The decision by the International Swimming Federation to ban post-pubescent male-born swimmers from women’s competitions is one victory in an ongoing war that few feminists will admit they started.
Even more... Feminism has created the "trans women". A new generation of boys have been raised by feminist women to hate themselves and their toxic-masculinity. They know that the only way they can be good people, accepted by their mothers and feminist peers is to deny their maleness. A sad state of affairs.
There might be more to it than that. People like this exist in every culture - males or females uncomfortable with that born status - but it's only very recently that technology has existed that could let people change their sexual appearance to such a degree. They're going nuts with it, sure, but I imagine people went pretty nuts with fire, too, and we know they went nuts with the internal combustion engine and nuclear power.
I've known some trans women personally. They never listed anti-male feeling or shame at being biologically male as a reason for transitioning. One, when still presenting as male, was, frankly, one of the more entitled people I had ever met, and most women I knew resented his condescension (not much changed, IMO, since). Often it was related to autonomy, or just feeling more comfortable in a female role and presentation.
I'm very uncomfortable with the way that these things are being hyped in the media, though, and the way they seem to be being promoted in schools. It doesn't seem to be helping anyone, and appears more like a political ideology than a factual presentation of reality.
ITA. I notice that a lot of the very young boys identifying as girls have either no father int he home, or very weak fathers, and always mothers who are extremely involved with the child's performances.
This piece is spot on the money. It is feminism that has caused this - but more to the point it is the social constructionist thinking within feminism that has caused it. I really feel like the working 'definition of woman' that Big-F Feminism had been using for 50 years was 'A human who had been developmentally suppressed by the patriarchy to such an extent that they have developed 'female' a syndrome characterized by the growth of breasts and a large number of mental illnesses'
The trouble with social constructionism is that it's sort of exploring the negative space of human development. Social constructionism ignores our humanity, it's just mapping out the scope and limits of human susceptibility to influence, without clearly defining 'human'. A social constructionist is kind of like a sculptor who does not believe that clay exists.
One thing I hope, when our era is studied by historians, is that it's clear to subsequent generations that social constructionism was given every chance and advantage, decade after decade, and even with the focus and attention on the MtFs, FtMs, NBs, etc., that biological reality could not be erased.
Great piece. Although some feminists are trying to rebadge this problem as a product of the mens rights movement they are wrong. For example, back in 2019 an obscure cycle race that wouldn't normally make it onto the sports pages, the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, became front page news in the UK. The reason? Well according to the reports, a cyclist in the women's race that stated 10 minutes after men's race had caught up with the men and the women's race had to be neutralised (halted) to allow the men to get ahead again. You can imagine the reporting. This was an example of a woman being held back by her less able male colleagues and yes, women could not only compete with men in cycling, but beat them if they were allowed to. The mens race should have been paused to allow the women to pass, it was argued by some commentators on social media.
The truth, of course, was different. The female cyclist, Nicole Hanselmann, never caught up with the men's race, but caught up with a tail-back of following cars at the point were the race entered single file cobbled road. In fact, by the time Nicole Hanselmann caught up with the support vehicles, the leading male rider was 14 minutes ahead. That is, he had gained 4 minutes!
The winner of the men’s race of 200km would average 41kph and the winner of the women’s race of 123km averaged 36.7kph. Even the slowest male rider did better than this averaging 39.8kph. In short, the women were slower over a shorter course.
Neutralisations to ensure the safety of cyclists are not uncommon in cycle races and there was nothing unusual in what happened to the women's race. The race would have restated with Nicole the same distance ahead of her female rivals. Nicole was not a victim of the patriarchal race organisers.
This is not a criticism of the female riders, I am sure it was great race and in its own way the equal of the men's race. This is a criticism of the journalists who misrepresented the race in pursuit of their agenda. They are now reaping what they have sown.
Thank you so much for this. I was introduced to your work back in 2011, and I have been a fan ever since. I transitioned a long time ago (1993), from female to male. Saying this I know that no amount of hormone therapy or surgery will alter that I am biologically female.
I am so disheartened to see that the louder voices screeching in the trans community seem to have left all reality behind. Instead these voices demand that the rest of society respect and adhere to their invented reality rather than truth.
Great piece! Janice Fiamengo has a habit of organizing words in such a way that the truth becomes more clear. Well done. Enjoyed it!
It is interesting that the women who are so upset about biological males competing with females seem focused on the fact that women would no longer be able to win. So ladies, is winning that important to you? Is that all there is? Can't you enjoy just playing the game? I say this with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, knowing that this is the exact criticism feminists have shrieked at men for decades - "All you care about is winning!" "You Neanderthal" LOL The chickens have come how to roost!
A wonderfully clear analysis of the self-imposed contradictions in feminism. Thank you for this insightful framing of feminist arguments and the unintended, destructive consequences of those arguments. Feminism has denied and opposed biological reality. Can any good come of that?
And as all this goes on, men are as confused as ever. We were struggling to get comfortable with the idea, as crazy as it seemed, that there might be no real gender differences and now this. And to call the trans outcome, that men think women seek, a return of patriarchal tyranny is just staggering.
I have seen it argued many times by angry feminists: that trans women are men who hate women and want to erase them, and that the trans phenomenon is being enabled by a male-dominated society that doesn't care about women's erasure. On the one hand, most trans women are men who want to be women, not hate them. And on the other hand, most men are horrified at the thought of their sisters, daughters, and friends being menaced by trans women or pushed off of sports podiums by them. The constant feminist cry of 'poor me' and the accusations against 'patriarchy' are completely delusional.
These are two articles you might find interesting:
"The Boys Are Doing Just Fine. A smaller share of college-goers are male. So what?" by Carine M. Feyten, chancellor and president of Texas Woman’s University.
"Universities as Women-Serving Institutions: Rather than focus narrowly on lagging male enrollments, consider what would it mean for a university to truly be a women-serving institution"
By Sanjam Ahluwalia and Julia Riemer, director and former director of women's and gender studies at Northern Arizona University.
Thank you for these. I am ashamed to admit that I am actually afraid to read them. I will have to work myself up to a condition of imperturbability (if that's a word). It seems that our feminist culture has entirely lost its moral compass in an orgy of group revenge.
I work at a university, and have noticed a change in the past year. There have been more articles, including from within higher ed, bringing up the topic of low male enrollment. To truly address the topic would violate the beliefs of higher ed. To make bringing up the topic less "sinful," they sometimes focus on only non-white men, or they will admit to some problems men face but be quick to point out that women ultimately are the losers because they face 10 times more problems. The overall point of the articles, though, is that fewer men attending college means fewer men are being "cured" of their "toxic masculinity."
But it was strange to see this topic even mentioned after years of silence. Perhaps the problem is becoming too big to completely ignore. A lot of colleges are hurting with lower enrollment, so some administrators probably do want these male students as a revenue stream, but can't say it out loud. I don't think any of them truly understand the problem, though.
Those articles above are the backlash to the "concern" from the past year.
Right. When I was employed at the U of Ottawa, we regularly had to conduct five-year plans and 'performance reviews,' with lengthy documents to be completed and visits by external assessors. My part of the report included an assessment of enrollment. Over the five-year period under review, the gender breakdown was about 84-16 in favor of women. I noted that there was nothing essentially female about the study of literature and that we would do ourselves a service if we contemplated how we might make our programs more male-friendly and less overtly feminist. Of course, not a single person ever commented on that part of the report or took me up on the suggestion. It was simply ignored, as such things usually are; or would receive the kind of feedback you are diagnosing. It might be okay to talk about a lack of men of color, or to lament that the feminizing of the discipline ultimately hurts women. I've not yet heard that argument that fewer men at university means fewer opportunities to cure their toxicity! Hollow laugh.
It's predictable yet infuriating that the source of trans activist legitimacy is obscured and men with severe mental problems signal to so many that it's men who are yet again to blame for this denial of reality. The ultimate example of cognitive dissonance was listening to a woman complain that not enough have listened to the feminist arguments against trans identities. It's also the case that somehow men, too, are to blame for the ultra inclusive language, such as menstruators and chest feeders, which are specifically coined to accommodate the sensibilities of transmen and nonbinary women
Comedian Bill Burr makes an excellent point about women's sports, women are almost entirely uninterested -- women's soccer and basketball games don't sell enough tickets to pay to light the stadium for the duration of the game. He says the stands should be full of feminists, but they're not.
Title IX, the federal law requiring equality in school sports, led to the elimination of much of high school and college boys' sports (particularly wrestling), and re-categorizing dance and cheerleading as "sports. Going by the results, Title IX has been more useful to feminists as a way to undermine men's and boys' sports that increasing equality between the sexes.
There might be more to it than that. Such people have always existed (males uncomfortable with male identity or roles), but the technology to permit them to live out their sense of self at a physical level has never existed before. They're going pretty nuts with it, but then again, I imagine people went pretty crazy with fire when they domesticated that force for the first time.
I've known also known some trans women personally; none of them listed shame at maleness as the reason they wanted to 'transition'. They just said they felt like girls and preferred life that way. Some were autistic and just didn't have a strong sense of gender, which is apparently common in that population.
The demise of the Tavistock clinic (for children with gender dysphoria) here in the UK is interesting in this context. While debates raged about children receiving "treatment" in the early last decade the Tavistock was often in tye debate. As an NHS Trust it had some of the aura that the NHS has generally here. If course all the debate assumed that all "trans" children were in fact boys wanting to be girls. And in all serious even 6 year old boys were said to able to know their "true gender". And the clinic supported the view that this should be "affirmed". As usual the public debate was very light on facts. About 2018 a commissioned report revealed that for some years in fact girls wanting to be boys were in the majority of the referrals to the NHS, in fact a growing majority. I remember reading this reported in the Times and even the BBC, and thinking this would derail the "trans train". And so it has proven, with the clinic closed and guidance issued to the NHS to treat gender dysphoria rather than affirm it. The key was of course the idea of abuse. For although only right wing fascists would oppose boy's wish for surgery and hormone therapy when clearly boys know their own minds. It turns out girls dont know their own minds and are subjected to abusive pressure clothed as "affirmation" and must be saved from such terrible abuse of their vulnerable young minds and bodies. And hey presto the Tavistock is shut down, "charities supporting "trans" have funding withdrawn and are investigated (for giving chest binders to teenage girls for instance). The morals are A. Few are much bothered about boys. B. Apparently boys reach a level of maturity to make such decisions at least a decade before girls, C. The way to get a volte face in public policy is to find female "victims" as to protect such victims supine bodies and professions will suddenly be jolted into action.
Which brings me to Belfort Bax. For his "sentimental" feminism has the massive advantage of hooking into masculinity at it's most traditional, there really isn't anything more easy to do than get men and women, but men mostly, to take action to protect women and girls. Specially from other men. I suspect the Tavistock's demise from "centre of excellence" to closed would have been even faster had it not been that most of the Psychiatrists that worked there are women. This is of course the central contradiction of feminism, that it relies heavily on sentimental feminism to get Males to "save" the fairer sex from everything from "lack of confidence" to "mens violence" , with constant calls for more and more special considerations. In doing so it also assumes males are never similarly afflicted and are in fact always assertive self directing beings (even at age 6) a sort of back handed compliment.
Yes the trans phenomena is a set of feminist ideas taken to their extreme. I wonder if any feminists reflect on the lack of "backlash" from men with regard to all those girls who trans to guys? I don't think I've ever heard of a protest about toilets, safe spaces, sports, changing rooms as males object to their "rights" being infringed. Doesn't it suggest women have many more "sex based rights"? While men, despite the patriarchy, have non.
Just FYI, in regards to this part: "intersex athlete Caster Semenya in middle-distance running", I don't know if you know it or not, but all intersex conditions are sex-specific. They occur only in males or females. Being intersex does NOT mean a person is neither male nor female. Here is a list of intersex conditions which plainly shows this:
Even more... Feminism has created the "trans women". A new generation of boys have been raised by feminist women to hate themselves and their toxic-masculinity. They know that the only way they can be good people, accepted by their mothers and feminist peers is to deny their maleness. A sad state of affairs.
Couldn't agree more. Horrifying.
You might find this interesting:
https://archive.ph/xGd7W
Thanks for the link. Looks like a very interesting and sad series.
There might be more to it than that. People like this exist in every culture - males or females uncomfortable with that born status - but it's only very recently that technology has existed that could let people change their sexual appearance to such a degree. They're going nuts with it, sure, but I imagine people went pretty nuts with fire, too, and we know they went nuts with the internal combustion engine and nuclear power.
I've known some trans women personally. They never listed anti-male feeling or shame at being biologically male as a reason for transitioning. One, when still presenting as male, was, frankly, one of the more entitled people I had ever met, and most women I knew resented his condescension (not much changed, IMO, since). Often it was related to autonomy, or just feeling more comfortable in a female role and presentation.
I'm very uncomfortable with the way that these things are being hyped in the media, though, and the way they seem to be being promoted in schools. It doesn't seem to be helping anyone, and appears more like a political ideology than a factual presentation of reality.
ITA. I notice that a lot of the very young boys identifying as girls have either no father int he home, or very weak fathers, and always mothers who are extremely involved with the child's performances.
This piece is spot on the money. It is feminism that has caused this - but more to the point it is the social constructionist thinking within feminism that has caused it. I really feel like the working 'definition of woman' that Big-F Feminism had been using for 50 years was 'A human who had been developmentally suppressed by the patriarchy to such an extent that they have developed 'female' a syndrome characterized by the growth of breasts and a large number of mental illnesses'
The trouble with social constructionism is that it's sort of exploring the negative space of human development. Social constructionism ignores our humanity, it's just mapping out the scope and limits of human susceptibility to influence, without clearly defining 'human'. A social constructionist is kind of like a sculptor who does not believe that clay exists.
One thing I hope, when our era is studied by historians, is that it's clear to subsequent generations that social constructionism was given every chance and advantage, decade after decade, and even with the focus and attention on the MtFs, FtMs, NBs, etc., that biological reality could not be erased.
Great piece. Although some feminists are trying to rebadge this problem as a product of the mens rights movement they are wrong. For example, back in 2019 an obscure cycle race that wouldn't normally make it onto the sports pages, the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, became front page news in the UK. The reason? Well according to the reports, a cyclist in the women's race that stated 10 minutes after men's race had caught up with the men and the women's race had to be neutralised (halted) to allow the men to get ahead again. You can imagine the reporting. This was an example of a woman being held back by her less able male colleagues and yes, women could not only compete with men in cycling, but beat them if they were allowed to. The mens race should have been paused to allow the women to pass, it was argued by some commentators on social media.
The truth, of course, was different. The female cyclist, Nicole Hanselmann, never caught up with the men's race, but caught up with a tail-back of following cars at the point were the race entered single file cobbled road. In fact, by the time Nicole Hanselmann caught up with the support vehicles, the leading male rider was 14 minutes ahead. That is, he had gained 4 minutes!
The winner of the men’s race of 200km would average 41kph and the winner of the women’s race of 123km averaged 36.7kph. Even the slowest male rider did better than this averaging 39.8kph. In short, the women were slower over a shorter course.
Neutralisations to ensure the safety of cyclists are not uncommon in cycle races and there was nothing unusual in what happened to the women's race. The race would have restated with Nicole the same distance ahead of her female rivals. Nicole was not a victim of the patriarchal race organisers.
This is not a criticism of the female riders, I am sure it was great race and in its own way the equal of the men's race. This is a criticism of the journalists who misrepresented the race in pursuit of their agenda. They are now reaping what they have sown.
Fascinating story--thanks.
The link to the De Beauvoir reference is broken, and I'm not sure whether I can edit the piece without losing the comments (does anybody know, off hand?). Here is one quick reference for it (thanks to my friend Martin for pointing it out): https://web.archive.org/web/20220603222840/https://r4dn.com/what-does-one-is-not-born-but-rather-becomes-a-woman-mean/
Thank you so much for this. I was introduced to your work back in 2011, and I have been a fan ever since. I transitioned a long time ago (1993), from female to male. Saying this I know that no amount of hormone therapy or surgery will alter that I am biologically female.
I am so disheartened to see that the louder voices screeching in the trans community seem to have left all reality behind. Instead these voices demand that the rest of society respect and adhere to their invented reality rather than truth.
Thank you for your kind words!
Great piece! Janice Fiamengo has a habit of organizing words in such a way that the truth becomes more clear. Well done. Enjoyed it!
It is interesting that the women who are so upset about biological males competing with females seem focused on the fact that women would no longer be able to win. So ladies, is winning that important to you? Is that all there is? Can't you enjoy just playing the game? I say this with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, knowing that this is the exact criticism feminists have shrieked at men for decades - "All you care about is winning!" "You Neanderthal" LOL The chickens have come how to roost!
A wonderfully clear analysis of the self-imposed contradictions in feminism. Thank you for this insightful framing of feminist arguments and the unintended, destructive consequences of those arguments. Feminism has denied and opposed biological reality. Can any good come of that?
It is sad to see people who know better spouting nonsense.
And as all this goes on, men are as confused as ever. We were struggling to get comfortable with the idea, as crazy as it seemed, that there might be no real gender differences and now this. And to call the trans outcome, that men think women seek, a return of patriarchal tyranny is just staggering.
I have seen it argued many times by angry feminists: that trans women are men who hate women and want to erase them, and that the trans phenomenon is being enabled by a male-dominated society that doesn't care about women's erasure. On the one hand, most trans women are men who want to be women, not hate them. And on the other hand, most men are horrified at the thought of their sisters, daughters, and friends being menaced by trans women or pushed off of sports podiums by them. The constant feminist cry of 'poor me' and the accusations against 'patriarchy' are completely delusional.
Janice,
These are two articles you might find interesting:
"The Boys Are Doing Just Fine. A smaller share of college-goers are male. So what?" by Carine M. Feyten, chancellor and president of Texas Woman’s University.
https://archive.ph/oHhhr#selection-1497.9-1501.51
"Universities as Women-Serving Institutions: Rather than focus narrowly on lagging male enrollments, consider what would it mean for a university to truly be a women-serving institution"
By Sanjam Ahluwalia and Julia Riemer, director and former director of women's and gender studies at Northern Arizona University.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2022/07/13/toward-conception-women-serving-institutions-opinion
Please keep up the great work.
Thank you for these. I am ashamed to admit that I am actually afraid to read them. I will have to work myself up to a condition of imperturbability (if that's a word). It seems that our feminist culture has entirely lost its moral compass in an orgy of group revenge.
I work at a university, and have noticed a change in the past year. There have been more articles, including from within higher ed, bringing up the topic of low male enrollment. To truly address the topic would violate the beliefs of higher ed. To make bringing up the topic less "sinful," they sometimes focus on only non-white men, or they will admit to some problems men face but be quick to point out that women ultimately are the losers because they face 10 times more problems. The overall point of the articles, though, is that fewer men attending college means fewer men are being "cured" of their "toxic masculinity."
But it was strange to see this topic even mentioned after years of silence. Perhaps the problem is becoming too big to completely ignore. A lot of colleges are hurting with lower enrollment, so some administrators probably do want these male students as a revenue stream, but can't say it out loud. I don't think any of them truly understand the problem, though.
Those articles above are the backlash to the "concern" from the past year.
Right. When I was employed at the U of Ottawa, we regularly had to conduct five-year plans and 'performance reviews,' with lengthy documents to be completed and visits by external assessors. My part of the report included an assessment of enrollment. Over the five-year period under review, the gender breakdown was about 84-16 in favor of women. I noted that there was nothing essentially female about the study of literature and that we would do ourselves a service if we contemplated how we might make our programs more male-friendly and less overtly feminist. Of course, not a single person ever commented on that part of the report or took me up on the suggestion. It was simply ignored, as such things usually are; or would receive the kind of feedback you are diagnosing. It might be okay to talk about a lack of men of color, or to lament that the feminizing of the discipline ultimately hurts women. I've not yet heard that argument that fewer men at university means fewer opportunities to cure their toxicity! Hollow laugh.
It's predictable yet infuriating that the source of trans activist legitimacy is obscured and men with severe mental problems signal to so many that it's men who are yet again to blame for this denial of reality. The ultimate example of cognitive dissonance was listening to a woman complain that not enough have listened to the feminist arguments against trans identities. It's also the case that somehow men, too, are to blame for the ultra inclusive language, such as menstruators and chest feeders, which are specifically coined to accommodate the sensibilities of transmen and nonbinary women
Comedian Bill Burr makes an excellent point about women's sports, women are almost entirely uninterested -- women's soccer and basketball games don't sell enough tickets to pay to light the stadium for the duration of the game. He says the stands should be full of feminists, but they're not.
Title IX, the federal law requiring equality in school sports, led to the elimination of much of high school and college boys' sports (particularly wrestling), and re-categorizing dance and cheerleading as "sports. Going by the results, Title IX has been more useful to feminists as a way to undermine men's and boys' sports that increasing equality between the sexes.
Big win for the patriarchy. Love it.
There might be more to it than that. Such people have always existed (males uncomfortable with male identity or roles), but the technology to permit them to live out their sense of self at a physical level has never existed before. They're going pretty nuts with it, but then again, I imagine people went pretty crazy with fire when they domesticated that force for the first time.
I've known also known some trans women personally; none of them listed shame at maleness as the reason they wanted to 'transition'. They just said they felt like girls and preferred life that way. Some were autistic and just didn't have a strong sense of gender, which is apparently common in that population.
The demise of the Tavistock clinic (for children with gender dysphoria) here in the UK is interesting in this context. While debates raged about children receiving "treatment" in the early last decade the Tavistock was often in tye debate. As an NHS Trust it had some of the aura that the NHS has generally here. If course all the debate assumed that all "trans" children were in fact boys wanting to be girls. And in all serious even 6 year old boys were said to able to know their "true gender". And the clinic supported the view that this should be "affirmed". As usual the public debate was very light on facts. About 2018 a commissioned report revealed that for some years in fact girls wanting to be boys were in the majority of the referrals to the NHS, in fact a growing majority. I remember reading this reported in the Times and even the BBC, and thinking this would derail the "trans train". And so it has proven, with the clinic closed and guidance issued to the NHS to treat gender dysphoria rather than affirm it. The key was of course the idea of abuse. For although only right wing fascists would oppose boy's wish for surgery and hormone therapy when clearly boys know their own minds. It turns out girls dont know their own minds and are subjected to abusive pressure clothed as "affirmation" and must be saved from such terrible abuse of their vulnerable young minds and bodies. And hey presto the Tavistock is shut down, "charities supporting "trans" have funding withdrawn and are investigated (for giving chest binders to teenage girls for instance). The morals are A. Few are much bothered about boys. B. Apparently boys reach a level of maturity to make such decisions at least a decade before girls, C. The way to get a volte face in public policy is to find female "victims" as to protect such victims supine bodies and professions will suddenly be jolted into action.
Which brings me to Belfort Bax. For his "sentimental" feminism has the massive advantage of hooking into masculinity at it's most traditional, there really isn't anything more easy to do than get men and women, but men mostly, to take action to protect women and girls. Specially from other men. I suspect the Tavistock's demise from "centre of excellence" to closed would have been even faster had it not been that most of the Psychiatrists that worked there are women. This is of course the central contradiction of feminism, that it relies heavily on sentimental feminism to get Males to "save" the fairer sex from everything from "lack of confidence" to "mens violence" , with constant calls for more and more special considerations. In doing so it also assumes males are never similarly afflicted and are in fact always assertive self directing beings (even at age 6) a sort of back handed compliment.
Yes the trans phenomena is a set of feminist ideas taken to their extreme. I wonder if any feminists reflect on the lack of "backlash" from men with regard to all those girls who trans to guys? I don't think I've ever heard of a protest about toilets, safe spaces, sports, changing rooms as males object to their "rights" being infringed. Doesn't it suggest women have many more "sex based rights"? While men, despite the patriarchy, have non.
Great piece! I created an account to say that.
Just FYI, in regards to this part: "intersex athlete Caster Semenya in middle-distance running", I don't know if you know it or not, but all intersex conditions are sex-specific. They occur only in males or females. Being intersex does NOT mean a person is neither male nor female. Here is a list of intersex conditions which plainly shows this:
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/intersex.pdf
I think it's important to point that out because Caster Semenya seems pretty clearly male to me.