You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2019.

Want to learn more?  Witness more male transactivist progressive action that, quelle suprise, targets women.   While attending a meeting to discuss legislation that will effect females, Rebecca Lush speaks to her experience with ‘progressive transactivism’ quoted from the Morning Star:

 ” I had also seen footage of aggressive, masked trans activists blocking a stairwell to a separate meeting in Bristol organised by a different campaign group called We Need to Talk the week before the WPUK Oxford meeting.

I was aware that the venues that host these kinds of meetings are each time subjected to a barrage of harassment and misinformation, misrepresenting WPUK as a “hate group,” which is designed to scare them into cancelling.

However I was determined that I would not be intimidated from attending a public meeting by bullies in balaclavas. […]

We arrived late and thankfully most people were already inside the venue. Suddenly a group of approximately 50 students descended and immediately blocked the door to the meeting house to deter anyone from entering. They started chanting very loudly and aggressively. What happened next was utterly shameful. […]

The very few [demonstrators] who actually talked to me demonstrated quite clearly that they had absolutely no idea what the meeting was about or what the aims of WPUK are.

Not one could tell me just one of its five demands, for instance, which are clearly available in WPUK publicity material.

One said: “You think trans people don’t exist.” When I pointed to my two trans friends who’d attended the meeting and begged to differ, she went back to the cult-like chanting in my face. There was little critical thinking on display, just an unnerving groupthink, coupled with a chilling sense of misplaced righteousness.

I found it very sad that a group of young people would attempt to block a meeting without actually bothering to find out anything about the group they were protesting about, apart from what they’d been told.

My overall impression was that it all seemed extremely cult-like and not at all thoughtful. No-platforming tactics, reserved for preventing violent, street-level fascist organising, clearly have no place in preventing women from trade unions and Mumsnet meeting to discuss legislative proposals and women’s existing legal rights.

However, the violent and intolerant extremist trans activism we are witnessing isn’t a progressive movement, but bears all the hallmarks of an authoritarian cult where people are not allowed to think for themselves or have their ideas challenged.

Women’s rights have been hard-won over centuries, yet we are still nowhere close to equality, with sexism and misogyny rife, including on the left. Women have every right to meet and discuss how to challenge sexism and uphold our few hard-won rights.

WPUK works with trans people who wish to see legislation that protects both the rights of trans people and women’s sex-based rights. Violence, threats and intimidation have no place in democratic and progressive movements and we will not be deterred from speaking out.”

It is nice to see a publication that actually stands for females and socialist principles.

A handy guide to prepare yourself for the onerous task of handling the inevitable arguments that crop up when men and their blue-haired handmaidens make their bullshit arguments.

 

 

  • Narcissism is prevalent here. Same rules as always with narcissists. Do not get embroiled in discussion of their identity, their identity is not relevant to you and outside making clear you do not see yourself reflected in their identity it serves no function but to prevent discussion.
  • All accusations are admissions. This is a very reliable compass. They will attribute their own motivations and actions to you because their identity is the only thing they can see and they can only see you as a reflection or threat to it. They are accusing themselves. Let them. Loudly.
  • Take every word at face value. Do not get dragged into debating it. They say women’s consent doesn’t matter? Take it at face value. They say they have the right to redefine lesbian to include them and they have pushed women to assert their sexual boundaries by misgendering? They are telling you they cannot recognise consent, boundaries, or female sexuality. This is an admission. Not a debate.
  • Do not treat a boundary as a negotiation. It is not/. You set the boundary and when they breach it, gaslighting, coercion, threats, you are receiving an admission of how far they will go to cross your boundaries. Take this at face value.
  • Do not be derailed from key points or boundaries, and use all admissions made. They will try to derail from the thing that injures them. Usually the reality of their identity and the threat you pose to it. Stick to their behaviour. The words they have used. Do not get embroiled in discussion of their identity. A narcissists identity is always the hill they will die. Accept when they tell you they cannot separate their identity from your reality.
  • You do not have to debate being a woman. You are one. Your biology, the inequality you lived, the knowledge you have that came from this. You do not need to debate whether you are a woman. Or their definition of woman. Outside being clear you do not see yourself reflected in them, you do not need to debate this. They do.
  • When you are discussing systems and laws that evolved over 70 years to protect women and girls you do not need to centre their identity in that discussion. It is irrelevant to that discussion. Those systems were fought for and created by women you don’t know, they did that so you don’t have to. You do not need to have arguments that are already done and are reflected in equality legislation.
  • Do not have arguments you don’t need to have. It is ridiculous to use failure to validate males as an insult. It is ridiculous to treat ‘you didn’t think of males when you thought about inequality so you are a TERF’ as valid. You don’t need to defend the right of women to self assembly without male supervision, it is yours already, they need to explain why they think it should end. If hearing about their male biology is offensive, that is not your fault. They are male. That cannot be altered. You are not required to repeat things you know to be untrue because of the threat of violence and coercion. You are not required to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘nice’ at a cost of your own safety and rights. EVER.
  • Do not defend yourself from accusations which are not accusations. It is not an accusation or a crime to refuse to ignore abusive behaviour, it is not an accusation that you didn’t orbit a males identity and validate him.
  • Misgendering and transphobia are insults designed to give men the right to abuse women and claim they are being oppressed. Nonsense. Stick to literal meanings, neither of this things is violent, neither metaphorical or literal and neither of these things warrant a violent response.
  • Remember what you are responsible for. You are not responsible for managing their well being, not responsible for their threats of violence, not responsible for harm they do themselves or threaten to do themselves to control a situation. You are entitled to boundaries, to define yourself, and anyone threatened by this is telling you something.
  • Remember abusive behaviour is well understood. It is always a problem. It is legally and socially unacceptable to subordinate women with abusive behaviour. Nothing in the word trans changes this and any trans women suggesting it does is telling you ‘she’ is an abusive male.

 

Power-and-control-wheel-horiz

    I’m going through my drafts and cleaning out the backlog of issues and items that, in the past, I’ve deemed worthy to create a post about.  This comment, gleaned from Meghan Murphy’s website The Feminism Current is a great response to the bullying, fear-mongering, and testerical reactions women have to deal with when confronted with the hostilely, fragile transactivist community. 
 

There cannot be much common ground between feminists and trans rights activists as long as you insist that it is “hateful” to call a spade a spade. A woman is an adult human female, and a female human is a person of the sex that produces large gametes (eggs). A man is an adult human male, and a male human is a person of the sex that produces small gametes (sperm). Transwomen by definition are male, meaning that adult transwomen are men. It’s the literal truth. There is no other concrete definition of the word woman which is not rooted in misogyny. “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” is a circular definition (what is one identifying as exactly?), basing it on gender presentation is sexist stereotyping and says that butch and GNC women are no longer women, and basing it on having a “female brain” is sexist and wrong because there is no such thing.

Here is an article about brain sex you can read: https://www.fastcompany.com…

Here are some points of agreement that you will find with most radical feminists: trans people do not deserve to be treated as less than human in any way, including discrimination on the basis of being trans. (That does not include forcing women to pretend that trans women are women — you can note that men are still people.) Also, gender expression should not be tied to one’s biological sex. Boys regardless of identity are allowed to wear dresses and hair barettes and like princess things.

The vast majority of feminists who are accused of hating trans people, are being abused for reasons as petty as this woman is. If you don’t understand why she says trans ideology is misogyny, think about what I said about the definition of a woman, think about what actually motivates institutional misogyny (Engels is a good start), and think about what would happen to feminism if we were operating off a definition of the word woman that was itself rooted in misogyny. If you don’t understand why she calls it homophobic, go read about the cotton ceiling and how lesbians are being increasingly expected to have sexual contact with a penis, and how this is considered an acceptable demand as long as it’s a “woman’s penis”. There is (part of) your misogyny and homophobia respectively.

“Cis” is being resisted here because, now that dysphoria is no longer needed to be trans, the implication of the word “cis” has necessarily narrowed quite a lot. Now instead of meaning “untransitioned and not seeking transition” it means “identifies with her gender role”. I am a woman and I was born female but I do not “identify as” a woman and I do not “identify with” the collection of stereotypes and social pressures that come with my gender. My gender is not innate nor was it chosen; it was imposed on me from birth because of my sex. To say I am “cis”, then, is deeply offensive as it implies that my oppression as a woman is somehow innate or self-imposed. You talk big about validating people’s identities but you don’t seem to have actually followed through because when this woman said, I don’t identify as cis, you completely flipped out.

You started a witch hunt on this poor woman because she has critical thinking skills and an opinion you either didn’t understand or found intolerable, and while your bar for calling transphobia is so low it’s on the floor, your bar for calling out sexism doesn’t seem to exist at all. There are a ton of misogynistic comments and calls for violence against women in these screencaps and it doesn’t look like you called out a single one. Is that really what you are calling feminism these days?

Women are calling out the bullshit arguments.  Thank god for that.  However, they are still women in a patriarchal society and therefore, getting their arguments even heard, not to mention taken seriously, is still problematic.

We need to continue to foster resistance toward any ideology that demands one to believe in notions that are patently false and incongruent with biological material reality.

In a uncanny sort of way the slow motion failure of the US war effort in Afghanistan is a testament to the fiercely stubborn nature of our species. The US has total control of the air, real-time satellite imagery, and soldiers equipped with the best (and most expensive) military equipment known to our species. And yet, they continue to fail. The war in Afghanistan is almost two decades old now, and an favourable end for the West is unlikely.

The US, despite its world leadership, seems to learn little from it mistakes.  Vietnam remains a powerful lesson and reminder that ‘big guns, best tech’ military option is not a guarantee of victory.  The cost of resisting the US war machine is appalling, some two million(plus) dead, but Vietnam illustrated it is possible to resist.  Afghanistan is on a similar course.

This is what happens when a country decides to wage an unpopular war.  A disconnect grows between the citizens of the country and the political class that is waging the war.  A professional military bears the causalities with little coverage at home, so the war in question can fade out of the public consciousness.  Coupled with a lapdog media that should be exposing the tragedy of errors that is the Afghan war, little is said, and the boondoggle can continue.

Alfred McCoy reviews a small slice of the American failure in Afghanistan, focusing on the drug trade, that happens to fuel the Taliban and provide roughly 85% of the world’s heroin.  You’d think the biggest guns and the brightest minds could plot victory over a dirt poor nation and peasant farmers…

 

“Not only did this problematic drug war fail to curtail the traffic, but it also alienated the rural residents the government so desperately needed to win over. Worse yet, in the end it actually encouraged illicit opium production — a frequent outcome in Washington’s worldwide drug war that I once called “the stimulus of prohibition.”

Using sophisticated satellite imagery, Sopko’s team, for example, found a troubling disconnect between areas that received development aid from Washington or its allies and those that were subjected to opium eradication programs. In strategic Helmand and Nangarhar provinces, for instance, satellite photographs clearly reveal that the various drug eradication projects ripped through remote areas where “the population was highly dependent on opium poppy for its livelihoods,” rendering poor farmers destitute. The development aid was, however, lavished on more accessible, largely drug-free districts near major cities elsewhere in Afghanistan, leaving countless thousands of farmers in critical rural areas angry at the government and susceptible to Taliban recruitment.

Even liberal development alternatives to those rip-up-the-poppies programs, claims Sopko, only served to stimulate opium production in surprising ways. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for instance, spent $36 million on irrigation for a showcase Food Zone project, meant to promote the growing of legal crops in southern Kandahar Province. As it happened, though, this important infrastructure program actually turned out to contribute “to rising levels of opium poppy cultivation” — an unintended outcome that could be seen in similar “irrigation projects in provinces like Nangarhar, Badakhshan, and Kunar.”

Next door to Kandahar in central Helmand Province, another Food Zone program initially helped reduce the opium crop by 60%. But as British agronomist David Mansfield reports, by the spring of 2017 an “unprecedented” proliferation of poppies covered up to 40% of the farmland targeted by that project; guerrillas were back in force; and farmers felt, as one put it, that “the Taliban is better than the government; they don’t ban poppy, they just ask for tax.” By now, of course, given all the years of bungled anti-drug programs, Mansfield concludes that the Kabul government has little hope of wresting “back control of central Helmand.”

USAID programs that emphasized increased wheat production proved similarly counterproductive. “With higher-yielding varieties and improved agricultural technologies,” writes Sopko, “households in the well-irrigated central valleys of rural Afghanistan would be able to meet their family wheat requirements with a smaller part of their land,” allowing “a larger area… to be allocated to [the] high-value… opium poppy.”

An Uncertain Future

Corroborating Sopko’s pessimism, a recent report by Mujib Mashal of the New York Times depicted the worsening Afghan drug situation as the product, in part, of Washington’s failed policies. Fueled by a booming opium harvest, the Taliban has recently expanded from poppy growing into large-scale heroin production with an estimated 500 labs refining the drug inside Afghanistan — part of a strategy aimed at capturing a greater share of the $60 billion generated globally by the country’s drug exports.

Out of the whole opium eradication project, the National Interdiction Unit, an Afghan outfit trained by U.S. Special Forces, is more or less what’s left when it comes to hopes for reducing the traffic in drugs. Yet their nighttime helicopter interdiction raids on mobile, readily reconstructed heroin labs are proving futile and their chief, reports Mashal, was recently sacked for “probably leaking information to hostile forces.” U.S. military commanders now realize that local Taliban bosses, enriched by the heroin boom, have nothing to gain from further peace negotiations, which remain the only way of ending this endless war.

Meanwhile, the whole question of opium eradication has, according to Mashal, gotten surprisingly “little attention in the Trump administration’s new strategy for the Afghan war.” It seems that U.S. counter-narcotics officials have come to accept a new reality “with a sense of helplessness” — that the country now supplies 85% of the world’s heroin and there’s no end to this in sight.

So why has America’s ambitious $9 billion counter-narcotics program fallen into failure again and again? When such illegality corrupts a society as thoroughly as opium has Afghanistan, then drug trafficking comes to distort everything — giving even good programs bad outcomes and undoubtedly twisting Trump’s headstrong plans for victory into certain defeat.

Think of the never-ending war in Afghanistan as Washington’s drug of choice of these last 16 years.”

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 398 other subscribers

Categories

July 2019
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

  • Unknown's avatar
  • john zande's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • windupmyskirt's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
  • Unknown's avatar
Kaine's Korner

Religion. Politics. Life.

Connect ALL the Dots

Solve ALL the Problems

Myrela

Art, health, civilizations, photography, nature, books, recipes, etc.

Women Are Human

Independent source for the top stories in worldwide gender identity news

Widdershins Worlds

LESBIAN SF & FANTASY WRITER, & ADVENTURER

silverapplequeen

herstory. poetry. recipes. rants.

Paul S. Graham

Communications, politics, peace and justice

Debbie Hayton

Transgender Teacher and Journalist

shakemyheadhollow

Conceptual spaces: politics, philosophy, art, literature, religion, cultural history

Our Better Natures

Loving, Growing, Being

Lyra

A topnotch WordPress.com site

I Won't Take It

Life After an Emotionally Abusive Relationship

Unpolished XX

No product, no face paint. I am enough.

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle

femlab

the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

trionascully.com

Not Afraid Of Virginia Woolf

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Teach The Change

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby

SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL

A blog in support of Helen Steel

thenationalsentinel.wordpress.com/

Where media credibility has been reborn.

BigBooButch

Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian

RadFemSpiraling

Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy

Emma

Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Easilyriled's Blog

cranky. joyful. radical. funny. feminist.

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress

HANDS ACROSS THE AISLE

Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution

fmnst

Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.

violetwisp

short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism