You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.

Megan Murphy describes on of the common argumentative tactics used against women speaking up for their rights and boundaries.
“This is a common trope offered up by gender identity ideologues: that women fear men will use “trans” as a disguise to “trick” women. This misunderstands the feminist position on gender identity, which is not necessarily that trans-identified people are lying, or trying to fool anyone, but that it is simply impossible to change sex. They have, rather, been “fooled” by trans activism itself, into believing it is possible for a male to become female, through faith, insistence, surgery, or clothing choice. There is no “legitimate” transwomen, in that no man can ever become a woman, no matter how badly they want it or believe it. It’s not about trickery or cruelty, it’s about facts. The “fear” is not of trans-identified people or of dishonest men, playing at trans to access women’s spaces. The “fear” is simply of men, regardless of identity.”
This is a key feature of almost every debate with the queer woke theorists – their arguments are based on a keenly negative facet of our society: gender stereotypes. To be a woman (or man) is to like and do X. It is the at the very root of oppressive patriarchal culture and thus trans ideology is also oppressive and regressive because of its adherence to toxic gendered norms and behaviour.
Imagine for just a second that, as the Second wave postulated, that men and women could dress as they please, act as they please, be who they please without worrying about what the gender gremlin has to say about it. It would be amazing.
Gender non conformity is what needs to be accepted in society. For example wearing a dress and make up should be acceptable male and female behaviour, period. What isn’t contested is the fact that wearing a dress doesn’t and will never change your sex.
This quote from “The Sexist Pseudoscience of ‘gender identity'”
“the sexist pseudoscience of “gender identity” is still written into their literature. This is of course inevitable, because without “gendered stereotypes” there would be no markers by which to identify anyone as transgender. Whether one thinks of it as a utopian dream or dystopian nightmare, had the feminists of the 1970s and 1980s achieved their aims there would just be women and men with a variety of jobs, interests, clothes and hobbies. Transgenderism can only exist if one believes that there are appropriate personalities and behaviours for each sex – otherwise what would be left to “trans”? Were this sexist social lens to be removed, girls who wear trousers and enjoy scrapping and boys in pink who bake would be seen and valued as the children they are.”
Is a sub gig worth the health of your family?
That main question that has been going through my head as of late, since school has started. I’ve been very lucky to be able to attend schools I know that also happen to have very stringent health protocols. But I won’t go somewhere new, where I don’t know the people or the lay of the land. Even with the familiarity and risk reduction, the chance to be infected isn’t zero.
The other side of the coin is, of course, I’m a big fan of eating and keeping up on the bills that, through some dark magic, continue to arrive and require my fiscal involvement even when deep into a world pandemic.
Being Canadian, I had access to the CERB, which while available provided income to keep the home-fires going and remain safely at home with minimal exposure. I haven’t been more proud of a Canadian Federal government for taking such bold steps to keep its population safe.
Yet, as the second wave comes, the fiscal reality of the government’s finances may dictate that there will be no relief available. It is very possible that the schools, and thus my employment, may become unavailable for an undetermined length of time.
So then given the uncertainty of future work should I take more risks and work now because no work may be the only option open in the future – but if I catch the virus now I may be out for months recuperating with added negative of possibly killing my vulnerable family members.
This sort of risk drenched future is hell on risk averse individuals such as myself.
I’ll do my best and hope that it is enough for whatever scenario we happen to fall into.
*sigh*
Sometimes one doesn’t have time to cut through the academicese to right proper call out the bullshite, the Legal Feminist had the energy and time to do so. A million thanks to her. Here are her words.
[JB] …[W]e can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality…
“In other words, anyone who thinks that it is dangerous to let male-bodied people self-identify into women-only spaces is guilty of a transphobic assumption that all trans women are sex-offending ‘cis’ males in disguise, and their only purpose in entering women’s spaces is to offend. This is a familiar move in the debate: “If you won’t let me into the ladies’ it means you think that because I’m trans I must be a perv! Transphobe!”
But that misses the point. Sorry, I’m going to rant a bit here.
The point is male violence, especially but not exclusively male sexual violence. We don’t want to exclude trans women from the spaces where we are undressed and vulnerable because they are trans, but because they are biologically male. They are members of the half of humanity that poses a far greater threat to women than the other half.
We want to exclude males because we are afraid of them. And we are right to be afraid of them. We don’t want to exclude trans women because we think they are more likely than any other male-bodied person to be violent offenders; but because there is no reason to think they are any less likely to be violent offenders. Men are unwelcome in women-only spaces not because we think all men are sex offenders, but because we know that almost all sex offenders are men.
And remember that we are not just spontaneously afraid! We are taught from early childhood that men are a source of danger. We are told it is our responsibility to keep ourselves safe from the ever-present risk of male violence; with the barely-concealed message that it’s our fault if we fail. We learn to limit our freedoms. We try not to be out alone late at night. We learn to be alert to the possibility of being followed; not to make eye contact; to shut down drunken attempts to chat us up without provoking male rage; to walk in the middle of the road so that it’s harder to ambush us from the shadows; to conduct a lightning risk assessment of every other passenger on the night bus; to clutch our keys in one hand in case we need a weapon; to carry a pepper spray, or a personal alarm. And we learn the hard way that these fears that have been deliberately inculcated in us are justified. We are followed, leered at, flashed, groped, cat-called; and that’s those of us who get off lightly. Every woman has stories of male abuse.
We are systematically trained in fear
And then we are told that we must lay aside, at a moment’s notice, the fears we have so obediently learned as soon as a person with a male body asserts a female identity.
Does this give you any insight into why we are so angry?
Let me make it even plainer. There is an attempt to force male bodies into female spaces where they are not welcome; and when we say “no,” that is met with rage, entitlement, abuse and threats of violence – attempts to overbear our consent by force. There are unmistakable echoes of rape. When it comes to attempts to force women who have asked for a female health care provider to accept a trans woman to undertake an intimate procedure, the echoes become deafening.”



Your opinions…