Oh, it’s because they’re sexist. That was easy.

And I’m being informed that I can’t only ask and answer a question to qualify as a complete post. Fine. So here’s the background. Rand Paul was on The Mike Gallagher Show, and spoke about the possibility of a special prosecutor being called in to investigate the ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia. From the Hill article:

“I’d probably take a step back and you know, talk about what we’re actually investigating here,” Paul said on “The Mike Gallagher Show” Monday.

“I wouldn’t really want a special investigator if all we’re hearing is gossip in the media and nobody’s presented any proof that there have been connections or that any law has been broken, for that matter,” he added.

“So I think before people jump to sort of the hysteria of a special prosecutor, why don’t we have somebody present evidence of some sort of wrongdoing before we go forward?”

See, it’s hysterical to believe that a special prosecutor should be called in to investigate the possibility that Trump and Russia have ties because no such ties exist. Except for those about former NSC Advisor Michael Flynn, and the phone calls that have been widely reported. Which also led to the lying and cover-up of said phone calls. But seriously, other than that, it’s totally lies.

Of course Rand isn’t the only one using the “hysterical” label. Noted Asshat Piers Morgan has repeatedly said he’s not a Trump supporter, but is repelled by the “unAmerican” nature of the criticism of Trump. Here he is a couple of weeks ago explaining his position on Other Noted Asshat Sean Hannity’s show.

In case you can’t sit through that:

What I don’t like about what is going on now is there is an absolutely frenzied concerted attempt to delegitimize, sabotage and destroy the Trump presidency before its even started.

Among other things, I do need to point out to Piers that Trump had been president for nearly four weeks when this interview was given. So his presidency had definitely already started. Luckily the interview goes on to explain that any investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia is a witch hunt, and that what we should be focusing on is the Wikileaks information about Hillary’s ties to the media. OK. So why are they choosing these specific words (“hysterical”, “frenzied”) to describe the public’s demand for an investigation? Now I get to answer: it’s because they’re sexist. And now I’m finished.

Dammit. OK, fine, first part: why is it sexist to describe the entire anti-Trump movement (hereafter described as The Resistance because I think it’s badass) as “hysterical”? Because hysterical is an inherently sexist word. Like the origin of the word was about how a woman’s uterus would go free-floating through her body, and make her crazy. We’re so easily overwhelmed by both our emotions and our bodies that we can’t even prevent our wombs from turning against us! Women, amirite? It paints any and all resistance to Trump as being emotionally rather than intellectually based, and inherently irrational. Which means it can be easily dismissed. Because no one ever says, “That woman is hysterical! Let’s go have a long talk about trade policy!”

The fact that none of this is anchored in reality isn’t an issue for people who use the “hysterical” label. It’s the same reason that Hillary could be both an unfeeling robot programmed to win elections and an irrational harpy trying to take everyone’s balls. It’s also the reason that I, a person who has been told I could become stoic if I “got in touch with my emotions,” can also be told during a heated debate that I’m becoming “too sensitive.” It’s why the Women’s March, the largest single protest in the history of the country, was written off as without a purpose or clear goal.

And have you noticed an uptick of people calling The Resistance (damn, I like that) “hysterical” since, I don’t know, January 22nd? In all fairness, part of that is the Women’s March signaled the beginning of the movement for a lot of people. But let’s not pretend for a second that it being called “The Women’s March” didn’t play a role. Critics get to play the angle that they aren’t against the protesters, they just wish it were more “rational.” That if we weren’t so emotional about Trump’s presidency, we’d give him a fair chance before opposing his policies. You know, because we haven’t had over eighteen months of Trump telling us what he plans to do. We need to wait until he’s really settled into the presidency before making a decision on whether we support his choice to limit a woman’s reproductive health, tear apart families in some wildly xenophobic bid to return America to its previous whiteness glory, and prevent legal immigrant from entering the country because he can’t figure out a fucking executive order.

While we’re here, let’s take a quick second to examine the emotional stability of the man we’re accused of being hysterically against. Surely, Rand, Piers and co., those beacons of rationality, who are only affronted by our “hysteria”, would have their own issues with Trump’s behavior, right? Like when he shouted during a debate that Hillary is a puppet? Or he spoke in front of the CIA memorial wall about how many people were at his inauguration because his pride was damaged by the Women’s March turn out? Or when he nearly got us into a land war with Australia because he’d had a long day? Oh, what’s that? That just shows how passionate and fiery Trump is? And why is it that they believe that?

It’s because they’re fucking sexist.