You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Feminism’ category.
“Inclusion” is the new best and brightest way to hide your fundamental hatred of women. Gender ideology is a toxic mess of male supremacy and misogyny wrapped up in friendly pink and blue colours. The erasure of females from society has always been the endgame and the Olympic Weightlifting debacle is a prime example of the bullshit that is going on under the guise of “inclusion”.
“WELLINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) – Weightlifter Laurel Hubbard will become the first transgender athlete to compete at the Olympics after being selected by New Zealand for the women’s event at the Tokyo Games, a decision set to reignite a debate over inclusion and fairness in sport.
Hubbard will compete in the super-heavyweight 87+kg category, her selection made possible by an update to qualifying requirements in May.
The 43-year-old, who will be the oldest lifter at the Games, had competed in men’s weightlifting competitions before transitioning in 2013.”
Who is Laurel Hubbard? This is the dude in question. As we can all definitively see, with absolutely no doubt, a female…
Ask yourself folks, is any ideology that requires you to disbelieve your eyes and ignore basic biological fact worthy of your support?
“Save Women’s Sport Australasia, a group opposed to transgender women competing in women’s sports, said Hubbard’s selection was allowed by “flawed policy from the IOC”.
“Males do have a performance advantage that is based on their biological sex,” the group’s co-founder Katherine Deves told Reuters TV.
“They outperform us on every single metric – speed, stamina, strength. Picking testosterone is a red herring … We are forgetting about the anatomy, the faster twitch muscle, the bigger organs.”
Of course, when mediocre males are allowed into female sports, females always lose out. The loser in this case is Kuinini Manumua.
This, rightly, is a travesty. It is right before our eyes, and yet somehow it is still going to happen. This is the result.
The new misogyny is so much like the old misogyny, but now with the feel good inclusion angle that quietly instead of overtly erases females from society. Woohoo!
Speaking your mind can be a dangerous activity. In the halls of academia though, it is purportedly the name of the game. Please go and read Dr.Bert’s full post and enjoy her eloquence and clarity of thought in full.
I thought I would highlight some of the points that should be of interest to those who believe in academic freedom, and freedom of speech in general.
“[…]
‘I am a sociologist after all—and interrogate this current moment in which a certain contingent of social activists have deemed it not only justifiable, but proper, to silence any discussion about sex and negotiation of competing sex-based and gender-identity-based rights. Some might say, and I might agree, this is part of the larger ‘woke’ movement among those who identify with the Left. I might note that my political beliefs position me on the Left, but I believe in the importance of evidence, reason and logic, and a material reality in which we all exist).'”
Her resignation letter (from the Division of Women and Crime) really knocks it out of the park, it is a clarion call to those who remain on the non gender religious Left. (**ed. It was mistakenly reported here that Dr.Burt’s letter was to the Editorial board, when in fact it was from the Division of Women and Crime – change applied to the relevant parts of this post and apologies to Dr.Burt**)
“However, a division that traffics in mantras and refuses to engage with people raising valid concerns (dismissing people for ‘hateful wrong think’), is not a group I wish to be a member of. For those of you who consider me a ‘meany’, baddie, hater who is a transphobe, you’re probably relieved. But you are wrong. I am not a transphobe, and I do not hate trans people or males or anyone.
Just this week reports came out of a male who self-ID’ed into the women’s prison in Washington state and raped a female prisoner housed there. I think that’s something to discuss; your explicit position is that doing so is hateful transphobia that must be silenced for inclusivity and the well-being of transgender people. But what about females and transwomen who would be harmed by predatory males self-ID’ing into women’s spaces?
Many of you were part of the LGBT movement in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and some of you weren’t. I was. We didn’t effect change by refusing to engage, dismissing those who disagreed, and censoring any discussion of negotiating gay rights. We were successful because we talked. We tried to understand the positions of others and helped them see ours. Maybe your attempts to censor any discussion of sex will work to effect the change you wish to see in the world. Maybe it won’t. Regardless of the outcome, I do not find the division’s silencing discussion of issues, which are complex and multilayered and sometimes uncomfortable, acceptable in academia or in the Division of Women and Crime.
I wish you well, and I’m sad to go. But I refuse to go along silently with a group that calls discussion of gender/sex-self-ID ‘transphobic’ when there are real issues to discuss here that have everything to do with the safety of females and transwomen and nothing to do with hate or bigotry.”
Wow.
*applause*
Definitional clarity is key in understanding the conflict between women’s rights and gender ideology. Dr. Jones, as usual, brings clarity to the matter at hand.
The political interests of women are often overlooked by both the right and the left.
The bullshit that goes on because we cannot advance the idea that females are a distinct class of individuals in society who exist solely for themselves. Not in relationship to the family, not in relationship to their reproductive capacity, and most certainly not as an object of desirability for the men-folk. Yet, the old perspectives continue to linger and fester making it difficult for women to fully establish their humanity in society.
The latest assault on female rights and personhood in society has come from “progressive” Left. The notion that because some gender confused males don’t have a uterus, we should erase the terms ‘women’ and ‘females’ in the language of society in a quixotic effort to be more “inclusive”. To explain how erasing women in society is a good thing let’s look at what “Kenny Ethan Jones” has to say –
“Why should we respect and embrace phrases like “people who menstruate”?
When we solely use women to describe people who experience periods, we exclude everyone who doesn’t identify as a woman from the conversation. I’m very familiar with how that exclusion feels and the consequences it can have.
I am a man in [for clarity, ‘Kenny’ is female], I am trans and I sometimes experience periods.
Growing up, periods were my biggest personal struggle. I mean the pain, the bleeding — that sucked. But the most painful part was the internal shame I felt knowing what was happening to my body was something the world only associates with women and girls.
Every scientific study explaining the biology of menstrual cycles, every bit of advertising for period-related products, every piece of language I had ever seen or heard reinforced one thing: boys don’t have periods. I’d known I didn’t feel like a girl long before I ever experienced periods, but I didn’t have any other way of seeing what was happening to my body outside of that one, gendered angle. I felt alienated, isolated. A bodily function that I had no control over caused me to be in conflict with my identity as a man, all because of society’s language and viewpoint on periods.
Although this tweet was very disheartening for me as a trans man, there are plenty of other people who benefit from gender-inclusive language being used when it comes to the period conversation. In fact, linking womanhood so closely with menstruation becomes problematic when you realize how many cisgender women don’t experience periods, and who are no less woman because of it.”
You see? It is the gender religious magic in action. My self declaration should have more importance in society than the medical and biological facts of the matter. It gives me pause when I see an individual so wholly dedicated to a delusional point of view – but on that individual level her views on her gender and her bodily functions are fine. Just like when I see the nice people in white tops and black pants roll up to talk to me about Jebus and Magic Hats, I can politely disagree with what they say and their take on reality, and then they go away (off to find a more receptive victim to lovebomb into their cause).
But tell this gender acolyte to move on with their gender-magic… Well, one should not do that as it qualifies *somehow* as bigotry and hatred on a near cosmic scale. Let’s define bigotry quickly here, just to help frame what is going on.
I choose not to share in the belief that human beings can change their sex. A man who calls himself a women is still a man. A woman who calls herself a man is still a woman. This two statements though completely true are somehow controversial. Sticking with the version of reality that is closest to the material truth doesn’t seem like bad worldview to hold. I will not participate in gender-magic and really, any ideology that is not moored in the societal reality we all share. And therein lies the rub – gender acolytes won’t accept no for an answer, it is incumbent on *you* to accept *their* version of how sex and gender work.
Allow me to say unequivocally, they can fuck right off with their attempted imposition of their beliefs on me. Engage with as much gender-delusion as you please, but keep me out it. At least the formally religious have the good sense to go away once asked they respect the boundaries of others. The gender religious, not so much.
Any ideology or religion that doesn’t respect other’s thoughts and boundaries is dangerous. Gender ideology (GI) is a clear and present danger to women because (GI) seeks to define the term woman (adult human female) out of existence.
Speaking up for women comes with a price. We’ll see if Lord Hunt will be forced to pay it.
It is tough to illustrate sometimes what feminists have to deal with when trying to discuss politics and policies that directly affect them. Here is an example of a correspondence between a feminist and a ‘tech writer for the Atlantic’ on a piece that, when published, amounts to little more than hyperbole and trans-propaganda.
Link to the shite article in question.
On 2020-12-04 18:09, Kaitlyn Tiffany wrote:
thank you for these! To clarify, when I say “hate speech” I’m talking about language that dehumanizes, slanders, or diminishes trans women based on their identity, so for example, in this thread: a trans woman is referred to as a “creature.” I’ve recently seen people joke cruelly about how absurd it is that they’re expected to accept “men in lipstick” as women, and people writing that trans women are mostly “narcissists” or that they’re often “pedophiles.” In the post I already sent you, several women were making fun of the Trans Day of Remembrance, which is an annual observance for trans people who have been murdered in hate crimes.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 7:35 PM Mary Kate Fain wrote:
Hey again –
Thanks for providing these examples for context to your question! I think it’s a real stretch to classify any of this as hate speech, though. It’s telling that you’ve not been able to find a single instance of actual expressions of hate, calls for or glorification of violence, threats, organized harassment, or doxxing in the gender-critical online community (all things that women experience online daily). Instead, we’ve got some rowdy feminists making jokes, participating in armchair psychology, and a bit of name-calling that would be considered tame anywhere else on the web. Women put up 1/10th of the fight of men online and we get labeled “hateful”?
Honestly, and I say this with all due respect, the constant classification of feminists’ online participation as “hateful” simply because it is not ladylike, or, more specifically, doesn’t conform to the patriarchy’s current demands, is gaslighting. Patriarchy is what’s hateful. I think you’re scrounging a bit for examples to justify the narrative that you’ve been told and that, to be fair, you’ll have to re-tell or else risk being called “hateful” yourself. I get it. Being canceled isn’t easy.
The truth is, and I think you probably know already this, that there is no way we could disagree with gender ideology nicely enough to be “allowed”. It’s not about our tone, our crude jokes, or schoolyard name-calling. It’s because we disagree with the fundamental premise that a man can become a woman simply because he says so. That is why we are called “hateful”. I know this because I was labeled “hateful” for statements that contained nothing even remotely joking, namecalling, or crude. As was JK Rowling, and as were scores of other women.
The reality is that gender critical women, as a whole, are not hateful. Women as a class pose no genuine risk to men as a class; and women do not replicate patterns of male violence either on or offline at any meaningful scale.
I hope this clears that up, but I’m happy to continue to talk it through if it’s helpful. The topic of free speech and censorship online is obviously very important to me, so I’m grateful for the work you’re doing on this piece to raise the issue.
Have a great weekend,
MK
The bullshit has finally start to overflow the gunwales. Lefty dudes that are not directly part of the high trans-inquisition are feeling – all at once – perturbed and miffed that they are not being heard and even villified for believing in what was once considered the ideals of the Left. One can tell when it really bad when it finally starts affecting the men. (???)
Such dark times. And so suddenly, seemingly out of NOWHERE…
Movement toward excising the cancer that is identity politics might start gaining some traction, as the class of people who matter(!) are now being effected.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…