Across faiths, women have long polled as more religious than men. These days we are also more likely to profess belief that men can become women if they look sad enough and claim sufficiently womanly feelings. Men, by contrast, are often less persuaded by transgender ideology, because they recognise how powerful male sexuality is as a driver of behaviour. Unlike women, they can see that the Emperor is really just an entitled flasher, because they can be emperors too.
But there is a more plausible explanation for apparent female credulity than the right-wing fantasy that women are simply less rational than men. Given that most women live alongside men, love men, and depend upon men at various points in their lives, cognitive dissonance about the risks males pose is hardly surprising. It is easier, and certainly safer, to believe that violent and deviant men are rare aberrations than it is to confront what the possibility of male violence means. The fashionable #bekind approach allows women to avoid acknowledging their own vulnerability.
Against this backdrop, female risk denial begins to make sense. You might expect women, being physically weaker, to be more alert to danger. Instead, we are often more willing, or at least more willing to pretend, that no threat exists. So barriers that protect us are pulled down, leading to prison abolition, open borders, and admitting men to female hospital wards. Whether this reflects hardwired “suicidal empathy,” as Saad and his acolytes insist, or is the product of a culture that punishes women who dare to put themselves first, we will probably never know. But female political behaviour is not necessarily evidence of female power. More often, it is evidence of female adaptation.
That women have entered workplaces, and that workplace culture has changed, is undeniable. But the idea that the modern ideological order was fomented by deranged women in HR departments is far less convincing.
If women are really responsible for the ideological capture of institutions, why has so much of it been bankrolled, protected, and normalised by powerful men? Governments, tech firms, broadcasters, universities, and corporations are not run by anxious female HR assistants. They are run overwhelmingly by men who discovered that fashionable moral causes offered status without sacrifice.
There is another reason transgender ideology is so easy to slide into. It does not upend old-fashioned sexism so much as repackage it. It asks for no uncomfortable introspection about the stereotypes we all, to varying degrees, collude in. On the contrary, it rewards their enthusiastic performance.
The “great feminization” thesis takes phenomena emerging from the interaction of technology, pornography, psychology, and sex and reduces them to a familiar story about female influence gone rogue. This is why the theory ultimately fails. It cannot explain why gender ideology has been enforced by male-led institutions, nor why its imagery maps less onto women’s lives than onto male sexual fantasy. The culture has not simply become more feminine. In many respects, it has become both more masculine and pornographic, and more feminine and compassionate as a result.
Source: The Upside of Feminizatio