Lindsey Clancy arguments undermine the leftist feminism as a whole.

The idea that she was not in control and that men do not understand is not a good argument for feminist to make.

So are we now supposed to believe that women are prone to such biological issues that they cannot be held responsible when they snap and kill their own children?

There was a time when many argued that due to hormones, childbirth, and other factors related to female characteristics, women were not as capable of being stable and objective enough to make decisions like men. hmmm... Some suggest this is why women today still do not earn as much as men. However, this mindset has largely been rejected and is rarely seen in today's workplace. In 2026, no employer would openly state that a woman is disqualified for a promotion due to a perceived lack of emotional stability compared to a man. At least not out loud.

But it seems that the current feminist movement is attempting to revive the notion that women can be so overwhelmed by emotions and female-specific biological conditions that they may act so irrationally that they would lose control and end up harming their own children. Oh, and by the way, this behavior is suggested to be excusable, even if that harm is strangling three children to death.

Furthermore, the argument that "men just don't understand" seems a tad bit disingenuous to the same people who demand that gender is fluid and that the only difference between the sexes is a mindset. Which is it? Are men and women so different than one cannot understand why the other would kill their own children, or are the differences so minor and inconsequential that many people cannot even define the difference between the two sexes? Would Clancy had killed her own children had she been non-binary or transgender or otherwise sexually confused? Can we both suggest that anyone can be any sex that they want because "what is a woman anyways" while also arguing that biological men cannot understand biological women enough to pass judgement on a triple murder of children?

If I had to choose between the two, I would lean towards the idea that it might be more challenging for a man to comprehend what a woman experiences after death. I could argue that the notion of men and women being differently hardwired in the brain, that every cell in our bodies contains either XX or XY chromosomes, and that we have entirely different hormones coursing through us, makes it difficult for one gender to fully understand the other. This might explain the popularity of books like "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus." However, if this is truly the case, why do many feminists support the notion that someone hardwired as a man, with XY chromosomes and a body that naturally produces testosterone, can simply declare they are a woman and just... become one?

I wonder if the women dressed in pink, who support Clancy and claim this is part of a newly discovered systemic patriarchy, realize that this undermines arguments about gender equality. It's also seems quite absurd that they apparently struggle to define a woman when questioned, albeit for different reasons, considering how much they are relying on the difference between sexes to feed their support for the woman who killed her three children.