For the last few days, we’ve seen the headlines about Randy Stair and his murderous rampage all over our news feeds. We’ve learned about Stair’s bizarre obsession with a Nickelodeon cartoon character. We’ve learned about his unapologetic admissions of racist, sexist, and homophobic prejudice.
We’ve also learned that Stair was a transgender woman; a male who claims to “feel” like a woman on the inside, somehow trapped in the wrong body.
On any other occasion, an admitted racist, sexist, homophobic white man who planned and executed a murder-suicide would illicit the publishing of several liberal op-eds on the same day. Yet, there seems to be an incredible reluctance when it comes to discussion of Stair’s transgender identity as it relates to his crimes.
It turns out that claiming a transgender identity is a coat of armor against justifiable criticisms of male violence. In a way, it’s magical. Even a homicidal bigot can be insulated from the wrath of social justice criticisms if he claims to be trapped in the wrong gender. Randy Stair is only one example.
In 2016, Dana Rivers, a transgender-identified white male, made headlines for murdering a black lesbian couple, Patricia Wright and Charlotte Reed, as well as their teenage son, Toto M. Diambu. Where was the liberal outrage? It seemed that when liberals did step forward to express their indignation, it had more to do with anger at Rivers being misgendered. The homicide of a black family at the hands of a white male didn’t seem to warrant a national discussion about transgender identity politics and male violence against women. It certainly didn’t inspire a conversation about liberal sexism, liberal racism, or the ridiculous reasoning behind the prioritization of a murderer’s identity preferences. Instead, the story faded into the ether almost as spontaneously as it came.
There are several others.
In 2014, transgender woman Donna Perry was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. His victims were three women known to law enforcement as prostitutes. Where were the liberal think-pieces on protections for sex workers? In 2016, charges against Julianna Fialkowski, a transgender woman who was accused of raping and choking a female victim, were dropped because of supposed inconsistencies in the victim’s story. Where were the liberal protests against disbelieving the victim? This year, Patrick “Tara” Pearsall was convicted for sexually assaulting two pregnant teenagers. Where were the liberals? Perhaps a better question to ask would be:
Why do transgender-identified males consistently receive the utmost sensitivity from liberals, even when they harm women?
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the sensitivity to gender identity politics. I really do. No one wants to contribute to the furthered stigmatization of any group of people who are already horribly stigmatized. However, sensitivity is no excuse for willful ignorance.
Consistently, liberals will claim to promote women’s rights—perhaps even toss around some woke-sounding, intersectional feminist rhetoric if it helps them validate that claim. Yet, those same “woke” liberals don’t have a problem tossing women directly under the proverbial bus if it means preserving their social justice street credibility. I’d say this is especially true for white liberals, most of whom are very well-versed in the language of white guilt.
In a political paradigm in which virtue signaling carries as much social capital as oppression itself, the worse thing a white liberal can do is sacrifice his standing as an ally to the marginalized by offering criticism of any group over which white privilege is supposedly wielded. This means that transgender-identified males, even those who are responsible for harm against females, must be prioritized over the “cis” women whom they claim are oppressing them. Somehow, refusal to do so will elicit accusations of racism or some other privilege nobody knew that white liberals had in the first place.
…but what does this mean for women?
It means that we must suspend all reason and pretend that women have the social, political, economic, or cultural power to oppress males for our own benefit. By extension, it means we have to pretend that transgender women who threaten females with violence are just oppressed people raging against their oppressors—–not violent males doing what violent males have always done to females.
It means that a black woman who expresses skepticism over the call to respect Dana Rivers’s pronouns can simply be dismissed as an agent of “white feminism”. By extension, it means that a black woman can never have a legitimate cause for complaint at being told to respect a white male who brutally murdered a black lesbian couple and their black son.
It means that liberals will take issue with whether the mainstream media is acknowledging Randy Stair’s gender identity before they take issue with the heinous nature of his crimes. Better yet, it means that liberals will have to remain silent about the fact that transgender women have the same rates of violence as any other male. It turns out that these inconvenient truths might give us cause to question the wisdom of allowing males to identify their way into female-exclusive accommodations.
Even more than all of that, it means that liberalism can no longer be presumed the political home of feminism as males will always be affirmed and validated over females—even males who harm females.
Ultimately, there is little debate over whether or not transgender women who commit violence acts are wrong. There are very few liberals in this world who believe that a transgender woman’s anger justifies murder. However, liberal silence on abuses against females sends us all some very clear messages about how liberals prioritize females.
That is to say, they don’t prioritize females, at all.