It is also interesting that the TERFs generally make a call for "chivalry" for it is the men in the still mainly male (and therefore supposedly institutionally misogynist) Police and justice system that they demand "act" against their heretics. Which of course doesn't fit at all with the "strong women" claim. All of a sudden powerful privileged women such as Professors and even the richest and most powerful woman in publishing and movies, claim to be frightened , want men to save them!
This story shows the doble standards well. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12315861/Eton-teacher-sacked-refusing-sexist-YouTube-lecture-aims-save-sexless-marriages-relaunching-masculinity-coach-teach-men-rebuild-patriarchy. For in it Will Knowland points out the obvious, about men being those that do all the hard and rough stuff. At the time is point about conscription possibly seemed academic. But is brought into sharp relief by the Ukrainian ban on working age males leaving the country and their conscription into the military or work. While of course their womenfolk and children left in their millions. A friend hosts a mother and daughter who has been staying with them since that huge exodus. Only last month was husband (a senior policeman in a small city) alowed to leave by Ukraine, to visit his wife and child. A stark reminder of the very different sex roles when the danger is immanent. Making entirely accurate Knowland's observations. Yet these are "misogynist" or "sexist". Meanwhile there is huge doubt about the grain shipments from Ukraine. Grain farmed, harvested, processed, transported, loaded on ships which themselves will be "manned"; by men. Again a stark example of Knowland's observation about the food chain.
Probably his most accurate comment is that feminism (in all its many guises and heresies) is only possible in affluence where the appearance of food, safety, warmth, security, shelter etc. is so apparently effortless that one can simply forget who and how it was and is made possible.
Right. It's no surprise that feminism in the U.S. and U.K. arose when it did, where it did and among whom it did. All the conditions you mention were present for essentially all the early feminists and, most important of all, there were about 1.5 billion people on the planet, meaning that the extinction of the human race was highly unlikely, so women could begin to step out of their protected roles.
Kellie-jay keen literally called for men who 'carry' by which she clearly meant carry guns, to patrol women's bathrooms to keep transwomen out.
Baker reminds me of Yaniv in a way, sure she's crazy, but she's crazy in a very female way. Yaniv's bizarre mysticism around menstruation is her most feminine trait.
Oh Janice! I really enjoyed this one. In fact, someone Punish. Me. Now! LOL. I found it so sweet to hear about one highly protected group urging violence against another highly protected group. All we need now is for the attacked protected group to urge retaliatory violence against the original attackers! Popcorn anyone? Isn't this how wars start? All that hate gotta go somewhere.
The irony of feminism having narcissistically bred its transgender nemesis is about as delicious as it gets. Feminists are in an impossible position: to decry trans ideology is to undermine their own essentially similar ideology.
The “saggy” comment did bring a smile to my face. Thank you.
"where he deserves to sit for some time reflecting on his idiocy." Says it all. Partly one really wonders why anyone would take seriously the rantings of a convicted criminal who self mutilated and anounced he's someone else and when out on parole makes a total show of himself. And so get popped back in prison. All of that is pretty silly.
Honestly, I thought of that (!) but figured it would take me off topic, ha ha. Stochastic terrorism applies only when the bad guy is a straight man, it seems.
Perhaps we should introduce the concept of the Stochastic Males Undermining Radical Feminism and push it on social media to chum the waters for the feminist sharks to start a feeding frenzy.
We could then later point out that radical feminists are against SMURFs, which is about right for their level of intellectual development.
One thing I'd like to point out about trans women: THEY NEVER PASS.
(Nor do Transmen.)
They are oppressed by the female privilege to actually look female. Trans"women" look like men in women's clothing, or shall we say, wolves in sheep's clothing. This is not a commentary on how nice they are or aren't. THEY JUST DON'T PASS. Period.
Sorry to clog the comments but this little story rather encapsulates the nonsense and the feminist roots. Lucy Spraggan is I'm sure unknown in Canada however in this she talks of being "Max" until puberty interrupted her fantasy. In fact its not actually true that she couldn't have had such surgery (its been available if rare since the 1970s because it is pretty brutal). However its probably just as well she wasn't taken down that route! What is interesting is how she "frames" it. As if having your hair cut and wearing "boxers" (and no doubt boys clothes) is being a boy. And then she "slips" by suggesting she climbed trees, but recovers her feminist stance by then saying such behavior isn't boyish at all! So if behaviors arn't "gendered" we are left with her liking being "Max" and this largely consisted of "performing" being a boy by copying hairstyles and clothing. In a sense the epitome of self -identification. Gender as a performance. https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/19/lucy-spraggan-gender-reassigment-surgery-max-19155795/
Now having been in social work (adults) for over 40 years there is nothing new about all sorts of "trans" and though most focus has been on males who transition in various ways from transvestitism to full on sex change, there have also always been females doing the same and in a way its easier for them to do as Lucy did and attract less attention. Female attire being much more designed to attract attention and be expressive for one thing. But it really is "gender" and "queer" theory that catapulted this from a largely ignored undercurrent in society to one of the "big issues" of the past decade.
I think you make a very important point - MTFs NEVER pass. I think this is the root of much of their anger and violent acting-out, and their demands that everyone conform to the ever-evolving language demands. The only chance these deluded men have of living their fantasy of "passing" is to use the power of the state and the threat of physical violence to force the rest of us to treat them as the "laydees" they wish to be seen as.
I actually don't believe that the woke generation of trannies want anything but everyone KNOWING that they're trannies. They go out of their way NOT to pass. These weirdos despise 'cisgendered' people, so why in the world would they pretend to be one? That's why you see so many that wear dresses and have garishly long nails, etc., but also have beards. If anything, many of these are actually trying to pass AS trannies, rather than the other way around. Just because you want to be trendy and fashionable, that doesn't mean you actually have gender dysphoria or delusional beliefs.
Let’s put it this way: I’m walking three blocks behind a 20-something “trans” woman and can tell. I can tell by profile pictures. I’ve seen many, always know. Might be different for you, but they don’t pass with me. The ones that come close look so Frederick’s of Hollywood you know that’s not real.
Again, you're begging the question by assuming that you can always tell simply because most of the time you can. What about Michelle (Mike) Obama?
I stood about 3ft away from Blaire White at a Walk Away rally a few years back and I'm pretty sure that, if I hadn't known to begin with, I wouldn't have questioned that Blaire was female.
Do a websearch for 'Buck Angel' and see if you don't think she passes as a man. Of course, since she is a pre-op pornstar, you can see her vagina for yourself if you're so inclined. FTMs pass a lot more easily than MTFs.
As I said, it sounds like they pass for you, but they don't pass for me. All Buck has to do is open his mouth and I can tell he's trans. His behavior is female also. Blaire White does not look like an authentic female.
At my workplace I pick out the FTM's all the time. I had a doctor who was FTM and I saw it right away.
If they pass for you -- that's great. That's what they want. But they don't pass for me. That's all folks.
And AGAIN, absent a medical examination or a sexual encounter, you just can't know that--it's an article of faith for you. Even if you've never been fooled into thinking a man was a woman or a woman was a man, I would venture that that was because you're so paranoid about it that you often mistake regular people who identify with their biological sex as trannies.
Lots of people definitely have been fooled, even if you're not one of them. There are innumerable accounts in the media and on the web of men who thought they were with a woman until the clothes came off.
Your 'proof' that you're always correct is nothing more than your belief that you're always correct. "I can tell" is neither fact nor datum. I can't always tell, at least in casual social settings or media, and it doesn't bother me in the least.
A few generations back, before any of this shit was even in the public consciousness, sexual ambiguity was a well recognized phenomenom and part of popular culture. Remember Pat, on SNL?
It would be interesting to do a line up and have you identify people by their biological sex. I'll bet you wouldn't do nearly as well as you think you would but I would also guess that your bias would be skewed toward identifying people as trannies who are not. Technically, that wouldn't count as anyone fooling you, since no one would have been trying to fool you, but I'd still bet you got it wrong as often as anyone else.
You say absent a medical exam, there's no way to know someone's sex. I would say absent drastic medical interventions, the number of people who you would see as "passing" for the opposite sex is vanishingly small.
I have to say, after seeing a video of Blaire White walking down the street, I found his female presentation less convincing (previously seeing videos showing head/shoulders, like an ancient Roman bust). I thought the placement and movement of the boobs was particularly troubling, and the walk, definitely male.
In the instance of Buck Angel, I think the bald head/beard combo plus mastectomy plus obesity plus the gravelly voice (probably a mixture of testosterone changes to vocal cords and some voice training) is more convincingly male than Blaire's presentation as female. Both Buck & Blaire are products of surgical & hormonal interventions that have only been available in recent years. (Btw, Buck never had "bottom surgery" and made a lot of money inserting objects in porn videos).
There's a you tube video called, "I showed It's Pat to Nonbinary People" which you might find interesting.
Having been a teen when SNL first aired, I have to say that the way people took the Pat character was not as an icon of androgyny, but as a *massive* weirdo. Julia Sweeney said she invented the character because she was unsuccessful at portraying a male character, a guy from the accounting office where she was working, whose mannerisms she was trying to use comedically.
I'm 61 years old, and I would say that before the past decade, I encountered only one individual whose sex I initially misread (he was a very petite gay guy with a high pitched voice, and after about 5 seconds I realized my mistake). In recent years, I've occasionally seen people whose sex isn't immediately apparent, but I think there are 2 main causes of this: 1. there are people who go to great lengths to conceal their actual biological sex, even using drastic surgery, 2. Obesity seems to blur secondary sex characteristics (Watching "My 600lb Life" I noticed some of the men looked more feminine when very fat, sometimes looking more masculine after substantial weight loss, and some of the women looked less feminine at their highest weights, and more feminine with weight loss).
Here's an example of how robust biological sex is: Jazz Jennings. This poor guy was identified as a trans child at around age 2 or 3, with a doctor's appointment confirming his trans status at age 3. He started puberty blockers at age 11, so that when, at 17, he had his "bottom surgery" there wasn't enough tissue to do the standard penile inversion, and other tissue from his abdomen was used (and there were complications requiring at least 3 subsequent surgeries). Jazz never went through male puberty and had every method available to give him a feminine appearance (cost was no barrier, and he had access to the most prominent surgeons in the field). Yet Jazz still looks male. One example of a male feature that he exhibits is "mid face" - the proportions between bottom of the nose and top of the upper lip, the size and shape of cheekbones and distance between eyebrows and eyes are different in males and females, and no surgery (and going by Jazz, no hormone alterations) can give a male a female mid face.
After men have had it, as is,I believe, evidenced by the burgeoning MGTOW movement, who will stand up for the women in the world who not only can see the truth but speak it, regardless of what side of the feminist line they stand on. And make no mistake about it, it is only men who are capable of doing this.
Chuck, I totally agree that we'll require men and women who see & speak truth to rescue our civilization. I would add that an important truth is that feminism does not, and has never had, any truth to offer.
I think trans activists are living proof that feminist claims about patriarchy as male power inflicted on women are all nonsense. If men hated women and kept women down and oppressed, would they have built all those lovely public restrooms, spas and gyms with dressing rooms, funded women's sports teams, and generally created a pretty sweet civilization that women have been able to inhabit?
I actually wrote an essay a few months ago about how women alone cannot defeat the trans activists. One main problem is that women mostly lack strategic thinking skills (only 5% of chess grandmasters and zero percent of the top 500 esports players are women). During research for that essay, I even came to suspect that the brains behind feminism's political advances were men supporting women figureheads (for example, Hugh Heffner, publicly criticized by feminists, funded day care centers and donated to NOW).
Interestingly, comments on the essay accused me of being a feminist wanting to rescue feminism from the trans. (I'd actually had previous anti-feminist essays published there, but I guess they went unnoticed).
Thank You for taking the time to comment Trish .I always enjoy reading your stuff and this was typical of your style. I read (and not that long ago either) that feminism was a plot by Western Governments to get women to pay more taxes. . Now that is an example of Srategic Thinking!
This post is remarkably intelligent and wise -- and witty! A lot of good those virtues do anyone when they have the wrong opinions according to the mainstream. Though how anyone intelligent and wise could have mainstream opinions . . . And just how do mainstream conventional sheep keep convincing themselves that they are oppressed, persecuted, brave and avant-garde? Anyway, Janice Fiamengo keeps getting better all the time, even if, sadly, only a few of us are lucky enough to learn from her and enjoy her writing.
Maybe enough people will get bored with it. This is my hope for all manner of ailments these days. Hoping folks will get bored soon with wokism and social media because it's so negative and predictable. I, for one, am pretty bored with it all. Maybe others will join the boredom movement and move on to better preoccupations.
I have to admit that I find it all fascinating in a ghoulish way, but that probably says more about me than about the subject. I also find it disheartening, ridiculous, and appalling.
'wokism' isn't just the spectacles we see in the news. It's embedded in our institutions informing nearly every decision. Getting 'bored' with it may be a natural response if you're not directly affected by it now, but that would suggest to me that you've given in to ideologues riding roughshod over the culture. You won't be bored with it when it knocks you for a loop.
Transhumanism is certainly on the agenda - but still a long term objective, bestiality and necrophilia are definitely being advanced as we speak (although still quietly under the guise of de-shaming kink). The truly alarming campaign being unleashed right now is normalisation of paedophilia. They even have a magic new name for it - "minor attracted person". The clear objective is to destroy all boundaries of normativity - as they are "oppressive".
While I am aware that the pedo brigade have been trying to muscle their way into the gay rights movement forever, at least as late as the 80s the movement had the good sense to keep them out. Without having done that gay equality would have been massively delayed as the public just wouldn't have stood for it - not so now that egalitarianism is entrenched they are having another go at it, and unfortunately slowly succeeding.
'Violent rhetoric on all sides should be unconditionally condemned and the game of victim politics at last rejected.' Amen to that. Just reading this article made my head hurt. As a centrist who has always condemned radicals on all sides, I found the trans vs feminist wars interesting, and even initially enjoyed watching radicals beat each other up, now its just tiresome.
Janice, should I be more impressed by your ability to turn out an original and compelling essay in no time or my new ability to simply ask to have irritators put in their place?
There is no such thing as a "sperm donor". Only participatory and non-participatory fathers. The use of the term "sperm donor" reduces a father to livestock.
I suppose it had to happen, just as feminism is a heresy of Marxist theory so one of feminism's heresy's comes back to bite. As you say the battle uses precisely the "weapons" honed by feminists in recent decades. In one way I warm to the "TERF" wars because it has really shaken the feminist establishment and exposes the contradictions in their supposed "theory". Most obviously the supposed minor role played by biology in the differences in "gender". Thus we have now widespread bigging up on the huge differences in sports performance and "unfairness" of mixing the sexes in sports of all sorts. Perhaps at some point this rediscovery of such difference might creep into the contradictory notion that somehow the biological differences are irrelevant to being a soldier, firefighter, combat pilot, etc.
A stark example of the nonsense is the case in this country is that of a "trans" man (woman to man) suspending "his" hormone treatment in order to conceive bear and birth a daughter , such a wonderful experience that "he" is to continue the suspension in order to have a second child!
As in the case you cite feminists are desperate to deflect attention from the fact that "trans" stems from Gender Studies feminism and simply expresses many of the same mantras so familiar from the very TERFs. Now bleating and seeking men to rescue them. Yet it was they who proclaimed there is no such thing as a "real man", its all socially constructed and "performative", faced with the obvious that that must mean there is no "real woman" that isn't socially constructed and "performative" the TERFs are revealed as believing there are "real women" , and shock horror "real men" after all.
Nigel, you make so many good points. But I think feminists will only give ground episodically and when they have to - for example they will defend separate sports events, teams & competitions for women & men, but not give up on female firefighters & cops (I would say, in the case of police, there might be a certain amount of usefulness for female offices, for example, when questioning female suspects or female victims). One thing the will *always* cling to is the necessity of filling the C-suites of big corporations with women, ignoring the fact that only 5% of chess grandmasters, and 0% of the top 500 esports winners, are women (women aren't good at strategizing, which is why I don't believe women can win against the trans activists without joining forces with men).
I agree about the way feminists in fact are not consistent and pick their targets. I think my purpose is to highlight this duplicity. In essence "trans" activists are feminists and it is interesting that woman in general are far more likely to express support for trans issues than men. Largely because of the claim that "feelings" trump facts "women's ways of knowing" overcoming that nasty patriarchal stuff called science. In this country it is illegal to require different sexes to complete different tests for jobs etc. the result is some plainly nonsensical abandonment of physical requirements of ability resilience and fitness. In a way the feminist supported Equality Act prevents employment of female officers on the basis that they may have specific aptitudes or usefulness. One result has been the proliferation of the use of "tazers" in our supposedly unarmed police force as small, overweight unfit officers use them to apprehend. After all as feminists would point out most criminal behavior is by young men. As a social worker one used to be able to rely on the Fire service to assist where heavy lifting was needed, a disabled person trapped in their tower block due to lift failure, moving an immobile obese person, carefully moving a frail older person etc. this stopped because apparently new tests to join meant the Fire service couldn't "assume" firefighters were physically strong! A result of reducing strength and fitness requirements in recruitment. Many Firefighters lamented this as they always were very willing and happy to help. There are very real consequences to not accepting what is now being trumpeted about sport. But as you say the same logic will not be applied.
Thanks for the reply, Nigel. I don't think it's possible for feminists to be consistent in ideology or in picking targets because their entire social movement is one inconsistent with reality that boils down to nothing but grievances (mostly petty), guilt-tripping men (and nonconforming women), and power grabs.
I find the reduction of fitness standards for military, police and fire personnel particularly troubling. If feminists cared about the safety of the women (even if not caring about the men & kids), one would think they'd want the most effective people doing such jobs. But no, they'd rather have degraded protection so that a few women can burnish their egos by being able to say they're cops or soldiers or fire fighters.
I think you might find interesting some info I found about social workers. In the past few years, the US Defund-the-Police movement has had an auxiliary - the replace cops with social workers movement. They act as if cops don't have the training and ability to talk someone down during a fraught situation, and only social workers can do such a job. The first thing that surprised me was that this kind of nonsense has been going on for over a century. Academics and social workers claim social workers would be especially adept at preventing people from resorting to crime (they never explain what methods they'd use that policemen couldn't). The second thing I found was that, writing & talking among themselves, social workers are fully aware of the potential for violence. One example - political agitation in several US states and at the federal level for sentencing enhancements for attacking or killing social workers (similar to a "hate crime" enhancement). Also, I saw an essay from a social workers' magazine suggesting social workers remove items from their offices that might be useful as weapons (heavy brick-a-brack, letter openers, etc), keep doors open, and take other safety measures. These people clearly do not believe that they have the magical powers to prevent violence and crime that they want the public to believe in.
Behind all of this is the whole world wanting to kill the one true ultimate man, Jesus Christ.
(Note Psalm 2.) Why? To continue the serpent's garden project of bringing enmity between God's creation and Him and between His two created genders, foiling His dominion mandate (which requires reproduction).
By not staying killed, Jesus builds up His holy bride, the church of all who trust in Him as ultimate husband, bountiful provider and strong protector. He died so that she/we might live.
Somehow I don't think the game of victim politics will be going away any time soon. At least not while all of these groups are being puppeteered by the predator class" to create conflict and chaos in society. According to Vladimir Putin, it's the same game plan used by the Bolsheviks a century ago - with the same interests pulling the strings.
Whether you call it communism or fascism, it's all the same - the majority being oppressed by a handful of sociopathic tyrants.
Remarkable. Mental illness in action and at its finest (not).
Someone remarked to me fairly recently that the one group that are rabidly obsessed with sex and shame are radical feminists.
Yet people still listen to them. Especially the ones that really shouldn't. Like government and politicians.
I have actually gotten to know a few transgenders over the years and found the ones I knew as okay people. They were not radicals however, just people.
With all this radical activism going on, it is also easy to lose sight of the fact that not all trans guys/women are radical or bad. Like everyday people, they come in all flavours.
I don't want to become like the people we are railing against and adopt their kind of attitudes either. Helps to remember not to think in absolutes.
As I observed in a comment such folk have been around for a long time. In the UK in the early 1970s there was a "scandal" about men having to go to Morocco to get the then brutal surgery. Subsequently it was available here. Of course tranvestites and drag queens were known about and as a child I recall Danny La Rue being a star of "light entertainment". The shift from a small part of society gradually getting to be accepted to a cause celebre seems to be, in the UK, the result of graduates of "Gender Studies" seeing the issue as a continuation of the gender war feminists had begun. Certainly in this country it is actually not "trans" people one sees on demonstrations but young people of the sort that always protest. In the last decade it has moved from a niche issue to a "cause". The really strange bit is that the placards are also pro abortion, and anti toxic masculinity , misogyny in the police, Rape campaigns etc.. I really don't know how feminists have the gall to pretend the" trans rights" movement is separate from feminism. At least Professor Stock ruefully admits the majority of its support comes from young women (though she stops short of admitting they're feminists). If they were being honest feminists would admit, as Julie Bindel has sort of, this is a campaign they put effort into in order to undermine the "patriarchy" (in the same way as adopting Gay rights) which has got its own legs now. And as such it has the same sort of intolerance of people wanting a quiet life, rather than seeing everything through a "political" lens.
The first tranny I was aware of was Christine Jorgensen, who surgically transitioned in Denmark in the early 50s. She then went on to be a successful singer and entertainer.
In the early 70s, around the time I started high school, Jorgensen's autobiography was published. Christine became an immediate celebrity and a household name. The subject of prominent magazine spreads and a guest on countless radio and TV talk shows, Jorgensen and the transsexual phenomenon were common subjects of conversation and even came up in Civics and Current Events classes at school.
I don't remember any of this as particularly mean spirited or hateful although, of course there were jokes, giggling, and moral disapproval from some. Mostly people found the whole thing strange and, therefore, interesting.
I never bought into the narrative of systemic existential threat against these people. If anything, I have seen FAR more cases of trannies committing heinous violence against others (mass shooting, axe assault, rape, etc.) than I've seen of the reverse.
The APA was WAY out of line when they normalized this stuff by declaring that, absent other diagnostic criteria, believing that a person had been 'born into the wrong body' was not delusional. Of course, in the majority of cases, it is delusional.
Here in the UK the first famous trans was Roberta (Robert) Cowell who had been a WW2 Pilot and Racing Driver. in 1951. The surgeon involved was Michael Dillon, who had been a woman and was operated on in 1946. By a Surgeon who was well known for his work on "intersexed" children and individuals and surgery on soldiers whose injuries included damage to genitals. Dillon wrote a book "self" in the late 40s about what became known as transexuals. Needless to say the book was just the sort to excite interest! The more so when adventurer journalist and travel writer James Morris became Jan in "64 . Because he/she was married he was refused "the operation" and famously went to Morocco in '72. The publicity and debate being at the time of secondary school(junior and high school i think) it was of intense interest. It was at this time I learned of the Chevalier D'Eon.
Jan Morris is one of my all time favourite writers, an excellent prose stylist. Before he transitioned, he also wrote a 3 volume history of The British Empire. Of further interest on the personal front, he was married when he transitioned and remained with his wife his whole life.
Indeed, I was a voracious reader. I may mis remember this but I believe that the fact he wouldn't divorce was a reason he couldn't get "the operation" in the UK. Hence the trip to Morocco.
I wonder how famous that was. Our next-door-neighbour, who was a mountaineer, paid a visit to James Morris in the 1970s not knowing that he'd "transitioned" and was very surprised I remember.
Calling for violence against people who disagree with her is one of Sarah Jane Baker's most feminine traits.
BAM! I wish I had thought of that.
It is also interesting that the TERFs generally make a call for "chivalry" for it is the men in the still mainly male (and therefore supposedly institutionally misogynist) Police and justice system that they demand "act" against their heretics. Which of course doesn't fit at all with the "strong women" claim. All of a sudden powerful privileged women such as Professors and even the richest and most powerful woman in publishing and movies, claim to be frightened , want men to save them!
It's the only thing men are good for--stepping in to prevent violence against women and to risk being the targets of violence themselves.
It's NOT all we're good for at all!
We pay for stuff, too.
Right, that too!
This story shows the doble standards well. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12315861/Eton-teacher-sacked-refusing-sexist-YouTube-lecture-aims-save-sexless-marriages-relaunching-masculinity-coach-teach-men-rebuild-patriarchy. For in it Will Knowland points out the obvious, about men being those that do all the hard and rough stuff. At the time is point about conscription possibly seemed academic. But is brought into sharp relief by the Ukrainian ban on working age males leaving the country and their conscription into the military or work. While of course their womenfolk and children left in their millions. A friend hosts a mother and daughter who has been staying with them since that huge exodus. Only last month was husband (a senior policeman in a small city) alowed to leave by Ukraine, to visit his wife and child. A stark reminder of the very different sex roles when the danger is immanent. Making entirely accurate Knowland's observations. Yet these are "misogynist" or "sexist". Meanwhile there is huge doubt about the grain shipments from Ukraine. Grain farmed, harvested, processed, transported, loaded on ships which themselves will be "manned"; by men. Again a stark example of Knowland's observation about the food chain.
Probably his most accurate comment is that feminism (in all its many guises and heresies) is only possible in affluence where the appearance of food, safety, warmth, security, shelter etc. is so apparently effortless that one can simply forget who and how it was and is made possible.
Right. It's no surprise that feminism in the U.S. and U.K. arose when it did, where it did and among whom it did. All the conditions you mention were present for essentially all the early feminists and, most important of all, there were about 1.5 billion people on the planet, meaning that the extinction of the human race was highly unlikely, so women could begin to step out of their protected roles.
I think Islam is horrid, but even so, I like the Hadith that quotes Muhammad as saying that hell is full of ungrateful women.
Going by the history I know about the Koran & Hadiths, he probably stole that quote.
Yes, what little there is in originality in Islam is of "smite the infidel" sentiments.
Kellie-jay keen literally called for men who 'carry' by which she clearly meant carry guns, to patrol women's bathrooms to keep transwomen out.
Baker reminds me of Yaniv in a way, sure she's crazy, but she's crazy in a very female way. Yaniv's bizarre mysticism around menstruation is her most feminine trait.
Oh Janice! I really enjoyed this one. In fact, someone Punish. Me. Now! LOL. I found it so sweet to hear about one highly protected group urging violence against another highly protected group. All we need now is for the attacked protected group to urge retaliatory violence against the original attackers! Popcorn anyone? Isn't this how wars start? All that hate gotta go somewhere.
Karma's a bitch.
They are eating their own.
The irony of feminism having narcissistically bred its transgender nemesis is about as delicious as it gets. Feminists are in an impossible position: to decry trans ideology is to undermine their own essentially similar ideology.
The “saggy” comment did bring a smile to my face. Thank you.
My husband thought it was a bit silly, but I couldn't resist!
"where he deserves to sit for some time reflecting on his idiocy." Says it all. Partly one really wonders why anyone would take seriously the rantings of a convicted criminal who self mutilated and anounced he's someone else and when out on parole makes a total show of himself. And so get popped back in prison. All of that is pretty silly.
"Go punch a TERF" sounds like stochastic terrorism to me..
Honestly, I thought of that (!) but figured it would take me off topic, ha ha. Stochastic terrorism applies only when the bad guy is a straight man, it seems.
Perhaps we should introduce the concept of the Stochastic Males Undermining Radical Feminism and push it on social media to chum the waters for the feminist sharks to start a feeding frenzy.
We could then later point out that radical feminists are against SMURFs, which is about right for their level of intellectual development.
It's just like 'punch a Nazi' only a little more specific.
A lot of these people want an excuse to punch anybody.
"Punch a 'Nazi'" isn't specific at all - that label means anyone who disagrees with me.
Excellent piece.
One thing I'd like to point out about trans women: THEY NEVER PASS.
(Nor do Transmen.)
They are oppressed by the female privilege to actually look female. Trans"women" look like men in women's clothing, or shall we say, wolves in sheep's clothing. This is not a commentary on how nice they are or aren't. THEY JUST DON'T PASS. Period.
Sarah Jake Baker definitely does not.
Sorry to clog the comments but this little story rather encapsulates the nonsense and the feminist roots. Lucy Spraggan is I'm sure unknown in Canada however in this she talks of being "Max" until puberty interrupted her fantasy. In fact its not actually true that she couldn't have had such surgery (its been available if rare since the 1970s because it is pretty brutal). However its probably just as well she wasn't taken down that route! What is interesting is how she "frames" it. As if having your hair cut and wearing "boxers" (and no doubt boys clothes) is being a boy. And then she "slips" by suggesting she climbed trees, but recovers her feminist stance by then saying such behavior isn't boyish at all! So if behaviors arn't "gendered" we are left with her liking being "Max" and this largely consisted of "performing" being a boy by copying hairstyles and clothing. In a sense the epitome of self -identification. Gender as a performance. https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/19/lucy-spraggan-gender-reassigment-surgery-max-19155795/
Now having been in social work (adults) for over 40 years there is nothing new about all sorts of "trans" and though most focus has been on males who transition in various ways from transvestitism to full on sex change, there have also always been females doing the same and in a way its easier for them to do as Lucy did and attract less attention. Female attire being much more designed to attract attention and be expressive for one thing. But it really is "gender" and "queer" theory that catapulted this from a largely ignored undercurrent in society to one of the "big issues" of the past decade.
Yes. They look like what they are which is men dressed up as women. It's as simple as that
I think you make a very important point - MTFs NEVER pass. I think this is the root of much of their anger and violent acting-out, and their demands that everyone conform to the ever-evolving language demands. The only chance these deluded men have of living their fantasy of "passing" is to use the power of the state and the threat of physical violence to force the rest of us to treat them as the "laydees" they wish to be seen as.
I actually don't believe that the woke generation of trannies want anything but everyone KNOWING that they're trannies. They go out of their way NOT to pass. These weirdos despise 'cisgendered' people, so why in the world would they pretend to be one? That's why you see so many that wear dresses and have garishly long nails, etc., but also have beards. If anything, many of these are actually trying to pass AS trannies, rather than the other way around. Just because you want to be trendy and fashionable, that doesn't mean you actually have gender dysphoria or delusional beliefs.
I don't know about that. It justs means that the one's you are aware of are the ones that didn't pass. Anyone that did, you wouldn't be aware of.
I find myself wondering, fairly often, about people's biological sexes. If I can't be sure, is that a pass?
Let’s put it this way: I’m walking three blocks behind a 20-something “trans” woman and can tell. I can tell by profile pictures. I’ve seen many, always know. Might be different for you, but they don’t pass with me. The ones that come close look so Frederick’s of Hollywood you know that’s not real.
Again, you're begging the question by assuming that you can always tell simply because most of the time you can. What about Michelle (Mike) Obama?
I stood about 3ft away from Blaire White at a Walk Away rally a few years back and I'm pretty sure that, if I hadn't known to begin with, I wouldn't have questioned that Blaire was female.
Do a websearch for 'Buck Angel' and see if you don't think she passes as a man. Of course, since she is a pre-op pornstar, you can see her vagina for yourself if you're so inclined. FTMs pass a lot more easily than MTFs.
As I said, it sounds like they pass for you, but they don't pass for me. All Buck has to do is open his mouth and I can tell he's trans. His behavior is female also. Blaire White does not look like an authentic female.
At my workplace I pick out the FTM's all the time. I had a doctor who was FTM and I saw it right away.
If they pass for you -- that's great. That's what they want. But they don't pass for me. That's all folks.
And AGAIN, absent a medical examination or a sexual encounter, you just can't know that--it's an article of faith for you. Even if you've never been fooled into thinking a man was a woman or a woman was a man, I would venture that that was because you're so paranoid about it that you often mistake regular people who identify with their biological sex as trannies.
Lots of people definitely have been fooled, even if you're not one of them. There are innumerable accounts in the media and on the web of men who thought they were with a woman until the clothes came off.
Your 'proof' that you're always correct is nothing more than your belief that you're always correct. "I can tell" is neither fact nor datum. I can't always tell, at least in casual social settings or media, and it doesn't bother me in the least.
A few generations back, before any of this shit was even in the public consciousness, sexual ambiguity was a well recognized phenomenom and part of popular culture. Remember Pat, on SNL?
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/its-pat-birthday-party/3505906
It would be interesting to do a line up and have you identify people by their biological sex. I'll bet you wouldn't do nearly as well as you think you would but I would also guess that your bias would be skewed toward identifying people as trannies who are not. Technically, that wouldn't count as anyone fooling you, since no one would have been trying to fool you, but I'd still bet you got it wrong as often as anyone else.
You say absent a medical exam, there's no way to know someone's sex. I would say absent drastic medical interventions, the number of people who you would see as "passing" for the opposite sex is vanishingly small.
I have to say, after seeing a video of Blaire White walking down the street, I found his female presentation less convincing (previously seeing videos showing head/shoulders, like an ancient Roman bust). I thought the placement and movement of the boobs was particularly troubling, and the walk, definitely male.
In the instance of Buck Angel, I think the bald head/beard combo plus mastectomy plus obesity plus the gravelly voice (probably a mixture of testosterone changes to vocal cords and some voice training) is more convincingly male than Blaire's presentation as female. Both Buck & Blaire are products of surgical & hormonal interventions that have only been available in recent years. (Btw, Buck never had "bottom surgery" and made a lot of money inserting objects in porn videos).
There's a you tube video called, "I showed It's Pat to Nonbinary People" which you might find interesting.
Having been a teen when SNL first aired, I have to say that the way people took the Pat character was not as an icon of androgyny, but as a *massive* weirdo. Julia Sweeney said she invented the character because she was unsuccessful at portraying a male character, a guy from the accounting office where she was working, whose mannerisms she was trying to use comedically.
I'm 61 years old, and I would say that before the past decade, I encountered only one individual whose sex I initially misread (he was a very petite gay guy with a high pitched voice, and after about 5 seconds I realized my mistake). In recent years, I've occasionally seen people whose sex isn't immediately apparent, but I think there are 2 main causes of this: 1. there are people who go to great lengths to conceal their actual biological sex, even using drastic surgery, 2. Obesity seems to blur secondary sex characteristics (Watching "My 600lb Life" I noticed some of the men looked more feminine when very fat, sometimes looking more masculine after substantial weight loss, and some of the women looked less feminine at their highest weights, and more feminine with weight loss).
Here's an example of how robust biological sex is: Jazz Jennings. This poor guy was identified as a trans child at around age 2 or 3, with a doctor's appointment confirming his trans status at age 3. He started puberty blockers at age 11, so that when, at 17, he had his "bottom surgery" there wasn't enough tissue to do the standard penile inversion, and other tissue from his abdomen was used (and there were complications requiring at least 3 subsequent surgeries). Jazz never went through male puberty and had every method available to give him a feminine appearance (cost was no barrier, and he had access to the most prominent surgeons in the field). Yet Jazz still looks male. One example of a male feature that he exhibits is "mid face" - the proportions between bottom of the nose and top of the upper lip, the size and shape of cheekbones and distance between eyebrows and eyes are different in males and females, and no surgery (and going by Jazz, no hormone alterations) can give a male a female mid face.
Thoughts become ideas.
Ideas become words.
Words become actions.
After men have had it, as is,I believe, evidenced by the burgeoning MGTOW movement, who will stand up for the women in the world who not only can see the truth but speak it, regardless of what side of the feminist line they stand on. And make no mistake about it, it is only men who are capable of doing this.
Chuck, I totally agree that we'll require men and women who see & speak truth to rescue our civilization. I would add that an important truth is that feminism does not, and has never had, any truth to offer.
I think trans activists are living proof that feminist claims about patriarchy as male power inflicted on women are all nonsense. If men hated women and kept women down and oppressed, would they have built all those lovely public restrooms, spas and gyms with dressing rooms, funded women's sports teams, and generally created a pretty sweet civilization that women have been able to inhabit?
I actually wrote an essay a few months ago about how women alone cannot defeat the trans activists. One main problem is that women mostly lack strategic thinking skills (only 5% of chess grandmasters and zero percent of the top 500 esports players are women). During research for that essay, I even came to suspect that the brains behind feminism's political advances were men supporting women figureheads (for example, Hugh Heffner, publicly criticized by feminists, funded day care centers and donated to NOW).
Interestingly, comments on the essay accused me of being a feminist wanting to rescue feminism from the trans. (I'd actually had previous anti-feminist essays published there, but I guess they went unnoticed).
Thank You for taking the time to comment Trish .I always enjoy reading your stuff and this was typical of your style. I read (and not that long ago either) that feminism was a plot by Western Governments to get women to pay more taxes. . Now that is an example of Srategic Thinking!
Chuck, I read that, too, and it wouldn't surprise me at all!
This post is remarkably intelligent and wise -- and witty! A lot of good those virtues do anyone when they have the wrong opinions according to the mainstream. Though how anyone intelligent and wise could have mainstream opinions . . . And just how do mainstream conventional sheep keep convincing themselves that they are oppressed, persecuted, brave and avant-garde? Anyway, Janice Fiamengo keeps getting better all the time, even if, sadly, only a few of us are lucky enough to learn from her and enjoy her writing.
Maybe enough people will get bored with it. This is my hope for all manner of ailments these days. Hoping folks will get bored soon with wokism and social media because it's so negative and predictable. I, for one, am pretty bored with it all. Maybe others will join the boredom movement and move on to better preoccupations.
I have to admit that I find it all fascinating in a ghoulish way, but that probably says more about me than about the subject. I also find it disheartening, ridiculous, and appalling.
You just haven't watched enough shemale porn to desenstitize yourself to your prejudices.
Just kidding (well, sort of).
'wokism' isn't just the spectacles we see in the news. It's embedded in our institutions informing nearly every decision. Getting 'bored' with it may be a natural response if you're not directly affected by it now, but that would suggest to me that you've given in to ideologues riding roughshod over the culture. You won't be bored with it when it knocks you for a loop.
Transhumanism will be the next thing that tries to yank you out of the boredom movement.
Stories of botched bionic surgeries probably won't be too far away.
I'm expecting bestiality to fall under the "love is love" slogan.
I'm expecting it to go all the way to nechrophilia, "Die for me, baby!"
Transhumanism is certainly on the agenda - but still a long term objective, bestiality and necrophilia are definitely being advanced as we speak (although still quietly under the guise of de-shaming kink). The truly alarming campaign being unleashed right now is normalisation of paedophilia. They even have a magic new name for it - "minor attracted person". The clear objective is to destroy all boundaries of normativity - as they are "oppressive".
The normalization of pedophilia is evident in that the LGBTQ activists use the slogan "Love is love" that traces back to Nambla in the 1970s.
While I am aware that the pedo brigade have been trying to muscle their way into the gay rights movement forever, at least as late as the 80s the movement had the good sense to keep them out. Without having done that gay equality would have been massively delayed as the public just wouldn't have stood for it - not so now that egalitarianism is entrenched they are having another go at it, and unfortunately slowly succeeding.
...and with boredom comes "normalization".. and then moving on to something worse.
'Violent rhetoric on all sides should be unconditionally condemned and the game of victim politics at last rejected.' Amen to that. Just reading this article made my head hurt. As a centrist who has always condemned radicals on all sides, I found the trans vs feminist wars interesting, and even initially enjoyed watching radicals beat each other up, now its just tiresome.
Janice, should I be more impressed by your ability to turn out an original and compelling essay in no time or my new ability to simply ask to have irritators put in their place?
Tsk, such divisiveness. Will they ever get along? Next distraction please.
You'd think that breaking the restrictions of socially constructed gender and quite literally having it all would make Caleb a feminist icon. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12314273/Transgender-man-stops-testosterone-pregnant-sperm-donor-partner-discovered-children
Talk about having choice !
There is no such thing as a "sperm donor". Only participatory and non-participatory fathers. The use of the term "sperm donor" reduces a father to livestock.
Bulls get electric prods stuck up their behinds to induce their sperm donations. I whinced when I saw it done.
I suppose it had to happen, just as feminism is a heresy of Marxist theory so one of feminism's heresy's comes back to bite. As you say the battle uses precisely the "weapons" honed by feminists in recent decades. In one way I warm to the "TERF" wars because it has really shaken the feminist establishment and exposes the contradictions in their supposed "theory". Most obviously the supposed minor role played by biology in the differences in "gender". Thus we have now widespread bigging up on the huge differences in sports performance and "unfairness" of mixing the sexes in sports of all sorts. Perhaps at some point this rediscovery of such difference might creep into the contradictory notion that somehow the biological differences are irrelevant to being a soldier, firefighter, combat pilot, etc.
A stark example of the nonsense is the case in this country is that of a "trans" man (woman to man) suspending "his" hormone treatment in order to conceive bear and birth a daughter , such a wonderful experience that "he" is to continue the suspension in order to have a second child!
As in the case you cite feminists are desperate to deflect attention from the fact that "trans" stems from Gender Studies feminism and simply expresses many of the same mantras so familiar from the very TERFs. Now bleating and seeking men to rescue them. Yet it was they who proclaimed there is no such thing as a "real man", its all socially constructed and "performative", faced with the obvious that that must mean there is no "real woman" that isn't socially constructed and "performative" the TERFs are revealed as believing there are "real women" , and shock horror "real men" after all.
Nigel, you make so many good points. But I think feminists will only give ground episodically and when they have to - for example they will defend separate sports events, teams & competitions for women & men, but not give up on female firefighters & cops (I would say, in the case of police, there might be a certain amount of usefulness for female offices, for example, when questioning female suspects or female victims). One thing the will *always* cling to is the necessity of filling the C-suites of big corporations with women, ignoring the fact that only 5% of chess grandmasters, and 0% of the top 500 esports winners, are women (women aren't good at strategizing, which is why I don't believe women can win against the trans activists without joining forces with men).
I agree about the way feminists in fact are not consistent and pick their targets. I think my purpose is to highlight this duplicity. In essence "trans" activists are feminists and it is interesting that woman in general are far more likely to express support for trans issues than men. Largely because of the claim that "feelings" trump facts "women's ways of knowing" overcoming that nasty patriarchal stuff called science. In this country it is illegal to require different sexes to complete different tests for jobs etc. the result is some plainly nonsensical abandonment of physical requirements of ability resilience and fitness. In a way the feminist supported Equality Act prevents employment of female officers on the basis that they may have specific aptitudes or usefulness. One result has been the proliferation of the use of "tazers" in our supposedly unarmed police force as small, overweight unfit officers use them to apprehend. After all as feminists would point out most criminal behavior is by young men. As a social worker one used to be able to rely on the Fire service to assist where heavy lifting was needed, a disabled person trapped in their tower block due to lift failure, moving an immobile obese person, carefully moving a frail older person etc. this stopped because apparently new tests to join meant the Fire service couldn't "assume" firefighters were physically strong! A result of reducing strength and fitness requirements in recruitment. Many Firefighters lamented this as they always were very willing and happy to help. There are very real consequences to not accepting what is now being trumpeted about sport. But as you say the same logic will not be applied.
Thanks for the reply, Nigel. I don't think it's possible for feminists to be consistent in ideology or in picking targets because their entire social movement is one inconsistent with reality that boils down to nothing but grievances (mostly petty), guilt-tripping men (and nonconforming women), and power grabs.
I find the reduction of fitness standards for military, police and fire personnel particularly troubling. If feminists cared about the safety of the women (even if not caring about the men & kids), one would think they'd want the most effective people doing such jobs. But no, they'd rather have degraded protection so that a few women can burnish their egos by being able to say they're cops or soldiers or fire fighters.
I think you might find interesting some info I found about social workers. In the past few years, the US Defund-the-Police movement has had an auxiliary - the replace cops with social workers movement. They act as if cops don't have the training and ability to talk someone down during a fraught situation, and only social workers can do such a job. The first thing that surprised me was that this kind of nonsense has been going on for over a century. Academics and social workers claim social workers would be especially adept at preventing people from resorting to crime (they never explain what methods they'd use that policemen couldn't). The second thing I found was that, writing & talking among themselves, social workers are fully aware of the potential for violence. One example - political agitation in several US states and at the federal level for sentencing enhancements for attacking or killing social workers (similar to a "hate crime" enhancement). Also, I saw an essay from a social workers' magazine suggesting social workers remove items from their offices that might be useful as weapons (heavy brick-a-brack, letter openers, etc), keep doors open, and take other safety measures. These people clearly do not believe that they have the magical powers to prevent violence and crime that they want the public to believe in.
Behind all of this is the whole world wanting to kill the one true ultimate man, Jesus Christ.
(Note Psalm 2.) Why? To continue the serpent's garden project of bringing enmity between God's creation and Him and between His two created genders, foiling His dominion mandate (which requires reproduction).
By not staying killed, Jesus builds up His holy bride, the church of all who trust in Him as ultimate husband, bountiful provider and strong protector. He died so that she/we might live.
Somehow I don't think the game of victim politics will be going away any time soon. At least not while all of these groups are being puppeteered by the predator class" to create conflict and chaos in society. According to Vladimir Putin, it's the same game plan used by the Bolsheviks a century ago - with the same interests pulling the strings.
Whether you call it communism or fascism, it's all the same - the majority being oppressed by a handful of sociopathic tyrants.
Remarkable. Mental illness in action and at its finest (not).
Someone remarked to me fairly recently that the one group that are rabidly obsessed with sex and shame are radical feminists.
Yet people still listen to them. Especially the ones that really shouldn't. Like government and politicians.
I have actually gotten to know a few transgenders over the years and found the ones I knew as okay people. They were not radicals however, just people.
With all this radical activism going on, it is also easy to lose sight of the fact that not all trans guys/women are radical or bad. Like everyday people, they come in all flavours.
I don't want to become like the people we are railing against and adopt their kind of attitudes either. Helps to remember not to think in absolutes.
As I observed in a comment such folk have been around for a long time. In the UK in the early 1970s there was a "scandal" about men having to go to Morocco to get the then brutal surgery. Subsequently it was available here. Of course tranvestites and drag queens were known about and as a child I recall Danny La Rue being a star of "light entertainment". The shift from a small part of society gradually getting to be accepted to a cause celebre seems to be, in the UK, the result of graduates of "Gender Studies" seeing the issue as a continuation of the gender war feminists had begun. Certainly in this country it is actually not "trans" people one sees on demonstrations but young people of the sort that always protest. In the last decade it has moved from a niche issue to a "cause". The really strange bit is that the placards are also pro abortion, and anti toxic masculinity , misogyny in the police, Rape campaigns etc.. I really don't know how feminists have the gall to pretend the" trans rights" movement is separate from feminism. At least Professor Stock ruefully admits the majority of its support comes from young women (though she stops short of admitting they're feminists). If they were being honest feminists would admit, as Julie Bindel has sort of, this is a campaign they put effort into in order to undermine the "patriarchy" (in the same way as adopting Gay rights) which has got its own legs now. And as such it has the same sort of intolerance of people wanting a quiet life, rather than seeing everything through a "political" lens.
The first tranny I was aware of was Christine Jorgensen, who surgically transitioned in Denmark in the early 50s. She then went on to be a successful singer and entertainer.
In the early 70s, around the time I started high school, Jorgensen's autobiography was published. Christine became an immediate celebrity and a household name. The subject of prominent magazine spreads and a guest on countless radio and TV talk shows, Jorgensen and the transsexual phenomenon were common subjects of conversation and even came up in Civics and Current Events classes at school.
I don't remember any of this as particularly mean spirited or hateful although, of course there were jokes, giggling, and moral disapproval from some. Mostly people found the whole thing strange and, therefore, interesting.
I never bought into the narrative of systemic existential threat against these people. If anything, I have seen FAR more cases of trannies committing heinous violence against others (mass shooting, axe assault, rape, etc.) than I've seen of the reverse.
The APA was WAY out of line when they normalized this stuff by declaring that, absent other diagnostic criteria, believing that a person had been 'born into the wrong body' was not delusional. Of course, in the majority of cases, it is delusional.
Here in the UK the first famous trans was Roberta (Robert) Cowell who had been a WW2 Pilot and Racing Driver. in 1951. The surgeon involved was Michael Dillon, who had been a woman and was operated on in 1946. By a Surgeon who was well known for his work on "intersexed" children and individuals and surgery on soldiers whose injuries included damage to genitals. Dillon wrote a book "self" in the late 40s about what became known as transexuals. Needless to say the book was just the sort to excite interest! The more so when adventurer journalist and travel writer James Morris became Jan in "64 . Because he/she was married he was refused "the operation" and famously went to Morocco in '72. The publicity and debate being at the time of secondary school(junior and high school i think) it was of intense interest. It was at this time I learned of the Chevalier D'Eon.
Jan Morris is one of my all time favourite writers, an excellent prose stylist. Before he transitioned, he also wrote a 3 volume history of The British Empire. Of further interest on the personal front, he was married when he transitioned and remained with his wife his whole life.
Indeed, I was a voracious reader. I may mis remember this but I believe that the fact he wouldn't divorce was a reason he couldn't get "the operation" in the UK. Hence the trip to Morocco.
I wonder how famous that was. Our next-door-neighbour, who was a mountaineer, paid a visit to James Morris in the 1970s not knowing that he'd "transitioned" and was very surprised I remember.