if you are an adult and still do not know what your sexual orientation is, then you have problems much bigger than this blog. If you are well in your thirties and still do not know if you are completely heterosexual, it is time to find a therapist. If you do know who you are, then proceed.

If this was your answer:

#1. no

#2. yes

Congratulations, your views are consistent with your beliefs. Truth be told, you ignored the directions because the instructions read “completely heterosexual men”, and if you are willing to have sex with transgender women your preferences are somewhere outside of heterosexuality. There is nothing wrong with being semi-straight, but you answered a question that was clearly intended for completely straight men.  Next time, listen carefully to instructions before proceeding.

If this was your answer:

#1. yes

#2. yes

 If you answered ‘yes’ to both questions and still believe John is correct that transwomen are women in all realms, you are certainly guilty of Orwellian doublethink. The fact is, if you truly believed trans women are women then you would be willing to have sex with any passing transgender woman, this means that you lied when answering question two.

As a heterosexual man you claim you have the right to know a woman is transgender before sex, but you also claim to believe trans-women are women. Somewhere, you are pulling one belief out of your head when it helps you in the moment and burying the other when it doesn’t. John’s language had an effect on your psyche because he creates within you an opiate form of cognitive dissonance, compelling you to disregard your inconsistent thoughts, particularly relating to your personal sexual preferences. You have been manipulated by the John’s of the world and their rhetoric. Let that truth resonate for a moment. You have been impelled to disregard your own perception in place of John’s officially dictated version, leaving you dependent on John’s definition of reality itself. You went wrong in someone else’s beliefs rather than your own. You slavishly complied to something you do not completely believe, and this cannot make you feel good about yourself as a rational being and cannot be good for your own self-respect.

John violated the privacy of your own thought process, sounding like something that only happens in totalitarian systems. Orwell warned us about the potential for this occurring even in our own societies. One of the ways John’s woke narrative manipulated you was in how he eliminates words from the English language, creating a new the official language, a language I call ‘Wokespeak’. Wokespeak is a crudely limited collection of expressions and simple concrete nouns lacking any words complex enough to encourage nuanced critical thinking among the adherents. Wokespeak is hard to detect, very alluring and functions within a subversive world of emotional blackmail. Transwomen are women - you must agree or you are a bigot.

Keeping Up With the Kartrendians

John's comfortable everyday life affords him the time to keep up with the latest social Kartredians in terms of the newest luxury belief, and all the fancy words separating himself from everyone else. When he uses terms like, “oppressive hetero-normative standards,” he signals that he is a Kartrendian. John’s beliefs are expressed using vocabulary that most people do not use, such as “heteronormative”. People typically use words for the purpose of being understood by others, John uses them to distinguish himself from others. Unlike the working class, he has the time to sit around scroll social media, keeping up with the latest fashionable trends and reading op-eds that flatter his viewpoint.

In the past, people like John displayed their status with luxury goods and now they display it with their luxury beliefs.  Luxury beliefs is a term coined by Rob Henderson, a person much like myself who grew up in the foster care system. Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper and middle classes while often inflicting costs on marginalized groups and lower classes. 

Ten years ago my family moved back to my home State, we were staying at John's home until we could find a place of our own. One day I asked, "What would happen if I became republican?" And he responded, "you would not be welcome here anymore."Although today I am politically homeless, for my entire adult life I have been a democrat. In my life, republicans have never once said I was unwelcome in their home because my ideas are different from theirs. Evangelical woke hold the belief all republicans are inherently wicked, and that simply isn't true. What is true is they value different things, they value most of the same things as democrats and simply prioritize their values differently. John's rejection of all republicans in his home is no different from Christian missionaries holding sandwiches hostage from the homeless until they accept Christianity. What is inherently wicked is to be the type of person who says, "I offer charity only to those who belong to my religion and adopted ideologies". That is not what charity is supposed to look like.

Evangelical woke do not sit down with republicans to understand their viewpoints. They  do not want to listen to them, understand them or know them in any meaningful way. They prefer only to accept the far left narrative depicting all republicans as evil people who eat babies in the pale moonlight. People like John believe they are morally superior to all people who do not think exactly as he does, because if being woke is righteousness, then not being woke is what exactly? This isn't the right way to be in the world.

I have asked many heterosexual men, most of them are on the left, if they have the right to know their partner is trans. One hundred percent of them say yes.  Every single straight man I've asked informed me that sleeping with a transwoman is not heterosexual and they do not want to partake in anything outside of heterosexuality. Clearly it's going to be a problem for the woke to create their fairy tale sexual utopia where all men are willing to screw any passing transgender woman if men are allowed to think with their own minds.

In the past when people displayed their wealth wearing ostentatious snappy Versace shirts they paid the price for those shirts, today those holding luxury beliefs pass the price tag on to the very groups they claim to care about. Imagine for a moment if all passing transgender women listened to John’s advice and started to exclusively date stealth. Be realistic, yes that means imagine what would happen in the real world, not some utopic fairy tale and it isn't a pretty picture.

Luxury Views Don’t Impact Him.

What makes John’s view immoral is that he likes to share them with passing transgender women with complete disregard to the demonstrable harm that can impact all people involved except himself. When John shares his Marxist ideology with lonely trans women, he isn’t putting his life in danger nor will John experience any of the consequences that will inevitably ensue.

John’s theory that transwomen are women in the bedroom, and straight men have no say in the matter is a luxury belief because it elevates his status before the people whose opinions he cares about. The more novel his viewpoints are, the more he elevates himself above everyone else. John is married, and will never experience the humiliation or anger men will experience being tricked into partaking in sex outside of heterosexuality. The argument is amoral because he literally does not care how these men feel, these men are nothing more than objects to be used.

Happily married upper middle class Johns of American society will never know what it feels like to be a modern heterosexual man seeking love on the internet. They will never make themselves available to having sex with passing transgender women, yet had no problem advising others to do so because "trans women are women". John is blessed with a kind, hardworking wife whom in my view, he has never deserved. How convenient for him to hold such views, while the cost of those views trickle down to those who will experience the consequences. When you think about it, its pretty awful how the evangelical John Quixote's of the world promote ideas destroying lives and families, in order to make himself feel higher status at a dinner party.

When passing transgender women sleep with men without informing them they are transgender, they are essentially tricking these men into engaging in something outside of heterosexuality. The John’s of the word will make a choice – yes I said choice – to misrepresent what I am saying here, so please listen carefully. It is perfectly fine for men to choose sex with transgender women, there is certainly nothing wrong with it. Sexuality in all forms, so long as it is legal and done with consent is perfectly fine in my view. What is not fine is for transgender women to date stealth.

 The reason each one of you should care is because the victims are your brothers, your cousins, your father, your step-father, your friends, your co-workers, men you care for  and your sons. These men are human and their feelings matter- whether John likes it or not.  While John's convenient philosophy props himself up, it trickles down to men he cares the least about - impacting the men you do care about. That is why it should matter to you.

With airs of condescension John and his  supporters will say, "Naomi, you must understand at least he has good intentions." I am perfectly well aware of that, thank you for pointing out the obvious. Over the years John has been condescending towards me, for whatever reason, he assumes that I don't possess the same knowledge as him. He enjoys warning me about dangers that any person with common sense already knows. On many occasions I ask myself, "does this guy really think I am that stupid?"Yes, his intentions are in the right place, I am aware, thank you for point to the sun and saying, "hey Naomi, see that hot round thing in the sky? That is called the sun!"

The real question is this - are you aware the rosy road to hell is paved with good intentions? The argument that John's good intentions outweighs demonstrable harm is as logically sound as the woman who claims, "I was only sleeping with my husband's boss to advance his career." What one does it what counts - not what one intends on doing.  The only remedy for this problem that I can see, is some solid legal precedent allowing heterosexual men to take legal action against the transgender woman who violate them. I don't like litigation, but these men need legal recourse so they do not take the law into their own hands.

 

John has Emotionally Abused Me Personally

"agree with me - or be ostracized"

Approximately one year ago, I expressed my disdain for the homeless crisis in Seattle on my Facebook page. I pointed out that many of the homeless in the city are transplants, attracted to Seattle for the services and assistance that are offered here. As the city continues to give more and more, the homeless population continues to swell, making downtown Seattle an extremely hazardous environment. We hear reports of homeless individuals stealing, beating, killing, robbing and sexually assaulting women on a daily basis, and I have grown increasingly weary of the issue as well as our city council's lack of effective action to address it. It appears that they are determined to make Seattle a hub for homeless people across the nation.

 John was unable to tolerate my divergent viewpoint on homelessness, so he donned the 'woke crown' and took to Facebook to retaliate. He posted on my page that I was wrong due to "x, y and z," to which I gently demurred. Later in the week, I wrote about the Seattle homeless population's proclivity for defecating and urinating in the streets, injecting drugs, and mistreating women. John again posted on my Facebook page, revealing to my nearly three thousand friends that I was raised in a foster home.

He posted “you grew up on foster care, you were aging out of foster care, you would have been one of those homeless kids if you hadn’t been rescued and that makes you a hypocrite, and I John have the moral duty to ‘out’ to all of these people on your friends list.”   

 John put the crown of woke-ness on his head, congratulated himself. He signaled his virtue, and that gave him the sense of validation he needs. Win for the homeless. Yay!

I took a picture of his comment, re-posted it directly on my feed and asked everyone how they would feel if that information was involuntarily disclosed about them. Everybody on my Facebook reacted, calling him vile, rude, and slimy.  

On another occasion, I saw John reposted an internet meme. I responded to his meme, saying "hi John, although I agree with the point being made, the meme relies on the logical fallacy argumentum tu quoque." I was polite, and didn't say anything about him but rather the meme was not logical. He angrily protested that I ought to be dismissed because I was a debater in high school.

The next time I saw him, when he looked at me his eyes were dripping with venom. I was confused by this reaction because I never said anything unkind to him or about him. Eventually, I came to realize that this man deeply cares about his social position among his peer groups. He needs to be revered by his peer group. I can't say this behavior is or isn't normal, but it certainly is indicative that he is an insecure person.

After two internet strikes and one esoteric argument I quietly removed John from my friends list.

Ripping Things off from the Internet

The members of the Church of Woke do not have a Bible or Koran to brandish; rather, they rely on "good authorities" culled from Google searches. An example of this is the "1/4 black grandparent" line John attempted to feed me, which I had already read in a pro-trans blog authored by Sherry Colb in June 2015. When I read the blog, I noticed that Colb was employing her colleagues' supposed opinions to validate her own, writing, "my colleagues agree with me about this...and that," as if other people's alleged thoughts confirmed her own. The blog John plagiarized was a weak argument, barely touching on topics such as the Constitution of the United States and equating straight men to racists. Nevertheless, John seemed unconcerned with its quality so long as it supported his viewpoint.

While sitting on John's couch, listening to the drivel he was unaware I knew exactly where he got all that crap. I've always known most of what comes out of his mouth comes from the internet, so this really wasn't a shock. John has so little respect for me, thinks I am so stupid that he tried feeding me someone else's thinking - it was a slap in my face.

I wish I didn’t have to spell this out, but here we are. Being objective means one is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions about an issue when representing the facts of an issue. Anytime one searches Google for arguments conforming what they want to believe is true that individual is not objective and you should not listen to what they say. John lives in a delusion he is objective, however by virtue of the fact he accessed that blog and plagiarized it, that is concrete proof he is prejudiced.

The Compounding Lie

Over the years there have been many aspects of John’s mentality that I’ve come to appreciate, while others are nothing short of confounding. For the last thirty years John has been maintaining a believable compounding lie that he has opinions about Ayn Rand. His alleged opinions about Atlas Shrugged are strong, passionate and seemingly earnest.

Atlas Shrugged is long, deeply intellectual and next to Catcher in the Rye, it is one of the most controversial books written in the twentieth century. Length and depth alone makes it intellectually inaccessible to most people, as such it is reasonable to conclude those who have read it are different from the general population. Knowledge of Ayn Rand is a luxury most cannot afford. When one claims to have opinions about her works, they are sending another message to society, the message that they are a little better, a little more cultured, and a bit more intelligent than most other people.

John: “Naomi, Rand is a terrible human being because her books are dedicated to nothing more than the glorification of businessmen and the virtues of being selfish.”

Naomi: “Have you ever read one of her books from beginning to end?”

John: “no – but I have it on good authority.”

John is aware that I studied foreign languages as my major, but he is unaware that I also have a minor in philosophy. In addition to reading Atlas Shrugged, I have also read various other works of philosophical literature. Whenever I discuss Atlas Shrugged with someone at a dinner event, he inserts himself into the conversation with a remark like, "Well Naomi, I think this about that book and I think that." Having read the book, I can attest that the assertion that it is entirely about the merits of selfishness is highly superficial, if not incorrect.

I have several qualms concerning this matter. Firstly, why would someone pretend to have a view on something they have not read, to the point of detesting it? Secondly, a logical person would assume that thirty years is a sufficient amount of time to read the book. If he did so, he would be able to form his own opinion of it, instead of having to resort to relying on someone else's. Reading it seems like a much better option than having to feign opinions about it. Thirdly, the phrase, ‘I have it on good authority’ relies on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, which states that something must be true simply because it is believed by someone who is supposedly an "authority" on the subject. The whole situation is peculiar, confounding, and leads one to question whether John may have ever suffered from imposter syndrome. Personally, I would feel like a total fraud speaking negatively of a book I had not read.

Relying on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is a very problematic issue, for it allows one to avoid taking responsibility for the ideas they are borrowing from others. Additionally, it is, for lack of a better word, lazy. Opinions about philosophy are unlike getting an opinion from one's orthodontist about which type of braces they should get; orthodontists are experts in their field, backed up by decades of training and empirical evidence, as well as a decade of higher education dedicated to the study of teeth. Philosophy, on the other hand, is the exploration of thought, and one cannot form opinions about it without engaging in their own thinking. The only way to form an opinion about Atlas Shrugged is to read the book and process it using one's own brain, not that of someone else.

Some people tell me I should call out this man’s bullshit, and some say I am a coward for not doing so. If John read this blog, he would immediately identify himself and burn with anger.  Simply put, his psychological well-being cannot handle any person saying he is explicitly wrong. He just can't take it, one of the reasons he cannot have any Republican friends. At the same time, I do not have the heart to tell him what I really think because I do not want to hurt him.

John is fragile, he deeply needs to be revered by his peer groups and the perception of high intelligence is key in the attainment of that goal. How would it impact him that I, a person he's known for decades thinks he possesses enough intelligence to maintain steady employment? How would his self-esteem handle the reality that he is ill informed, and  should not participate in certain political or social discussions? He is extremely sensitive to any negative feedback, he lashes out on the internet, becomes emotionally abusive and glares at me in response to any slight to his ego. He has helped me greatly in my life, I feel torn and duty bound. Calling out his bullshit will not change the situation, nor will it change a person with zero ability to evolve. He certainly deserves to be whacked off his ivory tower and that golden throne he sits upon. He should be made aware he is no smarter than the average Joe, but who says this is my job? My job is to share this experience with society so the people know the world is full of men who think like this. The only thing worse than John's ignorance is arrogance, it has venomous eyes and a pointing finger.

I read Atlas Shrugged the summer of 2005. At the time I was living in New York City and helping my boyfriend in his dog walking business. When I walked the dogs I listened to Atlas Shrugged on audio book, it took me weeks to finish it. I read the book because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, and I wanted to form my own opinions. The monologue 'Who is John Galt' was brilliant. The name John Galt appeared throughout the book, by the end of the novel we know Galt was there the whole time. He is simply a person who believes in the power of the human mind, and the right of each individual to use their minds solely for themselves. He is the counter argument to societies that embrace mediocrity in the name of egalitarianism. Every piece of technology we use, including the very computer or device you are using to read this blog, was created by an individual who thinks with his own brain. Atlas Shrugged was an absolutely brilliant book.

 John: "Okay Naomi, you tell me what it says." John's face showed he was visibly upset, his eyes started to glare at me. Just saying I had read the book indicates my knowledge was earned, I could back up my views with evidence and that pissed him off.

Naomi: "No, it is too complex to teach you." I ended the discussion knowing he cannot be reasoned with. Moreover, it is impossible to teach a person Rand's theory of objectivism in five minutes.

John won't read the book himself,  he wants the cliff notes of the cliff notes of the cliff notes, foolishly believing cliff notes gives one the same epistemology as reading the book.  He thinks that parodying other people's opinions about Atlas Shrugged qualifies him to have an opinion about it. This behavior isn't just about John, most members of the church of woke think the same way. I argue that a voice has to be earned, it doesn't arrive by copying what other people say and think, that is what sheep do.

Burden of Living In An Open Society

One of the primary issues with members of the Church of Woke and theistic religions is that their adherents, driven by the conviction that their beliefs are correct, are not willing to question their own convictions. They neglect to learn about logical fallacies, and expecting them to put their own beliefs to the test is too much to ask. For any open society to function properly, informed participation is a must - informed being the operative word. Being informed does not mean being opinionated, nor does it mean taking ideas from random blogs on the internet. In our open, modern society, we are inundated with online information, much of which is beneficial, but a considerable amount of which is dubious and even hazardous. I cannot stress enough how important it is not to use Google as a source of information. If you must use Google, please use Google Scholar. Do not search the internet for pro-anything that bolsters the beliefs you want to be true.

It is a tough task for many to bear the weight of informed participation, particularly those who are unable to read a 1,400-page novel, familiarize themselves with basic logical fallacies, or devise their own concepts without borrowing them from pro-trans blogs and pretending they are their own. "I don't have time for that" is an oft-used excuse for those who think they have everything figured out. This really means, "I am either too stupid or too lazy to comprehend other points of view." All humans on Earth are granted the same 24-hour day, yet millions still make it a point to read a book from start to finish.

 

Fashionable Sheep without a Shepard

Woke sheep follow the heard, adopting their opinions, ideas, and even dress as if parading down a New York City fashion week runway show, the perfect little consumer marketing a product without receiving compensation. If there was ever television show that was all about fashion, Sex in the City takes the crown. The Sex in the City Reboot, true to its trendsetting, all about the moment nature soaked up 'woke' like a greedy sponge. Turns out Samantha was right to turn down the part because the show started to tank after a couple episodes. It became cringy and unwatchable. The show all about fashion and relationships was simply trying to capitalize on something currently fashionable, resonating my point better than I ever could.

Wokeism is a trend, it is a moralist fashion statement that  spreads through the most superficial areas of life. We are seeing obese women on the cover of sports illustrated as if an obese body is a representation of athleticism. The only 'athletic' body I've seen that looked like those models were usually on a golf course, so if she represents a golfer body they can make a case. Netflix began incorporating transgender people and  issues into most of its content even though transgender people are less than 2 million out of 332 million American people. Movie houses made our little red haired mermaid change her race, not that it matters if a fish is white or black - most I've seen were silvery grey. This isn't about equality, its about big business seeing an opportunity to stay on point and make a buck on what is trending. These big businesses are doing this for one reason and it isn't out of the goodness of their hearts.  Business is about the bottom line. A part of me feels sad for the evangelical woke because they truly do not see how businesses milk them for every drop they can squeeze out of their tiny teet.

Evangelical woke are oblivious to this reality, they believe they are being individuals on the side of righteousness, living their authentic lives, speaking their "truth", unaware truth lives in objective reality not in their speculative world of moral relativity, when in truth the fashionable sheep follows whoever is leading them, even if it is off a cliff. The irony is they are not being lead by any particular person, they have no shepherd. Group think conducts the vehicle as mob mentality fuels the engine. Who is in charge of the brakes? Who is keeping the car from going off a cliff? The answer is not the group - it is the individual who says 'no'. 

One of the best places to see woke sheep in action is to read their dating profiles which read more like a Starbucks order than someone looking for love on the internet, “ployamorous, LGBTQAI+++, anti-capitalist, BLM, vaccinated, progressive liberal, no bigots allowed." Profile after profile after profile read exactly the same, with titles and bios displaying fashionable conformity whilst completely unaware they sound exactly like everybody else. 

If we are truly being honest, these people have their own ideas, yes there brains have been filled with weird ideas that they have to put their pronouns everywhere, and anyone who is not a white male has been oppressed by invisible racist, sexist, homophobic structures that managed to slip into every American institution because slavery happened a really long time ago. The reality is these people have the heart of a coward, fashionable conformity  is cowardice in action.

After all uncommon or unconventional thoughts can elicit hostility especially among the woke. One may find themself disagreeing with an evangelical woke about the homeless who shit and piss themselves on the street, rendering the city inhospitable for any person who wants to go for an afternoon stroll. Imagine an evangelical woke outing you to  3000 people that you grew up in foster care. Yes, I understand those threats are always there. To avoid estrangement the woke unconsciously conform to woke expectations under the constant threat that stepping out of line brings out cancel culture, shaming, outing or public humiliation. Pursuing an individual path requires resolve, and bravery when standing up against a bully. 

There are many tactics the Woke use to keep its members in line, shaming being one of them but the other, more insidious method is by use of 'wokespeak' and finally the evangelical woke perform elaborate justifications for amoral behavior. Wokespeak controls thought mechanisms, keeps people from thinking critically for the purpose of falsifying their own beliefs. Paradoxically, these individuals demonstrate their ‘morality’ before doing something immoral, a phenomenon known as “moral licensing”. In my case, John professed his moral goodness about helping those in need, before committing the amoral act of notifying three thousand people about my tenure in foster care. This was his form of self-absolution before committing the amoral act. This reminds me of an incident many years ago, when a man told me he worked as a drug counselor before trying to sell me drugs.

 Evangelical woke display all their past good deeds, as if they have already checked off that box, therefore they don’t have to be fair anymore. How could we forget, feeling virtuous after a misdeed is to judge others even more harshly for having committed the same exact offense. John has no qualms professing he has the right to school all heterosexual men how they ought to feel about their own sexuality, yet he comes down with an iron fist on any evangelical Christian who tries to school homosexuals about the Biblical sin of homosexuality. Can we not see that both are in the wrong?

The type of person to join any religious organization, including the non-theistic church of woke are practicing a subtle form of escapism. These people know, try as they might to be different from what they think is the norm, deep down their personalities are as succulent as a glass of warm oat milk.  They want to look cool, they want to look edgy, they want to look good, righteous, moral and the kind of person who just wants to sit around the campfire singing kumbaya. Be careful not to sit too close to them because the manipulative power of wokespeak can easily suck the strongest of minds into their warped world views argumentum ad nausium.

Revisiting woke fashionable conformist dating profiles, “ployamorous, LGBTQAI+++, anti-capitalist, BLM, vaccinated, progressive liberal, no bigots allowed," let me just say purple haired, pierced administrative secretaries with only two years of higher education are not the most brilliant people in the world and do not postulate original world views and complex ideologies about the perils of capitalism. They are copying these theories from their peer groups and want to look cool. When it comes to the demographics of talent in this world, true intellectuals are as common as an albino crow. One may throw out the occasional Susan Boyl example, but she was the exception. The likelihood any person is that intellectually original is less than the chances the best high school basketball player will ever go pro. There are fewer talented thinkers in the world than there are astronauts. There are a few great ones, yet most people are intellectually unimpressive and interchangeable. Wokeism affords them the appearance of being unique but the reality is few actually are.

Charging Windmills

Living in an open society carries a price, the woke are torn between the need to belong, need to be coddled and the need to be an individual. For them, coddling is an entitlement, they expect everyone to bend to their emotional fragility and trigger warnings. They promote unproven theories that everyone is born with white privilege, straight privilege, heteronormative privilege yet for those living in objective reality, we know that nobody is going to tell you what you must do to improve your situation in life. This is your responsibility to figure out. No matter how shitty your life may be in the moment, whining, moaning, groaning, coddling or protesting will ever improve your situation. It certainly will not afford you any real self-esteem, only the fashionable veneer of self-esteem like a new pair of shiny teeth.

The reality is the woke don’t really want the oppressed to be successful, they love promoting victimhood for the same reasons Mother Theresa promoted her cult of suffering. From Mother Teresa and her fan club you would think Calcutta there is nothing except torpor, misery, and squalor, and starving people with hardly enough energy to swipe away the flies from their beseeching begging bowls. When she was alive, people did not look at what she actually did and it was pretty damn evil. One of the most salient examples of people’s willingness to believe any theory, is that its garbled in an appearance of holiness. Mother Theresa and the 'Woke' have more than one thing in common, they derive comfort by the knowledge others also suffer and bringing themselves as close as possible to those who truly suffer, windmill or not, is a notch in their metaphorical moral bedpost. The more notches- the more of a stud they are.

No one really looks at what the church woke do either, they don’t look at the millions of dollars squandered by BLM nor people like John denying all straight men the right to their own bodies. The woke are madly in love with victim-hood, they seek it out and find it where ever they can, finding virtue in being an empath. It’s not far from truth to claim the woke are attracted to oppression. They need people to suffer like an alcoholic needs wine. Their narratives are revealing in what they don’t say, all the things they leave out on purpose – individualism, honesty, transparency, and hard work. I have never once heard John condemn a wrong doer unless that wrong doer was Republican. 

 

The woke need black, gay, and transgender windmills to remain in perpetual victim-hood, because each notch brings them closer to woke utopia, the state of being better than all those who are not woke. It is within this twisted utopic world view the woke wear a halo of sanctitude, concealed with pious savoir vivre throughout their entire lives. The real motive for the church of woke is the proselytization for woke fundamentalism, not helping people live better lives because if they cared about better lives, their narrative would be about individualism, transparency, hard work, duty and prosperity. The only thing that moves the world forward is momentum, accountability and the desire to do better, concepts seemingly non-existent in John's narratives. His narratives circumvent esoteric theories about how he can excuse wrong behavior, in his world perps are never responsible.

Respect comes from prosperity, yet the woke seem to have the idea that if they correct the thought mechanisms of 8 billion people,  the abominable racist hetero-normantive windmill will come tumbling to the ground. As Christopher Hitchens once said, " if you could reason with religious people, they would not be religious anymore." If you could reason with the woke, they would not be woke anymore."

The woke are addicts seeking out a nice streamlined injection of white Chinese powder right into their bloodstream. Every 'woke' meme they post on the internet is just them seeking another injection, or ten. Wokeism is a narcotic and they love the way it makes them feel. John has been chasing the dragon for years and that weird argument he tried spoon-feeding me is what I call- the woke rock bottom.

When I see the woke crowd angrily marching in streets, forcing implicit bias training, or pushing the narrative that racism is intertwined in all American institutions, or that all men are transphobic bigots for not wanting to have sex with transgender women, these people do nothing for themselves or their communities. Marching, complaining, dying one’s hair green and making tik toc videos will never help you realize your authentic self or live the most fulfilling life you should be living. 

One community the woke dislike, and I would go so far to say the woke pretend this community doesn't even exist - the Nigerian community. Nigerian Americans are by far  one of the most successful immigrant groups in the United States. Sixty-one percent of all Nigerian immigrants hold at least a bachelor's degree, and they all don't come from rich families.  According to the Migration Policy Institute twenty-nine percent 29% of Nigerian-Americans aged twenty-five and up, have a graduate degree compared to eleven percent of the entire US population. Nigerian people account for less than 1% of the black population in the United States yet Nigerian Americans make up nearly twenty-five percent of all black students at Harvard Business School. That, my dear readers is prosperity, and successfully debunks critical race theory. Black Americans who live in poverty are unsuccessful because of their own mentality, not because racism is entwined in all institutions.  The woke ignore this group because their very existence, and success, prove we are not living in a racist country. The woke silence about Nigerian success is deafening. The woke deny the existence of our successful Nigerian Americans because to acknowledge them, to make them part of the regular daily narrative thrusts them into an uncomfortable world of cognitive dissonance. How can one hold two opposing views - and both be right?

When time has run out for these people, a vast majority of them will have nothing to show for it because they chose to live like Don Quixote attacking imaginary enemies and charging windmills under the delusion they are giants. They are much like theist spending hours of their lives, Sunday after Sunday, praying to a god that refuses to prove its own existence. They’ve never managed to figure out why, with all their prayers and chants, god has never healed a single amputee.

When the woke sheep are in nursing homes, their hetero-normative racist Nazi demons will continue to not exist and their lives have been wasted. It is kind of sad when I think about what that kind of regret must feel like. Some will choose to live in the delusion they did something meaningful, yet I know that time changes people and many of the woke will realize they wasted their lives, their beauty and youth.  

Prosperity comes by respecting oneself as a sovereign individual and investing one’s time into something that produces tangible benefits. Self-respect never comes from pity, only prosperity. The best form of self-love is higher education, of course so long as it isn’t Portland State a University dedicated to fighting the imaginary racist windmill. We live in a world where we have a communication device in our pocket that constantly sends messages to satellites orbiting the earth. These are the technologies created  by the John Galts of the world, not the Johns who use their time postulating esoteric arguments that make sense only to someone on an acid trip.

Study law, engineering, philosophy, technology or something that is going to send a rocket to deep space. I promise one will be more fulfilled by this than they momentary high you get from writing your pronouns on a name-tag or screaming “trans women are women – all men should have sex with them.” Woke nonsense is a shitty waste of time that doesn’t benefit anybody. Show me a single museum built by social activists, where is their B.L.M Smithsonian or the hetero-normative Guggenheim?

How could the woke create anything long term and great for humanity, they are sheep partaking in group think, collaboration is something they cannot do because wokespeak makes it nearly impossible. Collaboration is a situation where individuals are encouraged to speak out, be creative, disagree and weigh out many options before arriving at a consensus. Collaboration is not possible when the woke's primary mission is to correct everyone thought mechanisms and beliefs that oppression and privilege are interwoven in all aspects of our existence. The woke cannot collaborate when anyone who disagrees with them because anyone who disagrees is a 'transphobic bigots morally on par with racists.' If 'woke' is on the side of righteousness, then not being woke, like myself is what exactly? These people cannot collaborate with any person they think has a broken mentality that needs to be fixed.  There can never be collaboration with someone whom, at the end of an argument says, "I really don't see how I could be wrong."As I said in the beginning of this blog - there is no such thing as a collective brain. When people agree about a set of beliefs, this is only an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. We do not think with the same brain just as we do not digest our food using a collective stomach and that is why we will never see a woke Guggenheim or woke Notre Dame.

Good Theories vs. Pet Theories

 

Karl Popper was a brilliant philosopher, in his book Conjectures and Refutations he detailed the differences between strong theories and pet theories. When one proposes a theory, first listen, make sure you understand it then run the theory through a checklist. A theory should make predictions which can be tested, it should have prohibitions, and the theory should be rejected if these predictions are not shown to be correct. Theories are useful if they use deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, this is also known as critical rationalism. Popper teaches us that all theories need to have standards, and we should apply those standards equally. Wokeism and most social theories completely fail the test.

punishment in Iran

Rule One: every good theory has prohibitions, it forbids certain things to happen. Example: the theory of gravity forbids things from fall up. Ask yourself, if transwomen are women in all realms, is there a  rule forbidding this to happen? Let's say the victim in question is a heterosexual Muslim and may be pushed off a building if his family back in Iran find out he slept with a transgender woman - does the theory still hold? Is it still the case that withholding one is trans the same as withholding you have diabetes or one has a black grandparent? If so, why doesn't it hold true for all other men? If other men are not given the same consideration, isn't that prejudicial?

Rule Two: it is easy to find arguments confirming one's theory - have you looked for arguments dis-confirming it?

Rule Three: Confirmations should be held to the highest standards and count only if they resulted from risky predictions. What risky experiment did John conduct confirming the hypothesis that transwomen are women in the bedroom? What were the parameters? What is being measured? How did he try to falsify his own beliefs?

Rule Four: every genuine test of a theory is a test to refute it. Testability is falsifiablity. If there is no possible way your theory could be wrong, do not bother running the test because you are an idiot. 

Rule Five: confirming evidence does not count unless it is the result of a genuine test. If one is still confused, see rule four.

John's entire argument exists only as an esoteric hypothetical situation that he ripped off from the internet. He does not have a tested hypothesis, prohibitions and he doesn't have a single confirmation of his theory. Confirmations of a theory, any theory, need to come from experimentation. Any theory can have facts, data and stats to support it, remember that those holding opposing views also have facts, data and stats as well. Facts, data, and stats are meaningless if a person cannot use them to make a prediction, test the hypothesis and measure the outcome. All confirmations of a theory, regardless if the theory is a social theory, academic theory or hard science must come from experimentation. Members of the church of woke believe they get to circumvent all the rules because they are, after all, on the side of morality.

 

excerpt from the blog John plagiarized

Deception by Omission – I’ve been a victim too

 In my early 20s my judgement wasn't great. I was in a two-year relationship with a Syrian man, during that time, unbeknownst to me, he was reporting to a probation officer once a month. A couple years before meeting me he plead guilty to possession and attempt to use a stolen credit card.  For nearly two years, I was living with a convicted felon. He was keeping a HUGE secret from me, I was livid, furious and felt deeply violated.

Naturally I asked him why he kept this kind of a secret from me. His answer was simple, “Because I knew you would not have been with me if I told you up front.”

Not long after his confession I dumped him hard and fast. Years later I still do criminal background checks on any man I might consider dating. Heterosexual men are unable to do this because passing transgender women have started using a Google Chrome plug ins called 'deadname remover' that change their dead name to their new name.  I know what it feels like to be a victim of deception by omission, manipulated and feel like my right to choose was taken away by someone who only cared about what he could get from me. The best word, and only word to describe the feeling of deception by omission is rape. I felt raped, because I have empathy I understand these men would feel the same way. But also, I am deeply concerned that heterosexual men who do not want to have sex with transgender women have no way to find out. Worse yet, in many states the laws do not make this type of act, sex by fraud, a crime. 

What I see happening, is some person is going to build a website or app that men can use to find out if they are dating a unicorn. If such an app is created, the next thing that will happen is the Woke will create a false narrative that it was created to facilitate harassment or hate crimes against transgender women.

I imagine some person will create this app allowing men to input her new name, phone, or to find out if he is about to have sex with a passing transgender woman. The idea sounds crazy, I am not sure I am completely on board with it because it looks really bad and has the potential of being misused. Yet when the elitists John's of the world want to take away a man's right to choose, how else can men protect themselves? If such an app is created, I hope the woke sheep John's of the world understands that they were the ones who made it happen.

Empathy: The Highest Form of Knowledge

Holly Madison was a former girlfriend of Hugh Hefner and the star of E!s The Girls Next Door spoke a candid truth about what it was like having sex with Hugh Hefner. I remember watching that show back in the early 2000s and asking myself, “there is no way those twenty something ladies enjoy sex with a seventy year old man.” The narrative we were fed was that Hugh was a red silk clad stud muffin and all the ladies enjoyed opening their legs for him. According to both Holly Madison and co-star Bridget Marquardt sex with Hefner was a chore, when it happened they wanted it to be over as quick as possible. They knew they had to do it or would be kicked out of the house, so sex with Hefner was an embarrassing, uncomfortable process that required looking at the clock, counting down the minutes and being grateful when it was finally over. When they reflect upon that experience, using their bodies to do something they don’t want to do, imagine what those reflections feel like. Memories and the emotions they elicit do not vanish into thin air. If you can empathize with these girls, try empathizing with men tricked into believing the woman he has been sleeping with was a natural born woman.

One can no more keep the mind from returning to an idea, or a memory, a thought or the lingering feeling that memory resonates than from the sea from returning to a shore. Memories pull us in and out just as the moon pulls our tides. For the guilty it is called remorse, for the embarrassed it is called shame. If we are moral people, and if we can imagine what Holly, Bridget or the thousands of girls before them experience, that sick grossed-out feeling when they remember those days. An empathetic person would never say, "they deserve those feelings because of their choices as such I will never empathize with them". An empathetic person would say what happened to those girls was not okay, Hugh was wrong, he should have known better and done better. 

Empathy is the ability to comprehend and share other's feelings, and it is especially important when considering the feelings of a man who discovers he has been in a sexual relationship with a transgender woman. The shock that such a realization can bring is something that should be understood and respected, and it speaks to the lack of empathy if we cannot put ourselves in his shoes. Empathy is rooted in humility and the understanding that all humans are equal, and it is essential for us to acknowledge this in order for us to recognize the gravity of the situation. When confronted with the issue of heterosexual men being tricked into a relationship with a transgender woman, why can John Quixote, and other evangelically woke people, not feel empathy for them? When I thought about this, I understood that there was a darkness within them that prevented them from feeling that empathy.

We Become What We Do

As transgender women date stealth, they learn what they practice. The question in my mind is, what happens to the mind when one does this repeatedly. What I see is that she establishes a pattern of interaction between herself and the man, making deception by omission a key part of her behavior. Her rationalizations that deception by omission isn’t an amoral act because, ‘transwomen are women’, is ingrained into her way of thinking much like the words carved into a stone. Over time, the practice of deception by omission becomes part of one's character.

If one continually uses another as a means to an end, the user is not engaging in a relationship one could regard as a meaningful, deep relationship that will ever manifest into anything more than casual sex. Once character is built, changing it requires a great deal of work. Bettering one's character requires performing new behaviors, changing words and the thoughts your mind is habituated to think.  Research shows that it takes an individual an average of two years to change a fundamental way of thinking, this may be longer depending on how long the person’s indulged in their own lies. 

Bodily Autonomy - the Contradiction

One of the things John and I have in common is that we are both pro choice. We both believe that a woman owns her body, and nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a child she does not want to carry. The fourth Amendment of the American Constitution guarantees all people bodily autonomy, the right to make decisions about one's own bodies. This means the State does not have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy. The State cannot force a person to donate their bone marrow, even if it would save a life. The State cannot force a person afraid of needles to accept all of their medications by injection. The State cannot make it illegal to engage in homosexuality. We accept these truths as being good, and all part of living in a civilized society. If we accept bodily autonomy as an inalienable human right, at the same time, we must also accept that each man has the bodily autonomy to decide for himself what is heterosexual and what isn't - not hard to understand. 

The Woke Hurt Civilization

John's argument was desperate, an extreme measure to avoid the perception of defeat as if his hidden logical brain sensed a situation so dire he had to postulate some esoteric theory to justify his worldview.  My concern is not his desperation to be right, but how he blinds himself to the Orwellian nature of this conundrum: "transwomen are women - but 99% of men do not want to have sex with them not matter how well they pass."

The narrative hurts civilization, it hurts people, it hurts men, it puts trans lives in danger and when the unicorn dates stealth those who do care about her will live in constant fear something terrible will happen.  Evangelical woke share these weird ideas with lonely transgender women, coddling them, telling them what they want to hear - not what they need to hear, as if anything positive could arise from a relationship based on deception by omission. They claim to value individual rights, but their narrative ignores victims. 

The woke claim to value many things, but when you look at the demonstrable consequences of their policies they do not practice what they preach.  They claims to support businesses, but their policies about the homeless harm businesses, many shops in Seattle shut down because it isn't safe for employees.  Much like how republicans whine about abortion, their narratives completely ignore all those children in foster care.  I have never heard republicans talking about building college dorms for foster kids trying to get a college education just like I don't hear evangelical woke support policies that actually get the homeless off the streets. Woke narratives almost always about how he can reduce, excuse, validate or justify the actions of wrong doers.

Back to John, under the delusion he was doing a good thing, he literally testified at the sentencing hearing for a friend of his who admitted to raping his own daughters, helping the man get a shorter year prison sentence. Did John once stop to think how his testimony was harming the rape victims? Of course not, he does not give a shit about those girls. 

 He's friends with another man who murdered his own parents in a drug fueled rage. John's friendship with those people sickens me not just because it is used as dinnertime social currency to show his peers how 'good' and 'woke' he is, but really because his narrative erases the existence of the victims. John does not think about the pain those parents must have felt moments before their own son bludgeoned them. He does not talk about them. It's almost as if they did not even exist. Victims are real and they deserve to be remembered a hell of a lot more than the perpetrator.

When I asked what became of the rapists daughters, he said, "oh, them...after he was released they went to a judge and got a no contact order," presenting it as if those girls are the bad guy. Goodness, I want to shake their hand and buy them a steak. After his pedophile friend was released from prison, he wanted to invite him over for a holiday meal. Naturally, I was concerned because I have two small children and he is a registered sex offender. This was John's response, "Oh, well Naomi it is okay if your kids are around a registered sex offender if the parents consent." Yeah - no, no, no, not happening, not on my watch. What kind of a parent would consent to that? Seriously! 

Since John has joined the church of woke, the relationship between us has been anything but genuine. True friendship requires the freedom to express one's true beliefs without fear of judgement or retribution, and John's extreme views make that impossible. He has been known to ostracize anyone who does not agree with him, and because of his past abusive behavior, I am wary of speaking my mind around him. I should not have to hide my true thoughts, nor should I be expected to agree with an ideology I do not believe in. When I am in John's presence, I have to sit quietly and conform to his beliefs, which is not what a healthy relationship looks like. To have a real connection, John must be willing to be a true friend and accept me for who I am.

If that wasn't bad enough, on one occasion he argued in favor of Somali pirates. In John's warped world view, being a Somali pirate is perfectly justified because we killed their fish. You might think I am trolling you - I am not. Later he even sent me the link about the fish murder. You see, if someone kills your fish you are justified in looting billions of dollars worth of merchandise from Chinese and American ships. Just don't let yourself become conservative in viewpoints, otherwise you wouldn't be welcome in his home anymore.  As I said before, this person's narrative is never about condemning wrong acts, it's always about how to justify them.

What I really need is an artist to draw me a picture of the last supper, featuring John as Jesus, Naomi the traitor, and the disciples will be homeless trans women, Somali pirates, pedophiles and maybe a murderer on speaker phone.

At some point, we have to look at the bullshit and say, "enough is enough."

Emotional Abuse Mirrors My Traumatic Childhood

One of the key reasons I write about John, and choose to limit my with him, is that his emotional abuses and gaslighting echoes my horrific childhood. I remember my mother and her boyfriend saying, “you are no Eli.” Eli was a young boy beaten to death in Eastern Washington when I was around six or seven years old, it was all over the news. “Naomi – you and your sister are no Eli.” They repeated it over and over, until I questioned my own reality. Maybe I was not a victim of child abuse. Maybe I had to be dead like Eli to say I was being abused. Not only was I a victim of constant beatings and neglect, but I was being manipulated, I was a victim of emotional abuse. 

In the months following the incident, I've been looking deeply within myself to understand why he offended me to this level. People say strange things to me all the time and it doesn't make me this angry. I have forgiven him before, yet this transgression has been very hard for me to let go. From the book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, the author spoke at great length about how children need to trust their parents, because without trust, kids will never be able to trust their parents advice. Simply put - I do not trust John. I asked him what he thought, he didn't tell me, instead he told me what Sherry Colb thought and passed it off as his own thinking. I lost all trust. My inability to forgive is my responsibility, not his and I take complete ownership of that.  In order for me to forgive and let go, it is only fair that I identify exactly what it was about that argument that is so hard for me to forgive and I think I've found the answer. I have a hard time forgiving him because the argument was an insult to my intelligence.

John tried to manipulate me with one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard in my life. The argument is existentially manipulating, poached from the internet, predicated on emotional blackmail "agree with me or you are morally on par with a racist" and it was so utterly stupid I felt he slapped me in the face by presenting it.

On a positive note, no matter what woke sheep think or how they feel about my views, the objective reality is they cannot control my thought mechanisms and never will. Guess what? They can’t control your thought mechanisms either. Just because John thinks heterosexual men do not have the same human rights as everyone else does not mean you, or I, have to agree with him. The woke will experience many consequences from their conformity that you will not experience if you choose not to join them. 

Consequences of Conformity

Member's of the church of woke are not authentic, they conform to woke narratives and toe the line. The woke comply to things they do not agree with, losing self-esteem. Conformity leads to the bystander effect in which going along with the group means failing to act when someone is in need. Conformity leads one to limit their openness to new ideas or arguments, as in the case of John where he wrote that one must ostracize anyone until they changed their views. Conforming with the woke results in feelings and acts of prejudice, as we see in the entire argument John proposed is prejudicial to all straight heterosexual men. Conformity limits people's ability to make moral decisions, again evidenced by John's argument. Conformity limits people's ability to make safe decisions, proven in the demonstrable harm transgender women can experience when they date stealth. Conformity helps us make sense of why people get along well in groups but the loss of self-respect simply isn't worth it.

There is good news to all of this. I have been working very hard to forgive, in the process I've been working on my patience, I've looked inward and realized that for some people there is absolutely nothing I can do or say to help them see they've taken the wrong path. I too have taken many wrong paths in life, and try to remember that I need to be patient with John's wrong path.

The one defense you have against the Church of Woke is to visit my reading list, buy these books and read them. I solemnly promise that the knowledge contained therein will be worn like armor the John’s of the world will never be able to penetrate.

Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand

Beyond Good And Evil Frederick Nietzsche

The Open Society and It's Enemies Karl Popper

My Body is My Own Tracy Hawkins

I do not monetize my blog because knowledge should be free. If you are so inclined, come visit my store on Teachers Pay Teachers, I create an assortment of activities to help kiddos learn English and other foreign languages. LINK I'm also a bit of an artist (or at least I try to be). If you enjoyed this blog, treat yourself to a coffee mug or wall clock that I designed. 

Suggested Shopping list