Risking repeating myself, Janice is by far the clearest thinker on feminism. Every time I hear from her, my own muddled thoughts are clarified, and I feel that I have a firmer grip on reality.
As much as I hate to admit it, I quite enjoy seeing feminism struggle with the trans issue. After supporting bigoted, misandrist political agendas and suppressing all reasonable academic discourse that might shed light on their sexist ideologies or contravene their objectives, feminists are now learning that behaving in bad faith can have consequences. For decades, feminism felt comfortable that it would forever reign supreme over public discourses of victimhood: feminism alone would have dominion over concerns for social injustice, would have the exclusive right to colonize any other ideology or organization seeking recognition of discrimination or harassment, and would allocate its power to those who showed allegiance to feminism like a master throws scraps to a begging dog. The trans issue more than anything else has exposed the weaknesses of the feminist power structure. Feminists like to imagine mythical "safe spaces" as domains that they are protecting from evil male or transgender aggressors; it's a useful trope for promoting in the public imagination the fantasies of the hapless female victim that feminism finds so indispensable. I have to wonder if the actual "safe space" they have in mind is not a women's restroom or other space whose sanctity can only be measured by the absence of men, but rather the ideological space that they have enjoyed for so long in politics and in the academy where their oppressive doctrines could not be questioned.
Yes I think the truth is as you say, the "trans" issue does expose the incoherence of "feminism". It also exposes holes in the alliances of "queer" groups. In the UK for instance "Stonewall" has gone from ultra respectable voice of homosexuality to attacked by some of its founders. And in one her early diatribes on the topic lesbian feminist Julie Bindel revealingly raised against "former allies" now "attacking women". Interestingly in this country the majority of those referred for treatment are female to Male "trans" and the result has been a reversal in the "affirmative" approach taken by the NHS with youngsters. Suggesting that this is the key issue to get the trans train slowed down, point out females too can want to change their sex.
Dec 27, 2022·edited Dec 27, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Thank you for all your hard work Janice, you are enriching honest debates all over the globe with your rigorous efforts of finding the facts as they fall.
I have the feeling that the public views on these matters are changing in society, even though in reaction the feminists try to clamp down even harder to stifle dissent.
At least as an Anti-feminist we can enjoy some of the self-inflicted chaos they created, even though our purpose needs to be different, a fair and just society can not exist with these victim narratives deeply entrenched which is why I oppose gender ideology as rigorous as I oppose feminism.
The goal, it seems to me, seems to be the elimination of maleness, by creating unlimited genders that are everything *but* male.
In any case, you have reached me here in Germany and regardless of where this all ends up you can be proud of what you have achieved by voicing so clear and concise dissent.
Pointing out the hypocrisies and contradictions in feminism has never worked. You can't debate with a dogmatic fanatic. The trans people have nailed their 95th thesis to the door of the feminist's Wittenberg cathedral and the religious war is on. They build a para-military political army and now it is being turned against them. We can only hope the two tyrants tear each other's throats out.
Yes, I hope that trans advocacy destroys feminism and vice versa (and that our children can be saved from trans mania). I don't hope to convince any ideologue; I hope to sway the well-intentioned, busy, rational person who has never looked deeply into feminism and who assumes that all the hoopla about women's oppression and women's desire for "equality" must have something real at bottom worhty of respect. I want to help those people--men and women of good faith--see that they have no cause for deference to feminist claims. I also hope to bolster those already convinced and, along the way, have satisfaction in figuring out what I think!
Yes I do think you are right. In the UK good manners includes being specially nice to ladies and girls. This has meant that far from a "fight" the men in the political system and institutions have proven the dictum that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The latest example being the latest policy of getting the Police in particular to conceal evidence to enable the CPS to hoodwink coursts into convicting defendants in sex crimes. Less than 4 years after a huge scandal which briefly brought to an end the same policy in the Police and CPS! This being supported by a parade of Male MPs eager to be seen to be nice to ladies.
Few will have even read the detail and will simply have taken as read that those nice ladies have nothing other than the defence of fragile damsels in mind, rather than actually undermining the Justice system by deliberately encouraging the Police to conceal evidence from the Court! Because ladies are nice aren't they?
They are both in a rage against biology. Its like the feminists and the trans people are jumping off a tall building madly flapping their arms and screaming in rage that they can fly because they identify as a bird . Unfortunately because humans are hyper social we are all being dragged down with them.
I wonder how long it will be before an adult claims they identify as a 10 year old and demands to be admitted to the grade 5 class at the local elementary school?
The TERF-Trans conflict is a schism within the same original movement (as this article essentially asserts). Such a schism is inevitable within an ethos based on group identity which demotes the significance of individual merit. Such systems prevail over rivals by being more intolerant than the opposition. The result is that the system itself is unstable to schism because a more intolerant subgroup will rapidly expand within it. This is not mere words but the mathematical result of analysing such a situation using evolutionary game theory (see The Destructivists, ch.14).
Incidentally, that photo of my friend, the diminutive Elizabeth, standing defiant against the braying mob of privileged cry-bullies in Cambridge is my favourite image of the last 10 years.
I've noticed that, at least among those in the UK who are concerned with these issues, that there's a definite schism in UK feminism. The feminists opposing trans ideology/goals are known as "terfs" and terfs call trans-supporting feminists "handmaids." Weirdly, one of the terfs, Maria MacLachlan, wears a handmaid's tale outfit at protests (Maria is both a feminist and a communist, but I do find her work aggregating internet posts showing the totalitarian attitude of the trans activists quite impressive).
The term terf dates back tot he 1990s, when the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival was accused of being exclusionary to men who identified as women (in that day, they didn't call themselves transgender). The festival only lasted a few more years, under accusations they were "exclusionary."
I am actually on Kellie Jean's side on this issue, but I doubt that side will ever win because it resolutely refuses to acknowledge the cause of the force they are arguing against. Meanwhile, confused and vulnerable teens suffer.
I'm partially on her side. Absolutely agree about the butchering of children and the horrors of hormone-blockers, etc. I agree that biological men should not be competing in women's sports. But it gets far more complicated when we're dealing with adults who want to live as the opposite sex. I've heard Keen claim adamantly that transwomen should not be able to use the women's washroom. Why not? She got mystical about women needing a "safe space." I've never thought of a public toilet as a safe space. It is a place to pee and get out as quickly as possible. To listen to Keen, you'd think every transwoman was really a male rapist thinking up new ways to rape. That's where her knee-jerk feminist misandry kicks in, and she gives it free rein. I think we can find ways to accommodate trans people without demonizing and catastrophizing rhetoric.
Unfortunately, there are already too many cases--in schools and prisons--of trans-males entering into female spaces and raping females. Keep in mind that a male who says he identifies as female is considered trans-female, even though all of his male hormones, libido, and genitalia are intact.
Even one case is too many, I agree. But sexual abuse of women by female inmates and guards (and abuse of young men by female guards in youth reformatives, for that matter) is also documented. The answer is not to pretend, as too many anti-trans activists do, that the trans issue is all about men abusing women. It isn't. It is about many things, and anti-male hysteria should not be allowed to overtake humane and rational discussion.
In the 70s "unisex" changing rooms were de rigueur here in the UK and the excellent camp sites in Europe often included unisex toilet and washing facilities. I have no idea who exactly is supposed to "police" toilets particularly if the person has the outward appearance of the "sex" the toilets are designated for. Ut seems remarkably unlikely British people are likely to do anything so direct. So the whole safety thing seems a complete red herring outside the unusual circumstances of Prisons or other institutions which seem to have abandoned common sense.
Stumbled on this blog looking for a stat ... and had to comment on this old thread - please forgive me! (and happy new year again!)
The problem as I see it is that women's toilets are *not* made unisex just because any man can loiter in one as long as he superficially 'identifies' as female (which means nothing these days, given that there is absolutely no barrier to entry). Women's toilets are still designated women's spaces, and spaces for attending to personal bodily functions as well as personal grooming. This makes them magnets for a particular kind of pervy man who is looking to experience a kind of pseudo-intimacy with women. It's not so much that women's toilets are sacred feminine spaces, it's more that they are *perceived* as such in the minds of the kind of man who desperately wants to gain access ..... and now can with impunity.
Pervy men are everywhere in society, but they are diluted in regular public spaces, and they are diluted by normal men (who tend to be very protective of women). Therefore - when you boil it down - what actually makes women's toilets feel unsafe in 2023 for women like KJK is the fact that ordinary red blooded, heterosexual men are *excluded* from them.
It's the same reason an empty late night tube train or night bus feels unsafe. There are no ordinary men around to protect you from the 0.1% of creepy men who have nefarious intentions, or just make you feel uncomfortable.
I agree that KJK fails to point the finger of blame at the real culprit: feminism's social constructivism. I really value Benjamin Boyce's interviews, but I do find it infuriating that he has feminists on and doesn't call them out for their hypocrisy on this issue. I'm not saying he should (he tries to be a impartial platform), but I still find it infuriating! ;)
Yes. Too often talk on this matter paints any and every man who tries to be a woman as a sex pest. The ones who are sex pests are, I would say, unconfused about their sexual identity.
I would be amazed if women were not at higher risk from predatory lesbians than from the small number of transwomen. As we reported recently, official stats show women are equally likely to be sexually abused by female partners as by male partners, and more likely to be abused in other ways by female partners as by male partners https://j4mb.org.uk/2022/12/09/are-women-more-likely-to-be-abused-in-lesbian-or-heterosexual-relationships/.
Actually, she said in the recent interview with Benjamin Boyce, if I'm remembering correctly, that she doesn't like academic feminism, isn't a feminist, and that she considers herself a women's rights activist, i.e. a feminist of a different stripe. I notice that in all discussions, she prioritizes female suffering. Pure feminist B.S. Men must take a back seat in her campaign, always standing "behind" women to protect and support them, and to"center women's voices." Pure gynocentrism with an overlay of feminist B.S. She talks about the pain of mothers who are losing their children to trans advocacy. Here is a key area where there is no rationale whatsoever, except kneejerk 'women matter more' ideology, for emphasizing female suffering over male. I know plenty of fathers who are worried sick about the children they never see and whose ex-wives are busy trying to convince the kids that they are trans. Lots of feminist women are high on the trans agenda, even to the point of having their own children butchered, and not only because, as Keen claims, women are nicer than men.
I've commented on the shift here in the UK, with regard to "affirmation" and treatment of teenagers, once the fact that the majority of youngsters referred as trans were girls wanting to be boys. Once this entered public debate the focus shifted, for children. I wonder if any readers know the figures for Canada or states in the USA ? The lesson from the UK appears to be that so long as it's about changing boys its pretty fine, the reverse it seems is abuse and the whole thing is awful. The key is to show that girls too "trans".
That's fascinating, and sickening. I saw a conversation between Abigail Shrier and Candace Owens about Shrier's (then new) book, which I assume is based on statistics and cases from the United States. The focus is totally on girls transitioning; the only time boys are mentioned is when they are presented as predators in girls' locker rooms. I believe Shrier estimated that 80% of adolescent transitioning is F to M. Good interview aside from the rampant gynocentrism and kneejerk misandry.
Thank you. I suspect Shrier's estimate is an exaggeration, however it does demonstrate the power of presenting an issue as one that is detremental to girls. I'm inclined to regard this as a polemic with a similarly rigorous approach to the idea that "staring" and "giving unwanted compliments" are examples of sexual violence. I suppose the question for Shrier would be, if boys really are such worthless shits as she describes why would so many girls aspire to be one? Of course the awful truth is in populations of 66 millions in the UK and five times that in the USA it is not surprising there are a few "odd" people. After all even in the late sixties "sex changes" (for some reason in Morocco usually) were not unknown amongst the well known of the day. More surprising is the quite sudden elevation to an issue apparently central to western society. The latter appears entirely to be due to the battle within the diversity alphabet spaghetti spilling over into medialand and consequent demand for "recognition" and "equality".
Meanwhile in my everyday life it is an issue that completely irrelevant unless one visits the local university building or "arts centre" . Everywhere else there are "ladies" and "gents" .
I didn't catch that interview but the Triggernometry "interview" of Julie Bindel, another TERF, was an embarrassment. The men seemed utterly ignorant about gender politics in general and radical feminism in particular, so it turned into an hour-long radfem propaganda piece.
I followed your link. Keen's daughter says conversations in school about sexual assaults always gets taken over by discussion of assault by females on males.
I doubt this very much. And the report is by one single teenager whose mother is a feminist activist.
Have long said that the TERF v. TRA dispute is pure popcorn. Anyone with children should do whatever is necessary to protect them (and minimum should be home-schooling, state-schools only faith institutions inculcating the worship of government more assiduously than any RC school ever cultivated faith in Christ); outside of that, sit back and enjoy the show—pray they prove Kissinger wrong and succeed in *both* losing.
In my honest opinion. terms like "nobody is born in the wrong body" and "people need to recognize their biological sex" have very peculiar rings when coming from people whose ideology is responsible for things like The SCUM Manifesto. It gives off the same impression as "know your place" Obviously, I don't believe all of these women are like that...I know that some are just normal people with understandable concerns and altruistic motives, but their voices and rhetoric are very easily drowned out among the sea of bitter disdain. (sorry if this doesn't relate to the article, this was just what came to mind)
Hi, I've a lot to say on the 'Trans' movement so I could fill many replies.
In relation to this piece I'll make the observation that throughout history men have dominated the public and political spheres. Men have no problem understanding that the 'wrong' man might be in power and needs to be removed. Kings deposed, presidents assassinated, dictators overthrown, etc...
Women have wanted and gotten equality in the public sphere. Yet the message was always a utopian delusion that it would only ever be the 'right' women. There would be fewer wars, a fairer society, blah, blah. The idea that there could ever be the 'wrong' women in power is a mental blindspot: that women would have to go to war with their same sex a mental abberation. That aspect of equality was not in the brochure.
And yet here we are: Terfs and 'non-Terfs' such as Kelly-Jay Keen, JK Rowling et al. at war with other women and they are in utter denial of it. It's still all the fault of men. What makes this more bizarre is that pro-trans feminists have no problem attacking Rowling yet her retaliation is always that she's standing up 'for' women.
Transgender (as oppose the good old transvestite or transsexual), is not something I have any time for. It's a feminist screw-up. But I'm starting to get annoyed an people blaming trans people for it. And I'm beginning to dislike men critising other men for claiming to be 'trans-women'. Men are far too willing to throw other men under the bus and blame the male sex. I'm thinking of Youtuber Matt Walsh in particular. It's that kind of chivalry which gave feminists their un-contested platform and caused this mess in the first place. And trans-ideology couldn't have taken root without 40 year campaign of degrading and demeaning men.
I agree that these men are not 'trans-women'. But I was also brought up to believe that a good person plays by the rules. And these men are playing by the rules. The feminist paradigm was to create a mono-sexed species were the default would be woman. I don't like the rules and I won't play by them but I'm not going to berate someone who does. Blame the rule makers. I'll admit I'm conflicted about this as it sounds like a justification for: 'I was only acting under orders'. But people do, for various reasons, act under orders. Until I resolve this conflict my first instinct won't be to blame men, even if they declare they are trans.
PS
I do believe if women ruled the world there would be fewer wars. There would be exactly 1. Simply because it would never end.
Thank you for this lucid and high-spirited comment--much appreciated. I too deeply dislike and distrust the chivalrous male tendency to jump on the 'defending women against rapacious men' bandwagon; and I hate even more the feminist tendency to pretend that their internicine war has anything to do with 'women's rights' or 'patriarchy.' Helen Joyce may be the worst one of the lot in this respect: utter self-delusion about a patriarchal plot to usurp women's bodies (though I agree with her that trans women are not women).
Its ironic that JK Rowling beat the ideological drum in all her books and owes all her success to the feminist gate keepers in the schools and homes that let her book in and discouraged children from reading much better works of literature, and now those same gatekeepers are cancelling her. Her books appeal the the ideological idea that all boys and girls need to do the same things instead of giving above average intelligent boys books that appeal almost exclusively to them and this practice is one of the main reason that so many people today are confused about their gender identity. Rowling has very much helped to create the very problem she is now fighting against.
Without a doubt above average intelligent boys, if given the choice, would have much preferred TSR's Endless quest series (which ironically was written by a women) or the Fighting Fantasy series over Rowling but most girls would not.
I experienced the feminist gate keepers many times growing up. The whisper network condemned Star Trek the original series and promoted TNG because it beat the feminist ideological drum. My friends in high school were forced to play AD&D 2e by their mother's in order to support the new women CEO of TSR even though everyone agreed that the game sucked.
Hopefully Rowling's mediocre fantasy books will go away now that the gatekeepers are no longer forcing them on kids. I fail to see how coercing a girl in to reading substandard literature simply because it was written by women benefits the girl.
I couldn't agree more with Janice's post and so glad I found a tribe as I have felt very lost in the desert for eons.
That radical feminists didn't think there would be blow back is like an arsonist not understanding winds can change and drive the fire to his own house to burn it down. As a Bugs Bunny would say, "what a maroon."
In a great interview with Freddie Sayers, author Lionel Shriver mentions that she doesn't spend her days thinking about the fact she is a woman. And I whole heartedly agree. I do think about when I can't lift something or, dare I say, the need to call a friend to go over if my emotions are those of a crazy woman or if they are justified. (As a total side note, I actually believe the female trait of 'holding a grudge' might stem from an essential trait for survival. If, as some argue, women developed language to communicate the location of edible plants, wouldn't the same drive hold for grudges? If a plant is capable of killing your clan, one better hold a grudge. ) It was bad enough that feminists were teaching young women Pre-Covid that there were all sorts of glass ceilings everywhere. My son didn't believe that when I was in law school (91') the thought that a woman couldn't land a top job at a top law firm was laughable. You just needed the brains and the ranking - both of which alas I didn't not have. Not because I am a woman, because I didn't have the brainpower and organization of these classmates. When the Harvard President said in 2005, there may be innate differences between men and women and their math ability, I wasn't offended. I already knew from studies that men are more on the spectrum on the high level math skills. A friend's daughter is highly gifted and the only girl in her class. It is like athletes at the Olympics. Every athlete at the event is a superb athlete, but there only a few who make it to truly elite status. Genetics and discipline determine this outcome. PSAs will not - unless meritocracy is taken out of the games. Speaking of athletics, I used to do martial arts and enjoyed sparring - especially with men since I was pretty physical. After one round, I gleefully told my sparring mate how I could hold my own with the men. His response cut me to a core, 'we hold back.' Ouch, ouch, ouch. But he was right. I only had to look at the sparring between males of similar age. I wasn't as fast, I wasn't as strong and that my friends was reality.
Only after I became a mom did my uniqueness as a female being really kick in. And it is sad that the trans movement is its undoing. Women taking hormones to grow beards, but still have babies coming out of their vaginas, are still women. That medical professionals give into this mental illness does nothing to forward women's causes. (Chest feeding is particularly bizarre as men have breast and nipples so I don't get the logic.) Author Mary Harrington nails it in her essay on Unherd,
But if, on the other hand, we want everyone to be equal, that means opening the maternal experience beyond mothers: that is, denaturalising those facets of maternal experience that are arbitrary, evolved, embodied and — yes — at least partly instinctive. ....But we can’t simply throw up our hands and say this confusion is yet more evidence of a malign plot by men to psyop women into being docile housewives. We can’t have it all ways: we can’t both demand special provision for pregnancy and childbirth, and suggest that the absence of such provision is evidence of patriarchy. Not if we’re also going to suggest, as Conaboy does, that celebrating mothers’ embodied experience as unique and worthy of special protection is also evidence of women’s oppression, because the aim is to set women apart and constrain our social role.
Thank you very much for this, Elizabeth. Well said. I too had that moment, in my early 30s at university, of saying to a friend, "I don't spend my days thinking about the fact that I am a woman." I also realized that I didn't any longer define myself as a feminist. I was an animal-lover, a seeker after truth, a conservative (ouch, yes--at least in its most basic meaning), and someone deeply grateful to the men and women who built our civilization. And I was sad that it was all being destroyed. I never felt resentful in recognizing that men were better at a lot of things (in general) than women. I was grateful for men's physical courage, strength, skill, calm in crisis, ability to focus. I don't want to live in a world where those things are not recognized and celebrated.
You are a true heroine - or do we have to say hero now? My father was an associate dean of a prestigious graduate school. I know that university professorships are the ultimate reward for outstanding dissertations, research and academics. That you walked away because you wouldn't go along with the lies shows true integrity. You must have jeopardized financial and career stability, friendships and the wonderful feeling of walking on a campus in quiet solitude. You could have quietly continued on but you didn't. I hope you at some point get the recognition that Jordan Peterson, and Brett Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying, have received.
In my 40s I took up taekwondo. Basically as I had been taking my sons to a club and decided it was boring just watching. Of course they gave it up as they got too cool. But I carried on for some years into my 50s. And of course as you say I was a popular sparring partner for the young women, as you describe. Of course this brings up another "inequality" in the real world, that I was no real challenge for the young men being slower and frankly a bit more laid back. And not being large of stature even less so the tall lads with both greater speed and reach. In other words there are all sorts of ways we are different. Now in my 60s I train to keep things working rather than in expectation of achieving what a I could in my 40s, because the ageing body is oblivious to "equality" . Some of my contemporaries have died or become sick. Life is full of "diversity" even amongst white males. Maybe the answer is not to get ever more complex intersectionalty but simply treat each other according to the content of our character ..
I am in my 50s and would love to culturally appropriate my 20s self. Alas, reality doesn't bend that way. Actually maybe us older and wiser ones should all go around in short shorts and tank tops proclaiming loudly we are in our 20s and no one better dare say otherwise. Maybe such a Monty Python experiment might wake the young up as they divert their eyes away from flesh that is better covered than revealed.
Hi Elizabeth. I think Gad Saad would be interested in your thoughts about grudge holding. It reminds me of a study on witchcraft in Africa; witchdoctors were mostly used for settling grudges and warding off the evil eye (patriarchy?).
My own take on this matter is that "trans" and "TERF" are different horns of the same double standard
When feminists coveted the plum jobs they claimed that men and women were identical, even down to the bones ( this was the title of very first chapter in Germaine Greer's hate fest "the Female Eunuch" which claimed this, insisting that women where slighter and smaller due to deliberate starvation by men).
So, being identical there was nothing to stop them from having the top jobs. but only the top jobs, of course. Women still do not clean drains or lay them
BUT
When feminists want men's help they will play the helpless female and invoke the intrinsic differences between the sexes, and it seems to me, they do this with knowing and cynical awareness , unless they really are that stupid or deluded, that they are doing so.
So they say the sexes are interchangeable.
So far so good (for the sake of argument, I mean, for it is an outright falsity)
But when a trans comes along and invokes the intrinsic gender identity of being a woman in a man's body, though violating feminist theory yet they also appeal to the other horn of the double standard for feminists wanting a tire changed or a noise investigated on a dark night will appeal to just this very thing.
Of course trans also appeal to the interchangeability of the sexes.
They just do so in a way the feminists do not like for they the feminists are now muscled out of what they claim for themselves
And like spoiled children they complain and bully.
As usual this is not about principle but mere selfish complaining when they lose an advantage.
You would expect feminists to fully support the trans movement for it merely is the next logical step even though trans ideology is also a repudiation of feminist theory ( it is both because feminism is logically incoherent but that never troubled them for their hatred was all that mattered to them)
But no. spoiled and entitled little girls have no intention of looking at anything rationally.
I always laugh when GC feminists call trans-rights activists, "MRA's."
I do wish that radical feminists would pause for half a second of self reflection.
It's frustrating since, I don't believe gendercritical feminists should be censored. I loudly opposed the deletion of the subreddit, r/gendercritical.
But Fiamengo is absolutely right. They contributed heavily to the ethos of censorship. As much as I side with GC feminists against the denial of biological reality, I feel the hesitation of the frog before agreeing to help the scorpion across the river...
Good points. I don't know of even one MRA who could be considered (or who considers him/herself) a trans rights activist. The TERFs make out they've been silenced and attacked by MRAs without any supporting evidence, because it doesn't exist - likewise the evidence for any of their narratives. Every feminist nararative is one or more of the following:
- a baseless conspiracy theory (e.g. their definition of the 'patriarchy')
Thanks Robert. To my mind "Radical Feminism" - CHS termed it gender feminism in "Who Stole Feminism?" - has been in the driving seat for 50+ years. "Modern Liberal Feminism" - CHS termed it equity feminism - has been an utter irrelevance, little more than an opportunity for virtue-signalling women to take the privileges won by radical feminists (e.g. the right to have their unborn children killed, the WHO estimates 73+ million killed every year, as a result) without taking any of the heat about whether those privileges are reasonable, and who suffers (or dies) as a result.
What rights are "Modern Liberal Feminists" fighting for, anyway, other than yet more privileges? I cannot think of one right men have that women don't have in the UK, conversely there are a plethora of areas where women and girls have rights and privileges (whether through legislation or not, and whether through government action or inaction) and men accordingly disadvantaged - the inevitable consequence for men and boys when women and girls are privileged.
One of the rights "enjoyed" by women and girls in the UK has been the right to not have their genitals mutilated for cultural or religious reasons, the subject of direct legislation since the 1980s. Boys don't enjoy the same protection although carrying out MGM has been a crime since at least the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. There are no exemptions in the law of England and Wales for religious or cultural considerations, and it would require a parliamentary override to make MGM legal, which has never existed.
Frankly I consider any woman (or man, for that matter) who identifies as a feminist today to be a part of the problem. Ignorance is no defence.
Risking repeating myself, Janice is by far the clearest thinker on feminism. Every time I hear from her, my own muddled thoughts are clarified, and I feel that I have a firmer grip on reality.
Professor Fiamengo should start an e-petition to have women and gender studies removed from Canadian Universities.
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Home/Index
then we could all sign it.
As much as I hate to admit it, I quite enjoy seeing feminism struggle with the trans issue. After supporting bigoted, misandrist political agendas and suppressing all reasonable academic discourse that might shed light on their sexist ideologies or contravene their objectives, feminists are now learning that behaving in bad faith can have consequences. For decades, feminism felt comfortable that it would forever reign supreme over public discourses of victimhood: feminism alone would have dominion over concerns for social injustice, would have the exclusive right to colonize any other ideology or organization seeking recognition of discrimination or harassment, and would allocate its power to those who showed allegiance to feminism like a master throws scraps to a begging dog. The trans issue more than anything else has exposed the weaknesses of the feminist power structure. Feminists like to imagine mythical "safe spaces" as domains that they are protecting from evil male or transgender aggressors; it's a useful trope for promoting in the public imagination the fantasies of the hapless female victim that feminism finds so indispensable. I have to wonder if the actual "safe space" they have in mind is not a women's restroom or other space whose sanctity can only be measured by the absence of men, but rather the ideological space that they have enjoyed for so long in politics and in the academy where their oppressive doctrines could not be questioned.
Yes I think the truth is as you say, the "trans" issue does expose the incoherence of "feminism". It also exposes holes in the alliances of "queer" groups. In the UK for instance "Stonewall" has gone from ultra respectable voice of homosexuality to attacked by some of its founders. And in one her early diatribes on the topic lesbian feminist Julie Bindel revealingly raised against "former allies" now "attacking women". Interestingly in this country the majority of those referred for treatment are female to Male "trans" and the result has been a reversal in the "affirmative" approach taken by the NHS with youngsters. Suggesting that this is the key issue to get the trans train slowed down, point out females too can want to change their sex.
Thank you for all your hard work Janice, you are enriching honest debates all over the globe with your rigorous efforts of finding the facts as they fall.
I have the feeling that the public views on these matters are changing in society, even though in reaction the feminists try to clamp down even harder to stifle dissent.
At least as an Anti-feminist we can enjoy some of the self-inflicted chaos they created, even though our purpose needs to be different, a fair and just society can not exist with these victim narratives deeply entrenched which is why I oppose gender ideology as rigorous as I oppose feminism.
The goal, it seems to me, seems to be the elimination of maleness, by creating unlimited genders that are everything *but* male.
In any case, you have reached me here in Germany and regardless of where this all ends up you can be proud of what you have achieved by voicing so clear and concise dissent.
Again, thank you.
Thank you for your kind words.
Pointing out the hypocrisies and contradictions in feminism has never worked. You can't debate with a dogmatic fanatic. The trans people have nailed their 95th thesis to the door of the feminist's Wittenberg cathedral and the religious war is on. They build a para-military political army and now it is being turned against them. We can only hope the two tyrants tear each other's throats out.
Yes, I hope that trans advocacy destroys feminism and vice versa (and that our children can be saved from trans mania). I don't hope to convince any ideologue; I hope to sway the well-intentioned, busy, rational person who has never looked deeply into feminism and who assumes that all the hoopla about women's oppression and women's desire for "equality" must have something real at bottom worhty of respect. I want to help those people--men and women of good faith--see that they have no cause for deference to feminist claims. I also hope to bolster those already convinced and, along the way, have satisfaction in figuring out what I think!
Yes I do think you are right. In the UK good manners includes being specially nice to ladies and girls. This has meant that far from a "fight" the men in the political system and institutions have proven the dictum that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The latest example being the latest policy of getting the Police in particular to conceal evidence to enable the CPS to hoodwink coursts into convicting defendants in sex crimes. Less than 4 years after a huge scandal which briefly brought to an end the same policy in the Police and CPS! This being supported by a parade of Male MPs eager to be seen to be nice to ladies.
Few will have even read the detail and will simply have taken as read that those nice ladies have nothing other than the defence of fragile damsels in mind, rather than actually undermining the Justice system by deliberately encouraging the Police to conceal evidence from the Court! Because ladies are nice aren't they?
They are both in a rage against biology. Its like the feminists and the trans people are jumping off a tall building madly flapping their arms and screaming in rage that they can fly because they identify as a bird . Unfortunately because humans are hyper social we are all being dragged down with them.
I wonder how long it will be before an adult claims they identify as a 10 year old and demands to be admitted to the grade 5 class at the local elementary school?
The TERF-Trans conflict is a schism within the same original movement (as this article essentially asserts). Such a schism is inevitable within an ethos based on group identity which demotes the significance of individual merit. Such systems prevail over rivals by being more intolerant than the opposition. The result is that the system itself is unstable to schism because a more intolerant subgroup will rapidly expand within it. This is not mere words but the mathematical result of analysing such a situation using evolutionary game theory (see The Destructivists, ch.14).
Incidentally, that photo of my friend, the diminutive Elizabeth, standing defiant against the braying mob of privileged cry-bullies in Cambridge is my favourite image of the last 10 years.
Thanks for this, Rick, and yes about the image of the dauntless Elizabeth.
I'm sure there is a way to caption photos in Substack posts, but I haven't figured out how to do it, unfortunately.
Thanks Rick, I couldn't agree more about the image. Elizabeth was leader of Justice for Men & Boys http://j4mb.org.uk over 2020-1, her bio on the website here https://j4mb.org.uk/elizabeth-hobson-2-2/.
I've noticed that, at least among those in the UK who are concerned with these issues, that there's a definite schism in UK feminism. The feminists opposing trans ideology/goals are known as "terfs" and terfs call trans-supporting feminists "handmaids." Weirdly, one of the terfs, Maria MacLachlan, wears a handmaid's tale outfit at protests (Maria is both a feminist and a communist, but I do find her work aggregating internet posts showing the totalitarian attitude of the trans activists quite impressive).
The term terf dates back tot he 1990s, when the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival was accused of being exclusionary to men who identified as women (in that day, they didn't call themselves transgender). The festival only lasted a few more years, under accusations they were "exclusionary."
I am actually on Kellie Jean's side on this issue, but I doubt that side will ever win because it resolutely refuses to acknowledge the cause of the force they are arguing against. Meanwhile, confused and vulnerable teens suffer.
I'm partially on her side. Absolutely agree about the butchering of children and the horrors of hormone-blockers, etc. I agree that biological men should not be competing in women's sports. But it gets far more complicated when we're dealing with adults who want to live as the opposite sex. I've heard Keen claim adamantly that transwomen should not be able to use the women's washroom. Why not? She got mystical about women needing a "safe space." I've never thought of a public toilet as a safe space. It is a place to pee and get out as quickly as possible. To listen to Keen, you'd think every transwoman was really a male rapist thinking up new ways to rape. That's where her knee-jerk feminist misandry kicks in, and she gives it free rein. I think we can find ways to accommodate trans people without demonizing and catastrophizing rhetoric.
Unfortunately, there are already too many cases--in schools and prisons--of trans-males entering into female spaces and raping females. Keep in mind that a male who says he identifies as female is considered trans-female, even though all of his male hormones, libido, and genitalia are intact.
Even one case is too many, I agree. But sexual abuse of women by female inmates and guards (and abuse of young men by female guards in youth reformatives, for that matter) is also documented. The answer is not to pretend, as too many anti-trans activists do, that the trans issue is all about men abusing women. It isn't. It is about many things, and anti-male hysteria should not be allowed to overtake humane and rational discussion.
In the 70s "unisex" changing rooms were de rigueur here in the UK and the excellent camp sites in Europe often included unisex toilet and washing facilities. I have no idea who exactly is supposed to "police" toilets particularly if the person has the outward appearance of the "sex" the toilets are designated for. Ut seems remarkably unlikely British people are likely to do anything so direct. So the whole safety thing seems a complete red herring outside the unusual circumstances of Prisons or other institutions which seem to have abandoned common sense.
Exactly.
Stumbled on this blog looking for a stat ... and had to comment on this old thread - please forgive me! (and happy new year again!)
The problem as I see it is that women's toilets are *not* made unisex just because any man can loiter in one as long as he superficially 'identifies' as female (which means nothing these days, given that there is absolutely no barrier to entry). Women's toilets are still designated women's spaces, and spaces for attending to personal bodily functions as well as personal grooming. This makes them magnets for a particular kind of pervy man who is looking to experience a kind of pseudo-intimacy with women. It's not so much that women's toilets are sacred feminine spaces, it's more that they are *perceived* as such in the minds of the kind of man who desperately wants to gain access ..... and now can with impunity.
Pervy men are everywhere in society, but they are diluted in regular public spaces, and they are diluted by normal men (who tend to be very protective of women). Therefore - when you boil it down - what actually makes women's toilets feel unsafe in 2023 for women like KJK is the fact that ordinary red blooded, heterosexual men are *excluded* from them.
It's the same reason an empty late night tube train or night bus feels unsafe. There are no ordinary men around to protect you from the 0.1% of creepy men who have nefarious intentions, or just make you feel uncomfortable.
I agree that KJK fails to point the finger of blame at the real culprit: feminism's social constructivism. I really value Benjamin Boyce's interviews, but I do find it infuriating that he has feminists on and doesn't call them out for their hypocrisy on this issue. I'm not saying he should (he tries to be a impartial platform), but I still find it infuriating! ;)
“The answer is not to pretend,” in many ways it’s all right there. Children pretend and we can’t have children rule the real world.
Yes. Too often talk on this matter paints any and every man who tries to be a woman as a sex pest. The ones who are sex pests are, I would say, unconfused about their sexual identity.
Quite so. The underlying assumption is that all males are actual or potential sex monsters.
I would be amazed if women were not at higher risk from predatory lesbians than from the small number of transwomen. As we reported recently, official stats show women are equally likely to be sexually abused by female partners as by male partners, and more likely to be abused in other ways by female partners as by male partners https://j4mb.org.uk/2022/12/09/are-women-more-likely-to-be-abused-in-lesbian-or-heterosexual-relationships/.
So well said, thank you for saying what I feel.
I have listened to Kellie-Jay Keen a few times on the Triggernometry podcast. I believe she says she is not a feminist any more.
Yes, she does say that. But the fact that she defines trans as a "women's issue" suggests a strong feminist mindset.
Actually, she said in the recent interview with Benjamin Boyce, if I'm remembering correctly, that she doesn't like academic feminism, isn't a feminist, and that she considers herself a women's rights activist, i.e. a feminist of a different stripe. I notice that in all discussions, she prioritizes female suffering. Pure feminist B.S. Men must take a back seat in her campaign, always standing "behind" women to protect and support them, and to"center women's voices." Pure gynocentrism with an overlay of feminist B.S. She talks about the pain of mothers who are losing their children to trans advocacy. Here is a key area where there is no rationale whatsoever, except kneejerk 'women matter more' ideology, for emphasizing female suffering over male. I know plenty of fathers who are worried sick about the children they never see and whose ex-wives are busy trying to convince the kids that they are trans. Lots of feminist women are high on the trans agenda, even to the point of having their own children butchered, and not only because, as Keen claims, women are nicer than men.
I've commented on the shift here in the UK, with regard to "affirmation" and treatment of teenagers, once the fact that the majority of youngsters referred as trans were girls wanting to be boys. Once this entered public debate the focus shifted, for children. I wonder if any readers know the figures for Canada or states in the USA ? The lesson from the UK appears to be that so long as it's about changing boys its pretty fine, the reverse it seems is abuse and the whole thing is awful. The key is to show that girls too "trans".
That's fascinating, and sickening. I saw a conversation between Abigail Shrier and Candace Owens about Shrier's (then new) book, which I assume is based on statistics and cases from the United States. The focus is totally on girls transitioning; the only time boys are mentioned is when they are presented as predators in girls' locker rooms. I believe Shrier estimated that 80% of adolescent transitioning is F to M. Good interview aside from the rampant gynocentrism and kneejerk misandry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQt9msZkOL0
Thank you. I suspect Shrier's estimate is an exaggeration, however it does demonstrate the power of presenting an issue as one that is detremental to girls. I'm inclined to regard this as a polemic with a similarly rigorous approach to the idea that "staring" and "giving unwanted compliments" are examples of sexual violence. I suppose the question for Shrier would be, if boys really are such worthless shits as she describes why would so many girls aspire to be one? Of course the awful truth is in populations of 66 millions in the UK and five times that in the USA it is not surprising there are a few "odd" people. After all even in the late sixties "sex changes" (for some reason in Morocco usually) were not unknown amongst the well known of the day. More surprising is the quite sudden elevation to an issue apparently central to western society. The latter appears entirely to be due to the battle within the diversity alphabet spaghetti spilling over into medialand and consequent demand for "recognition" and "equality".
Meanwhile in my everyday life it is an issue that completely irrelevant unless one visits the local university building or "arts centre" . Everywhere else there are "ladies" and "gents" .
Nothing like jumping off the boat once you've helped steer it onto the rocks!
Agreed.
I didn't catch that interview but the Triggernometry "interview" of Julie Bindel, another TERF, was an embarrassment. The men seemed utterly ignorant about gender politics in general and radical feminism in particular, so it turned into an hour-long radfem propaganda piece.
Binder came across as an arrogant adolescent.
I remember that. Could be tactical, since Triggernometry is mostly watched by males.
Great interviews!!
Kelli-Jay Keen, the "non-feminist": "Why don't people acknowledge the tremendous risk that men pose to women?"
https://mobile.twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/1607444411155189763
I followed your link. Keen's daughter says conversations in school about sexual assaults always gets taken over by discussion of assault by females on males.
I doubt this very much. And the report is by one single teenager whose mother is a feminist activist.
It's one of those conveniently unverifiable anecdotes that is extremely difficult to imagine.
Have long said that the TERF v. TRA dispute is pure popcorn. Anyone with children should do whatever is necessary to protect them (and minimum should be home-schooling, state-schools only faith institutions inculcating the worship of government more assiduously than any RC school ever cultivated faith in Christ); outside of that, sit back and enjoy the show—pray they prove Kissinger wrong and succeed in *both* losing.
Well said.
In my honest opinion. terms like "nobody is born in the wrong body" and "people need to recognize their biological sex" have very peculiar rings when coming from people whose ideology is responsible for things like The SCUM Manifesto. It gives off the same impression as "know your place" Obviously, I don't believe all of these women are like that...I know that some are just normal people with understandable concerns and altruistic motives, but their voices and rhetoric are very easily drowned out among the sea of bitter disdain. (sorry if this doesn't relate to the article, this was just what came to mind)
Hi, I've a lot to say on the 'Trans' movement so I could fill many replies.
In relation to this piece I'll make the observation that throughout history men have dominated the public and political spheres. Men have no problem understanding that the 'wrong' man might be in power and needs to be removed. Kings deposed, presidents assassinated, dictators overthrown, etc...
Women have wanted and gotten equality in the public sphere. Yet the message was always a utopian delusion that it would only ever be the 'right' women. There would be fewer wars, a fairer society, blah, blah. The idea that there could ever be the 'wrong' women in power is a mental blindspot: that women would have to go to war with their same sex a mental abberation. That aspect of equality was not in the brochure.
And yet here we are: Terfs and 'non-Terfs' such as Kelly-Jay Keen, JK Rowling et al. at war with other women and they are in utter denial of it. It's still all the fault of men. What makes this more bizarre is that pro-trans feminists have no problem attacking Rowling yet her retaliation is always that she's standing up 'for' women.
Transgender (as oppose the good old transvestite or transsexual), is not something I have any time for. It's a feminist screw-up. But I'm starting to get annoyed an people blaming trans people for it. And I'm beginning to dislike men critising other men for claiming to be 'trans-women'. Men are far too willing to throw other men under the bus and blame the male sex. I'm thinking of Youtuber Matt Walsh in particular. It's that kind of chivalry which gave feminists their un-contested platform and caused this mess in the first place. And trans-ideology couldn't have taken root without 40 year campaign of degrading and demeaning men.
I agree that these men are not 'trans-women'. But I was also brought up to believe that a good person plays by the rules. And these men are playing by the rules. The feminist paradigm was to create a mono-sexed species were the default would be woman. I don't like the rules and I won't play by them but I'm not going to berate someone who does. Blame the rule makers. I'll admit I'm conflicted about this as it sounds like a justification for: 'I was only acting under orders'. But people do, for various reasons, act under orders. Until I resolve this conflict my first instinct won't be to blame men, even if they declare they are trans.
PS
I do believe if women ruled the world there would be fewer wars. There would be exactly 1. Simply because it would never end.
Thank you for this lucid and high-spirited comment--much appreciated. I too deeply dislike and distrust the chivalrous male tendency to jump on the 'defending women against rapacious men' bandwagon; and I hate even more the feminist tendency to pretend that their internicine war has anything to do with 'women's rights' or 'patriarchy.' Helen Joyce may be the worst one of the lot in this respect: utter self-delusion about a patriarchal plot to usurp women's bodies (though I agree with her that trans women are not women).
Its ironic that JK Rowling beat the ideological drum in all her books and owes all her success to the feminist gate keepers in the schools and homes that let her book in and discouraged children from reading much better works of literature, and now those same gatekeepers are cancelling her. Her books appeal the the ideological idea that all boys and girls need to do the same things instead of giving above average intelligent boys books that appeal almost exclusively to them and this practice is one of the main reason that so many people today are confused about their gender identity. Rowling has very much helped to create the very problem she is now fighting against.
Without a doubt above average intelligent boys, if given the choice, would have much preferred TSR's Endless quest series (which ironically was written by a women) or the Fighting Fantasy series over Rowling but most girls would not.
I experienced the feminist gate keepers many times growing up. The whisper network condemned Star Trek the original series and promoted TNG because it beat the feminist ideological drum. My friends in high school were forced to play AD&D 2e by their mother's in order to support the new women CEO of TSR even though everyone agreed that the game sucked.
Hopefully Rowling's mediocre fantasy books will go away now that the gatekeepers are no longer forcing them on kids. I fail to see how coercing a girl in to reading substandard literature simply because it was written by women benefits the girl.
So true Janice.
If the adage of "what goes around, comes around" is true, they are in for a helluva time.
Popcorn.
I have to admit it's somewhat enjoyable to see feminists on the receiving end of what men have been receiving since the 70s.
I couldn't agree more with Janice's post and so glad I found a tribe as I have felt very lost in the desert for eons.
That radical feminists didn't think there would be blow back is like an arsonist not understanding winds can change and drive the fire to his own house to burn it down. As a Bugs Bunny would say, "what a maroon."
In a great interview with Freddie Sayers, author Lionel Shriver mentions that she doesn't spend her days thinking about the fact she is a woman. And I whole heartedly agree. I do think about when I can't lift something or, dare I say, the need to call a friend to go over if my emotions are those of a crazy woman or if they are justified. (As a total side note, I actually believe the female trait of 'holding a grudge' might stem from an essential trait for survival. If, as some argue, women developed language to communicate the location of edible plants, wouldn't the same drive hold for grudges? If a plant is capable of killing your clan, one better hold a grudge. ) It was bad enough that feminists were teaching young women Pre-Covid that there were all sorts of glass ceilings everywhere. My son didn't believe that when I was in law school (91') the thought that a woman couldn't land a top job at a top law firm was laughable. You just needed the brains and the ranking - both of which alas I didn't not have. Not because I am a woman, because I didn't have the brainpower and organization of these classmates. When the Harvard President said in 2005, there may be innate differences between men and women and their math ability, I wasn't offended. I already knew from studies that men are more on the spectrum on the high level math skills. A friend's daughter is highly gifted and the only girl in her class. It is like athletes at the Olympics. Every athlete at the event is a superb athlete, but there only a few who make it to truly elite status. Genetics and discipline determine this outcome. PSAs will not - unless meritocracy is taken out of the games. Speaking of athletics, I used to do martial arts and enjoyed sparring - especially with men since I was pretty physical. After one round, I gleefully told my sparring mate how I could hold my own with the men. His response cut me to a core, 'we hold back.' Ouch, ouch, ouch. But he was right. I only had to look at the sparring between males of similar age. I wasn't as fast, I wasn't as strong and that my friends was reality.
Only after I became a mom did my uniqueness as a female being really kick in. And it is sad that the trans movement is its undoing. Women taking hormones to grow beards, but still have babies coming out of their vaginas, are still women. That medical professionals give into this mental illness does nothing to forward women's causes. (Chest feeding is particularly bizarre as men have breast and nipples so I don't get the logic.) Author Mary Harrington nails it in her essay on Unherd,
But if, on the other hand, we want everyone to be equal, that means opening the maternal experience beyond mothers: that is, denaturalising those facets of maternal experience that are arbitrary, evolved, embodied and — yes — at least partly instinctive. ....But we can’t simply throw up our hands and say this confusion is yet more evidence of a malign plot by men to psyop women into being docile housewives. We can’t have it all ways: we can’t both demand special provision for pregnancy and childbirth, and suggest that the absence of such provision is evidence of patriarchy. Not if we’re also going to suggest, as Conaboy does, that celebrating mothers’ embodied experience as unique and worthy of special protection is also evidence of women’s oppression, because the aim is to set women apart and constrain our social role.
https://unherd.com/2022/09/the-left-has-mummy-issues/
Thank you very much for this, Elizabeth. Well said. I too had that moment, in my early 30s at university, of saying to a friend, "I don't spend my days thinking about the fact that I am a woman." I also realized that I didn't any longer define myself as a feminist. I was an animal-lover, a seeker after truth, a conservative (ouch, yes--at least in its most basic meaning), and someone deeply grateful to the men and women who built our civilization. And I was sad that it was all being destroyed. I never felt resentful in recognizing that men were better at a lot of things (in general) than women. I was grateful for men's physical courage, strength, skill, calm in crisis, ability to focus. I don't want to live in a world where those things are not recognized and celebrated.
You are a true heroine - or do we have to say hero now? My father was an associate dean of a prestigious graduate school. I know that university professorships are the ultimate reward for outstanding dissertations, research and academics. That you walked away because you wouldn't go along with the lies shows true integrity. You must have jeopardized financial and career stability, friendships and the wonderful feeling of walking on a campus in quiet solitude. You could have quietly continued on but you didn't. I hope you at some point get the recognition that Jordan Peterson, and Brett Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying, have received.
In my 40s I took up taekwondo. Basically as I had been taking my sons to a club and decided it was boring just watching. Of course they gave it up as they got too cool. But I carried on for some years into my 50s. And of course as you say I was a popular sparring partner for the young women, as you describe. Of course this brings up another "inequality" in the real world, that I was no real challenge for the young men being slower and frankly a bit more laid back. And not being large of stature even less so the tall lads with both greater speed and reach. In other words there are all sorts of ways we are different. Now in my 60s I train to keep things working rather than in expectation of achieving what a I could in my 40s, because the ageing body is oblivious to "equality" . Some of my contemporaries have died or become sick. Life is full of "diversity" even amongst white males. Maybe the answer is not to get ever more complex intersectionalty but simply treat each other according to the content of our character ..
I am in my 50s and would love to culturally appropriate my 20s self. Alas, reality doesn't bend that way. Actually maybe us older and wiser ones should all go around in short shorts and tank tops proclaiming loudly we are in our 20s and no one better dare say otherwise. Maybe such a Monty Python experiment might wake the young up as they divert their eyes away from flesh that is better covered than revealed.
Maybe wait for summer
How do I begrudge thee?
Let me count the ways..
Hi Elizabeth. I think Gad Saad would be interested in your thoughts about grudge holding. It reminds me of a study on witchcraft in Africa; witchdoctors were mostly used for settling grudges and warding off the evil eye (patriarchy?).
Well said.
My own take on this matter is that "trans" and "TERF" are different horns of the same double standard
When feminists coveted the plum jobs they claimed that men and women were identical, even down to the bones ( this was the title of very first chapter in Germaine Greer's hate fest "the Female Eunuch" which claimed this, insisting that women where slighter and smaller due to deliberate starvation by men).
So, being identical there was nothing to stop them from having the top jobs. but only the top jobs, of course. Women still do not clean drains or lay them
BUT
When feminists want men's help they will play the helpless female and invoke the intrinsic differences between the sexes, and it seems to me, they do this with knowing and cynical awareness , unless they really are that stupid or deluded, that they are doing so.
So they say the sexes are interchangeable.
So far so good (for the sake of argument, I mean, for it is an outright falsity)
But when a trans comes along and invokes the intrinsic gender identity of being a woman in a man's body, though violating feminist theory yet they also appeal to the other horn of the double standard for feminists wanting a tire changed or a noise investigated on a dark night will appeal to just this very thing.
Of course trans also appeal to the interchangeability of the sexes.
They just do so in a way the feminists do not like for they the feminists are now muscled out of what they claim for themselves
And like spoiled children they complain and bully.
As usual this is not about principle but mere selfish complaining when they lose an advantage.
You would expect feminists to fully support the trans movement for it merely is the next logical step even though trans ideology is also a repudiation of feminist theory ( it is both because feminism is logically incoherent but that never troubled them for their hatred was all that mattered to them)
But no. spoiled and entitled little girls have no intention of looking at anything rationally.
I always laugh when GC feminists call trans-rights activists, "MRA's."
I do wish that radical feminists would pause for half a second of self reflection.
It's frustrating since, I don't believe gendercritical feminists should be censored. I loudly opposed the deletion of the subreddit, r/gendercritical.
But Fiamengo is absolutely right. They contributed heavily to the ethos of censorship. As much as I side with GC feminists against the denial of biological reality, I feel the hesitation of the frog before agreeing to help the scorpion across the river...
I'm sorry but i had to laugh.
i also wish they would pause for a moment of self reflection.
but, as if they know this would destroy their ideology totally, THEY WILL NO DO IT ( except for a few
Good points. I don't know of even one MRA who could be considered (or who considers him/herself) a trans rights activist. The TERFs make out they've been silenced and attacked by MRAs without any supporting evidence, because it doesn't exist - likewise the evidence for any of their narratives. Every feminist nararative is one or more of the following:
- a baseless conspiracy theory (e.g. their definition of the 'patriarchy')
- a fantasy
- a lie
- a delusion
- a myth
I appreciate you Mike. Thanks for the reply!
Big a fan of yours since they assaulted you on campus.
Thanks Jeb! Happy New Year to you and everyone here.
Feminism got reduced to Radical Feminism. There is such a thing as Moderate Liberal Feminism .
Both Christina Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young are not given the light of day ,by Radical Feminists .
Thanks Robert. To my mind "Radical Feminism" - CHS termed it gender feminism in "Who Stole Feminism?" - has been in the driving seat for 50+ years. "Modern Liberal Feminism" - CHS termed it equity feminism - has been an utter irrelevance, little more than an opportunity for virtue-signalling women to take the privileges won by radical feminists (e.g. the right to have their unborn children killed, the WHO estimates 73+ million killed every year, as a result) without taking any of the heat about whether those privileges are reasonable, and who suffers (or dies) as a result.
What rights are "Modern Liberal Feminists" fighting for, anyway, other than yet more privileges? I cannot think of one right men have that women don't have in the UK, conversely there are a plethora of areas where women and girls have rights and privileges (whether through legislation or not, and whether through government action or inaction) and men accordingly disadvantaged - the inevitable consequence for men and boys when women and girls are privileged.
One of the rights "enjoyed" by women and girls in the UK has been the right to not have their genitals mutilated for cultural or religious reasons, the subject of direct legislation since the 1980s. Boys don't enjoy the same protection although carrying out MGM has been a crime since at least the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. There are no exemptions in the law of England and Wales for religious or cultural considerations, and it would require a parliamentary override to make MGM legal, which has never existed.
Frankly I consider any woman (or man, for that matter) who identifies as a feminist today to be a part of the problem. Ignorance is no defence.
Janice from time and time has shown that feminism has never been moderate. CHS is just another imbecile who fallen for its lies.