Tag: featured

#Empowerment to Me

“The future is human. It isn’t female.”

By now, you’ve most likely heard Lynzy Lab Stewart’s viral feminist diddy, “A Scary Time.”

The song was inspired by Donald Trump’s comment that it’s a “scary time for young men in America,” during the Kavanaugh debacle. The video rapidly caught public attention–NowThis picked it up, and Lynzy even performed the song live on Jimmy Kimmel’s show.

“It’s time for women to rise up, use our collective voice,” she sang.

That voice may not be as collective as she and other feminists would like to think.

For some women, empowerment looks a little different.

Tired of the genital hats? Wish Kamala Harris would bring it down a notch? Is the Constitution your “jam?”

This parody might be for you. . .

The Gender Revolution

How did we get here?

A war has been waged over gender, and it rages around us–a gender revolution. Our schools have become battlegrounds where educators fight for the minds of our youth. Constitutional rights stand in question. A new understanding of the separation of church and state has divorced morality from legality. Pronouns have become a source of great offense. Girls can be Boy Scouts, and boys can use the women’s restroom.

Join me as I journey through the origins and progression of the gender revolution in America, demonstrate the power of propaganda and the influence of educators, analyze the science behind sex and gender and navigate the semantics, bust widely-accepted myths, and explore the Christian response.

The end of the Gender Revolution starts now.


Click here to view the video on YouTube.

This Just in: Gender-Reveal Parties Are Dangerous for Children!

In addition to raising the bar of absurdity, Cosmopolitan’s recent article, “Dear Parents-to-Be: Stop Celebrating Your Baby’s Gender,” single-handedly shatters the primary tent poles of modern feminism. In this episode of “The Kylee Zempel Podcast,” Kylee deconstructs the article and points out the inconsistencies of modern feminists and the left.

The Problem With “Uber” Strict Regulations

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill on May 29, 2017, establishing statewide regulations for ride-hailing companies that override strict local ordinances passed in Austin in December 2015.

Texas’s capital city of Austin faced adverse effects following the competition-stifling ordinance passed in a 9-2 vote in 2015. Thinly veiled as a concern for public safety, the pernicious law required all employees of ridesharing services to undergo fingerprint background checks in addition to the background checks already required by Uber and Lyft, the ridesharing services in question.

An article by the Texas Tribune, published December 17, 2015 (the day after the original local ordinance passed), blatantly stated that the law demonstrated an attempt by Austin officials to strike a balance that allowed ridesharing services to conduct their business “while addressing concerns about fairness and safety.”

One could hardly be surprised by the chaos and rising prices that ensued. After all, no successful public policy started with a government-induced level playing field.

One could point a finger at the regulations of the taxi industry as the origin of the whole plight. The taxi industry in the United States faces strict regulations that are disproportionate to the risk of the services offered. In the name of safety, the government has issued laws requiring extensive regulations, background checks, and vehicle maintenance checks. Perhaps the most obvious example of this occurs with the sale of taxi medallions. These medallions are required by law to be affixed to cabs in certain cities nationwide. In requiring medallions for legal operation and limiting the number of medallions available, these cities tightly control the number of taxis that operate at a given time, preventing the market force of demand from dictating taxi supply and, consequently, taxi fare.

As the product of innovation and adaptation, Uber made its debut in 2009 in San Francisco, California, and rapidly spread throughout the nation. Unhindered by burdensome regulations, Uber went from being the least-utilized ground transportation method to the most-used method in the year 2015 alone. Mutually beneficial to both drivers and riders, Uber capitalized on the “invisible hand” of the market, keeping its fare prices upward and downward flexible depending upon market demand and supply. To add insult to injury for cab companies, Uber’s user-friendly app interface epitomized convenience for riders. With low barriers to entry for potential drivers, Uber had created a textbook free enterprise.

Austin city officials undoubtedly did not face incentives to foster healthy competition, and onlookers observed their egregious yet all-too-predictable reaction. Rather than reevaluating existing taxi regulations to keep the market competitive, in a 9-2 vote, Austin’s local officials passed a law requiring ridesharing services to conduct fingerprint-based background checks in addition to their pre-existing background check policies. A small band of winner-and-loser-choosing “experts” had once again succeeded in passing a specious bill promising safety and fairness.

Maintaining their reputation of getting the last word, Uber ceased operations within Austin, refusing to comply with the new fingerprinting standard.

The void created in Austin by Uber’s departure soon prompted new ridesharing services willing to comply with the new local ordinance to materialize. One such example was “RideAustin.” However, without real competition, these services charged fares above the market price, leaving customers extremely unsatisfied. In addition, different safety concerns emerged. Law enforcement officers and locals feared a potential increase in drunk driving incidents and sexual assaults on the streets of Austin at night as affordable transportation decreased and vulnerability increased.

On May 29, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that would establish statewide regulations for ridesharing companies, overruling Austin’s ordinance established in 2015. Governor Abbott’s new bill implemented reasonable safety requirements for ridesharing companies that allow the market to remain competitive, keeping prices low and consumers satisfied. His bill, House Bill 100, necessitates that ridesharing companies pay an annual $5,000 fee, require driver background checks at the local, state, and national levels without requiring fingerprint checks, and secure a permit from the Texas Department of Licensing.

Upon signing the bill, Uber has returned to the busy streets of Austin, satisfying consumer demand and restoring competition. The week after Uber’s reinstatement, “RideAustin,” the over-priced ridesharing company that emerged in the wake of Uber’s void, experienced a 62% decrease in demand and announced on Facebook that they would begin matching Uber and Lyft’s mile/minute fares.

Who knew increased regulation and decreased competition is actually harmful to consumers and producers? Governor Abbott. Many Austin locals are grateful he took steps to reverse those trends. Other cities would do well to learn from Austin’s blunder and pursue competitive “fares” rather than the illusion of being “fair” to avoid similar mistakes in the future.



Not All People with Vaginas Are Women

You heard me. I said it.

Not all people with vaginas are women.

I recently read an article about a pastor who was protesting the Texas bathroom bill on the grounds that “God is transgender.” The article featured a photo of a woman holding a handwritten sign that read:


The sign was clearly promoting the idea that some transgender women (i.e. men identifying as women) do not have vaginas and that some transgender men (i.e. women identifying as men) do have vaginas. The idea is that a vagina does not make either of them any more or any less woman, depending with which gender they are identifying.

My natural reaction was disagreement and disgust at the perversion of gender in our culture–at the idea that gender could somehow be a “spectrum” and a “choice.”

And then I realized, that the sign was completely accurate.

Not all women have vaginas. True.

Not all people with vaginas are women. True.

My mind is changing about the concreteness of gender. False.

Let me explain something.

When a woman with gender identity disorder wishes to begin identifying as a man, she is still biologically a woman. Although relatively uncommon, if she wishes and can afford it, she can undergo sex reassignment surgery in which her breast, ovaries, and other female organs are removed, her urethra is extended and rerouted, and a penis can be constructed out of tissue from the forearm or elsewhere.

When a man with gender identity disorder wishes to begin identifying as a woman, he is still biologically a man. More common than female-to-male sex reassignment surgery, men can undergo male-to-female sex reassignment surgery in which most of the penis and testes are removed, the urethra is reduced, and a semi-functional vagina is fashioned.

The process of gender identity change or sex reassignment surgery involves many preliminary steps including psychotherapy and hormone treatment as well as post-operation requirements and risks.

But the truth is that no matter how advanced and “successful” sex reassignment operations become in the U.S., no matter how many men get vaginas and how many women lose their boobs, no matter how much testosterone you inject into your buttocks, no matter how much body hair you start to grow, no matter how deep your voice gets…

Your gender is not determined by whether you have a vagina or a penis. Your genitalia is a result of your already-decided gender, not the determinant of it. Let me make this clear: ovaries and breasts and low vocal registers and oodles of body hair and wide hips do not make you a man or a woman. They are simply an external manifestation of an internal biological reality that CANNOT be altered.

Often forgotten, there are a few letters at the end of the alphabet that are used to scientifically denote a biological fact. The 23rd pair of chromosomes in the human body determines whether a person is male or female. Your mother’s egg carried an X chromosome, and you father’s sperm carried either an X or a Y chromosome. If you are a man, your father’s Y chromosome sperm paired with the egg; and if you are a woman, your father’s X chromosome sperm paired with the egg. Your sex was determined the instant you were conceived.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot change your chromosomes. They define your gender. It is science no matter how much you want to deny it, no matter how many people march with signs, and no matter how loud your voice and how adamant or “open” your mind.

So no, not all women have vaginas because some women want to be men and have had them sewn together. They are not any less woman. And no, not all people with vaginas are women because some men would rather be women and have exchanged their penises for vaginas. They are not any less man.

The time has come to think critically, people. It is no longer acceptable to let your open mind be ransacked by impulsive emotions and fanciful feelings and iconic movements. I like puffy glitter paint as much as the next girl, but just because a protest sign has puffy glitter paint on it doesn’t mean the ideas it conveys are true.

And no matter how much time passes and how many people stop believing it, the truth always holds up. Always. 

Truth holds up infinitely longer than a pithy cardboard sign about vaginas.