You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.

Wow.  Patriarchal reversals brought to you by the WAVAW Rape Crisis Centre.

As a trans-inclusive anti-violence organization, we feel a sense of responsibility to provide a counter-narrative to this trans-exclusionary radical feminism. It’s no secret that there is a long, difficult history between feminism and trans people.”

Local Transactivists lobbied Vancouver city council to defund the Vancouver Rape Crisis and Woman’s Shelter because they had a female only policy.  Sex is a protected characteristic under the Canadian Charter.  Dr. Jones clearly illustrates the problem:

Let’s go through and do a rough line by line response to the highly inclusive blog post put put by the WAVAW.

“This history is rooted in the right wing ideology that queer and trans people and their issues are somehow oppositional to the issues of cisgender women and feminism as a whole.”

There would be less strife and problematic history between transactivism and radical feminism if we could all agree on material, biological reality.  Human beings cannot change sex.  A woman is correctly defined as an adult human female.

 

Bullshit. – What Radical Feminist Analysis of Gender looks like…

 “[…]  Disagreeing with someone, however, is not a form of violence. And we have a big disagreement.

Radical feminists are critical of gender itself. We are not gender reformists–we are gender abolitionists. Without the socially constructed gender roles that form the basis of patriarchy, all people would be free to dress, behave, and love others in whatever way they wished, no matter what kind of body they had.

Patriarchy is a caste system which takes humans who are born biologically male or female and turns them into the social classes called men and women. Male people are made into men by socialization into masculinity, which is defined by a psychology based on emotional numbness and a dichotomy of self and other. This is also the psychology required by soldiers, which is why we don’t think you can be a peace activist without being a feminist.

Female socialization in patriarchy is a process of psychologically constraining and breaking girls—otherwise known as “grooming”—to create a class of compliant victims. Femininity is a set of behaviors that are, in essence, ritualized submission.

We see nothing in the creation of gender to celebrate or embrace. Patriarchy is a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power, and we want to see it dismantled so that the category of gender no longer exists. This is also our position on race and class. The categories are not natural: they only exist because hierarchical systems of power create them (see, for instance, Audrey Smedley’s book Race in North America). We want a world of justice and equality, where the material conditions that currently create race, class, and gender have been forever overcome.

Patriarchy facilitates the mining of female bodies for the benefit of men – for male sexual gratification, for cheap labor, and for reproduction. To take but one example, there are entire villages in India where all the women only have one kidney. Why? Because their husbands have sold the other one. Gender is not a feeling—it’s a human rights abuse against an entire class of people, “people called women.”

We are not “transphobic.” We do, however, have a disagreement about what gender is. Genderists think that gender is natural, a product of biology. Radical feminists think gender is social, a product of male supremacy. Genderists think gender is an identity, an internal set of feelings people might have. Radical feminists think gender is a caste system, a set of material conditions into which one is born. Genderists think gender is a binary. Radical feminists think gender is a hierarchy, with men on top. Some genderists claim that gender is “fluid.” Radical feminists point out that there is nothing fluid about having your husband sell your kidney. So, yes, we have some big disagreements.

Radical feminists also believe that women have the right to define their boundaries and decide who is allowed in their space. We believe all oppressed groups have that right.”

-Deep Green Resistance – Radical Feminism FAQ

So try a little harder to argue honestly and charitably against your opponents.

“This conflict often shows up in the realm of gender-specific spaces, in shelters and anti-violence organizations. Feminism has been used as a means of spreading hatred against trans people, particularly trans women, and has co-opted the anti-violence movement to implicitly and explicitly exclude trans women.

No kidding.  Male violence is endemic in society.  Keeping men away from women and protecting hard fought for female only spaces is a priority in effective feminism.  You should try it some time.

It’s difficult for WAVAW to grapple with this history, especially as feminists doing anti-violence work.

What part of male violence don’t you get?  That is the root of the problem and thus what much of radical feminism works to change in society.  That is the material reality of the situation, class based male violence against female people.  Idealistic, individual solutions – see pretty much all of gender identity – do not address these systemic issues.  They may be important, but do they are not inherently feminist, and thus do not merit centring in female spaces and effective feminist activism.

This is especially true as trans-exclusionary radical feminism is alive and well in Vancouver; it’s no secret that we’re working amongst a hotbed of transmisogyny that has a global reach.

Feminists are rightly calling you on your male-centric, misogynistic approach.  Get used to it.

 

One of the things we hear most often is that by making space for trans women in our feminism we will dilute our politics. We hear rumours of trans women taking over and forcing an anti-feminist agenda on us. “

No, this is about Transactivists successfuly lobbying Vancouver City council to remove funding for the ONLY rape crisis centre that is Female only.  Because a refuge from male violence is somehow unacceptable to your ‘woke-ness’ on high.   Every other shelter allows men in, but apparently having a female only option is unacceptable, and your particular brand of handmaiden feminism is the only one that should be funded.

This is factually incorrect. We know this is incorrect because trans women have never accessed WAVAW in large numbers, despite the fact that we have been expressly open to trans women since 2000.”

Fine and dandy.  How about respecting woman’s boundaries when they prefer not to be around those members of the class of people that rape them?  You prioritize male feelings over female safety and it is a travesty.

“As a rape crisis center committed to supporting survivors,  we want them to access our services […]”

No one is stopping you.  This is about your support of taking away female only safe spaces for rape survivors.  This is you promoting ideology that actively hurts vulnerable women in the name of inclusion.

 

“Perhaps the most dangerous thing trans-exclusionary rhetoric does is to erase difference by insisting on some shared experience of womanhood.Kimberlé Crenshaw’s hugely influential theory on intersectionality informs our understanding that people embody different intersecting identities that get compounded under systems of oppression.  For example,  a queer, working class,  woman of colour experiences the world in a much different way than an upper middle class, straight, white woman would. Intersectionality shows us that women across race, class, gender, ability, etc., are more different than alike. To say that all women have a shared lived experience based on biological sex erases these differences and upholds white supremacy, patriarchy, and the status quo.”

What is it with redefinition of feminist terminology?  Can we get back to what Kimberlé Crenshaw theory addresses in context?  Please, and not the queer bastardization that supports your post modern neo-liberal hogwash?

“The term intersectionality theory was first coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.[3] In her work, Crenshaw discussed Black feminism, which argues that the experience of being a black woman cannot be understood in terms of being black and of being a woman considered independently, but must include the interactions, which frequently reinforce each other.[19] Crenshaw mentioned that the intersectionality experience within black women is more powerful than the sum of their race and sex, and that any observations that do not take intersectionality into consideration cannot accurately address the manner in which black women are subordinated.”


On to what Carly Thomsen says:

“I recently asked my students in an upper division Gender and Women’s Studies Feminist Engaged Research course—in which all students are Gender and Women’s Studies majors or minors—a question about that day’s reading we were discussing in class. A student responded with: “It’s all about intersectionality.” My initial question is not particularly relevant, as I have found that students will attempt to answer nearly any question by referencing (the need for and value of) “intersectionality.” I followed up to ask: “What is intersectionality?” My students looked at me blankly. All of my students had been exposed to what they would describe as “intersectionality.” Yet, not one had read the original theory of intersectionality. Not one could accurately describe the theory. Not one had a sense of the genealogy of the term. Not one could think of limits to intersectionality. Some thought that the term refers to moments in which activism and scholarship “intersect,” while others insisted that it refers to the moment when any two or more marginalized identities meet within one person’s life. Not one knew its roots in black feminist theory or critical race theory. I raise this point not because these moments gesture toward some type of feminist pedagogical failure—if only the students learned the material properly!—but because these moments point to the hegemony of discourses of “intersectionality” within Gender and Women’s Studies. In these moments, we can see that, as Ahmed (2012a) suggests, “intersectionality can be used as a method of deflection,” as a way of re-directing attention away from race and racism (195)—and, by extension, from whichever form of marginalization one is working to address—by bringing up other forms of social exclusion. The failure here lies with neither an individual instructor nor student but with a field that has produced so little critical reflection on the limits of “intersectionality” that it figures as that which is largely beyond contest.”

 “Becoming Radically Undone: Discourses of Identity and Diversity in the Introductory Gender and Women’s Studies Classroom” – -Carly Thomsen

The too tl;dr is this.  The primary axis on which females are oppressed is SEX.  Intersectionality describes the interlocking challenges facing women and particularly women of colour, but in no possible reality-based world does it append the category of sex.

Therefore, as feminists, we cannot speak to a universal experience of womanhood, and we will not exclude trans women by claiming that there is one.

That is problematic because sex based oppression – female human trafficking, female sex selected abortions, prositution, domestic violence, FGM, objectification, et cetera – all revolve around the sex based axis of female subjugation in the world. Plugging your ears and not seeing this fact especially in service male gender feels is particular abhorrent.

 

For those of us who aren’t trans women, we have work to do. Our responsibility as a feminist organization is to push back against transmisogyny in meeting rooms, and in the movement, and right now, we’re re-committing to doing just that.”

Your responsibility as an ostensibly feminist organization is to centre the needs of females in your organization.

Period.

Shame on you for throwing women (adult human females) under the bus in your nebulous quest for ‘inclusivity’.

“The days of complicity with transmisogyny and trans-exclusionary feminism need to come to an end, as more trans women are speaking up and more organizations are willing to listen.”

Transmisogyny doesn’t exist.  Queer theoretical terms often don’t apply in reality, go figure.  The actual problem, male violence and the misogyny that goes along with it needs to be addressed.  Try starting there.

“We need to be vocal and to encourage our friends, family, and colleagues to examine their transmisogyny. We need to stop excusing it under the guise of feminism.”

Falling over yourself to meet male needs is nothing new in society. It isn’t part of meaningful feminist action.  When you’ve worked through your reality problems, please come back and give effective feminism a go.

Right now, we need to push back against trans exclusionary rhetoric, stop calling it feminism, and remember what revolution we’re working towards.

Do you even realize the level of newspeak going on here?  You issued this response in terms of the only rape crisis centre in Vancouver that explicitly catered to females and a female only space – losing their funding – and the furor it justifiably caused.  From your high-horse of ‘inclusion’ you are speaking against the choice of women, who chose not to associate with men in a RAPE CRISIS CENTRE.

Read that again.

Take your proclamations drenched in bullcookery elsewhere.  There is feminist work to be done and until you can realign your priorities with material reality, please sod off at your earliest convenience.

 

Support women in Vancouver go and donate to the Vancouver Rape Relief and Woman’s Shelter here.

Canada’s regressive gender identification legislation adds legal weight to the noble argument for inclusivity.

Dr.Jane Clare Jones clearly describes the problem.  Here is the link to the twitter thread as the screen captures won’t have active links.   And also the quote of the day from Dr. Jane Clare Jones:

“That Morgane Oger, and the movement she represents[transactivism], gives not one flying fuck about the fact that the presence of male-bodied people can cause extreme trauma to already very vulnerable women, is completely evident. Let’s be clear, this is absolute contempt for female people.”

 

 

Send an email to the BC NDP and ask them why they are engaged in this brand virulent misogyny.

Donate, or at the very least share,  the webpage of the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter Page.  Show your solidarity and support of women.

 

 

Hey Folks.  First things first.  Please go here and donate to the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter, they are being defunded because of the actions of a male piece of shit transactivist that has decided that men really need to be allowed into a woman’s rape crisis centre.

Don’t care how much you give, just give.  Women need access to female only spaces for their protection.  Demonstrate to Morgane Oger and the BC NDP that the safety of females takes precedence over the feelings of men.  This is so important.

 

Did you want to see male entitlement in action?  Here we go in twitter….

Outrageous! Utter tripe.  This is where legislating the bullshitty-nebulous concept of ‘gender identity’ leads.  The defunding of services for women (Adult Human Females) in our society.  We’re taking away funding from rape shelter because they refuse to fall into lockstep with the male delusions that somehow have been put into law here in Canada.

Yep, because establishing your own spaces is hard.  Colonizing and excluding females from the spaces they build for themselves is much easier.

 

 

See how smug this asshole is?  This is your gender inclusive ‘feminism’ in action.  Centring around the needs of men and kicking women to the curb.  This denial of biological reality  and female safety is a disgrace and must be rectified.  Gender legislation based on male delusion needs to go far,far away and the sooner the better.

 

Funny how that works…

But then again, wanting the frocks and ignoring the systemic oppression is par for the course.

by Jonathon Kneeland

“Morgane Oger is the Vice President of the now ruling British Columbia New Democratic Party. The BC NDP is your typical left of centre political party. They have an ambitious social justice platform, spend most of their time letting us know how virtuous they are by claiming to speak for the voiceless, and have expressed a serious interest in increasing the number of taxpayer funded human rights organizations in the province. If you’re still stuck in your leftist bubble and haven’t experienced your awakening yet, this probably sounds like your party. If you’ve had your awakening, then you can likely see right through the whole mess and are painfully aware of the fact that like most political careerists that market to the social justice vote, they are quite willing to overlook some forms of violence and hatred in order to pander to the half-baked and trendy ideologies that have not yet discovered their proper boundaries.

The placement of boundaries really is the discussion to be had here. There is a growing movement that has not yet found its boundaries, and the patience and good nature of the citizenry appears to be approaching its limits. How much are we expected to put up with while maintaining the live and let live philosophy that most reasonable people espouse?

Live and let live is a reasonable and effective approach to a maintaining a harmonious society that’s made up of individuals with many different opinions, values, and beliefs. It works pretty well and is based on the idea that you are free to do as you please as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. This allows people the freedom to practice their religion or to practice no religion, choose who they sleep with, choose who their friends are, choose their line of work, indulge all of their own interests – as long as those interests are legal, or even to alter themselves so as to appear to be opposite their original sex . You’ll generally get no objection from reasonable people on these basic rights. So far so good.

I am of the live and let live type. I make no objections to other people’s sexual preferences, lifestyles, religious views, choice of occupation, or any of the common topics that frequently do bring objections from one’s parents or siblings. In return, I ask that others not impose their view of the world on me in a way that causes me to either have to engage in activities that I object to, or to refrain from acting to prevent an obviously immoral action. Increasingly, this bargain is being degraded by those who wish to force us to think what they tell us to think, to accept their opinions and desires as concrete and unalterable fact, and to refrain from asking questions. Here, we run into a real problem. I’m not willing to go along with being bullied into agreement. I like to ask questions and I like to understand something completely before I go along with it. I like to weigh all the evidence and then make the best decision I can, based on that evidence. Increasingly, my desire to draw my own conclusions is being challenged by a highly aggressive and occasionally violent movement.

The movement that I’m referring to is the transgender movement. I’m hesitant to even call it a movement, as it’s made up of a wide range of individuals. However, it seems to behave as a movement and many of its adherents seem to be studying the same material. The reason I suspect this is that when I get into a minor argument on Twitter with a member of this movement, I can usually accurately predict the content and the outcome of the conversation very shortly after it begins. Many of these conversations are boring and irritating, but they’re necessary to have if you want to understand someone else’s position.

What I have been able to understand, so far, is that a portion of the transgender movement holds the position that a man who transitions into a woman, simply dresses as a woman, or says he sometimes feels like a woman, is the same as a woman who was born female and is therefore entitled to enter any female space he likes. Again, we have a problem here. I am quite willing to agree that he has the right to live as if he is a woman and I would never object or say that his decision is in any way morally inferior to any other way of living. Like most reasonable people, I’m willing to go along right up until the point where the behaviour begins to infringe on the rights of others. We’ve very much reached that point, and our provincial government appears to be complicit in the current aggressive overstep of the transgender movement.

It’s important to logically lay out my position that the transgender movement is overstepping its proper boundaries. In order to do that, I have to tell you something of myself. I’m an atheist. I could never be religious. This is because I fall into the category of people described by Pascal as being so made that I cannot believe. I am made this way and it is because of the way my mind works that I’m an atheist. I have no choice in the matter. I interpret information literally and I am unable to force myself into believing things that are untrue or even appear to be unlikely, based on the available evidence. I also object to compulsory enthusiasm, as this requires a similar tricking of one’s own mind. My mind is very mechanical, and it’s no surprise to me that I ended up as a machinist and an industrial mechanic. I like to design, repair, build, improve, and troubleshoot machines and their components. This work is very much in line with my nature. I was a very small child when I began taking things apart and making other things out of the parts. Proper and accurate categorization is very important to me. This is who I am and I expect others to live and let live when it comes to me.

The transgender movement looks to me to be exactly like a religion and it comes along with similar demands: an unwavering belief in implausible theories, demands of compulsory enthusiasm, and the demand that citizens and authorities look the other way while immoral actions take place under the spell of its ideology. In fact, here are some of the things that you are required believe in order to escape the hyper focused aggression of the transgender movement: That men have periods and menstrual cramps, too; that men should be allowed to enter women’s sports events if they say they’re women; that men should be allowed to enter women’s shelters if they say they feel like a woman; that men should be allowed in women’s and girl’s changing areas; that there are many genders; that people who don’t wish to have sex with a transgendered person maintain their position out of hate; that children should be exposed to the ideology of the transgender movement at an early age; that male criminals who would prefer to be in a female prison need only identify as female to make this a reality; and many other things that are being rapidly added to a growing list of preposterous ideas.

I cannot make myself believe that someone born a man can become a woman. My understanding of biology and evolutionary psychology is such that I would have to lie to myself in order to hold such an opinion. In addition to the available scientific information, my opinions are also formed by the fifty years that I have spent being alive and interacting with and observing friends, coworkers, parents, siblings, and children. I’m free, and wish to remain that way. I want to use my own mind, think my own thoughts, and I want to be honest and pursue knowledge for its own sake.

The fact that I cannot make myself believe that a man can become a woman does not alter the fact that I accept their right to try. It also doesn’t alter the fact that if it makes them happy, I support their right to engage in the pursuit of it. I treat their religion – the idea that gender is fluid – the same way that I treat other religions. I don’t even go so far as to say that they’re wrong. I simply say that, based on the available evidence, I don’t believe it and I can’t make myself believe it. I say that they’re welcome to believe it and also to live their lives as though it were true. I don’t understand why this isn’t enough for the transgender movement. I’m holding up my part of the live and let live bargain. Why won’t they?

The overstepping of the transgender movement consists of activities that I find morally reprehensible. There are constant threats of violence along with actual violence directed at feminists and lesbians from men claiming to be women. We see constant threats of financially crippling human rights complaints against those who question scientifically incorrect transgender dogma. Men are entering women’s sporting events and taking medals from female competitors. Women have been assaulted by men dressed as women in women’s change rooms. Women’s shelters now have to waste their precious resources hiring lawyers and defending themselves in court from men who feel entitled to dress as women and enter shelters where traumatized women could once find a reprieve from male violence. Young children are being indoctrinated into the transgender movement before they are old enough to understand very much at all. Some of these children are being given puberty blocking hormones and undergoing surgeries”

   We need to insure that inclusivity does not become male dominance by any other name.  Jane Clare Jones delineates between helpful and harmful inclusion:

 

“I’ve been meaning to write, and will write soon, something on how the left’s current obsession with ‘inclusion’ and ‘openness’ and ‘smashing boundaries’ and ‘deterritorialization’ makes sense only as a critique of the psychic structure of dominance (like, go and tell it to Donald Trump and leave us the fuck alone). It is entirely, gratuitously, inappropriate, when turned against the boundaries of the violated, of those who are raised in a society which leads them to understand – when they are grabbed or catcalled or made to feel like meat – that that is where they are positioned. It is no wonder that a woman who cannot even bear to think about this fact, who prefers to deny the power that frames it, who prefers to think it could all be rewritten by playing games with superficial scripts, would, when addressing the mess that she has made, avert her eyes so resolutely from what this is actually about. Women’s psyches are far far more than ‘scenes of violation,’ but there can be no feminism which refuses its reality, which recoils from recognising that ‘smashing boundaries,’ when used against women as a class, is the absolute axiom of male power, and, at its core, everything happening here is as it ever was.”

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 409 other followers

Progressive Bloggers

Categories

March 2019
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

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

REAL for women

Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Mars Caulton

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

liberated558

Still she persisted

Old Wives' Tales

feminism, motherhood, writing

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Radfem Resources | Radical Feminist Literature

A virtual library for those interested in radical feminist literature and resources.

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 made a comeback.

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

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

Trans Animal Farm

The Trans Trend is Orwellian

Princess Henry of Wales

Priestess Belisama

miss guts.

just a girl on a journey

writing by renee

Trigger warning: feminism, women's rights

RANCOM!

Happily Retired

freer lives

A socialist critique of gender ideology

Centering Women

A radical feminist page made for women only

radicalkitten

radical Elemental feminism

yumicpcake

A fine WordPress.com site

%d bloggers like this: