>>81847448
>female morality being defined around the "virtue" of simply being female
>gatekeeping "womanhood" while men couldn't give a fuck about gatekeeping "manhood"
These two are intertwined in many ways, and it's the extreme, zealous often clinically insane levels of in-group preference that women display and many people have pointed this out already, but they never explored the subject any further than that, they just shrugged it off or chalked it up to some evopsych mumbo jumbo about how women used to spend more time with women and those kinds of thing.
They never once put this into the context of mammalian behavior and never measured it up against organisms with different chromosomal arrangements. They never wanted to explore the bigger picture.

Let's start by looking at how the militant wing of females use their make-believe ideology to argue:
>rolling accusations, preference of oxytocin driven consensus over objective truth(a.k.a. the "standpoint theory", my opinions triumph your observations)
When you encounter accusations masked as arguments from females, you must understand that they're not meant to reach a conclusion. They're meant to keep you under siege. You have to understand that objective truth is something that you might care about, but they don't. It doesn't make them feel the way they want to feel. Your preference for empiricism and observable truth is the creation of your own psyche, your brain chemistry and it's not something that simply exists in the wild and for many people it is often overridden by pathos, which is nearly universal in women, they will categorically discard your arguments because they're not female opinions. It's not from "them", not from "their people" it's just gibberish, noise made by the foreign object and it evokes absolutely no feelings in them, it simply results in immune-like knee-jerk defensive reactions, such as the aforementioned accusations. It's reflex, instinct, your opinions are biologically filtered.