IS DONALD TRUMP A WOMAN?

David French's column today bears the misleading headline "How Women Destroyed the West." French doesn't actually believe women destroyed the West, but the subject of his column -- a prominent anti-feminist writer named Helen Andrews -- believes that women are on the verge of destroying the West, as she's made clear in a recent speech to the National Conservatism Conference and an essay for Compact magazine called "The Great Feminization," which, as French notes "is the toast of parts of the right on X, where it is hailed as 'electrifying,' 'incisive' and 'provocative.'" (I'll note in passing that all of the linked praise comes from men.)

Andrews says that Western civilization is in a crisis of wokeness, and it's all the fault of women, or at least women in groups, who've been allowed to take over every profession because of sinister affirmative-action and DEI laws and policies.

According to Andrews, the "cancellations" of the early 2020s happened because women just can't let go of grievances, the way men can:

... men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits [were] formed in the mists of prehistory....

The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

French notes that this is absurd:

The past and present are littered with interminable conflicts. It was a male-dominated world during the Hundred Years’ War, and the Thirty Years’ War, and any number of protracted conflicts throughout world history. Women aren’t responsible for the endless carnage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The list could go on and on and on, but men are very capable of holding grudges, and the history of the masculine-dominated world is one of persistent, brutal conflict across continents and cultures.

But let's say Andrews is right. Let's say women are the real grudge-holders.

Does that mean Donald Trump is a woman?

After all, he's the one who doesn't want peace to be restored after his victory in the 2024 election. Democrats in Washington responded to that win with calls for bipartisan cooperation, but Trump wants to stop funding what he calls "Democrat programs," wants cash reparations for legal battles he blames on Democrats (even though all the cases have been quashed), and still wants to relitigate the 2020 election, which he lost to a Democrat.

Trump doesn't believe in "reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people [he was] fighting yesterday." He believes in conflict "with no clear terminus."

So, Helen Andrews, is Trump a woman?

Andrews writes:

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

Literally every day, Trump rejects written law in order to follow his emotions and gut instincts.

A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama.... they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties....

Losing the right to confront your accuser? An end to the concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties? This sounds exactly like immigration law under Trump. It must be because Trump is a woman -- or Stephen Miller is a woman!

Clearly, there are a lot of allegedly male Republicans who are secretly female. Andrews writes:

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza.

So is Trump a woman because he showed the leaders of Ukraine, France, and Azerbaijan his display of "Trump 2028" hats and other campaign merchandise during a meeting last summer? Is Pete Hegseth a woman because he insists that all members of the military, including aging generals, make a public show of their buffness and beardlessness? Was Elon Musk revealing that he's a woman when he attended Cabinet meeting wearing a hat that said, "Trump Was Right About Everything"?

It seems to me that if Helen Andrews is right, America is absolutely being run by women now -- most of whom are Trump men.