You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.
Watch how quickly it goes to into la-la land.
I. On Circularity and Bigotry
When we classify the human species, we do so along the lines of physical sex. Someone has a the big gametes and someone has the small gametes. This delineation exists independently of what any human thinks about it. It also happens to be one of the major axis of oppression in the world, because if you happen to be the XX, or the large gamete bearer, you are given the short end of the stick. This is because most societies in the human sphere are patriarchies and spend a good deal of social capital in controlling female bodies and female reproduction for the benefit of the male class. This social discrimination is based on your immutable physical sex. No amount of attempting to ‘identify” out of your sex class will work.
Let’s look at the first paragraph. A bad start already.
Man = Adult human male
Woman = Adult human female
These definitions are concise with no circularity at all. Circularity comes into play with transactivist definitions of the word ‘woman’, as their standard reply goes something like this:
A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. (But what is a woman? – note the circularity)
I’ll need to quote specifics here:
“When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.”
Really? Is it bigoted to call people with brown hair a member of the class of people who are brunettes? Is the term ‘blonde’ bigoted for describing people with lighter yellowish hair?
It would seem that Andreas is fucking allergic to material facts. Please also consider the notion that facts do not care about your feelings Andreas, especially ones that give rise to the fatuous reasoning on display here.
“Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman.”
Categories exist. Human sexual dimorphism exist. You can’t handwave this away because of your personal feelings on the subject, furthermore after you misidentify an actual definition of what a woman is, you make a shitty analogy and end with a circular argument. Jesus.
“You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”
Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”
Ahhh…yes, yes you can. Adult human female works great. Also, newsflash, categories are not fucking inclusive. Otherwise they would not be categories. Calling a box of apples and oranges -“apples”- is nonsensical. But here, here is the power we give to males and the male power of naming in society, because of male gender feels we are at the stage now where we have rules in place to call a box of oranges and apples ‘apples’ because the oranges *REEEEALY FEEL* like they are apples.
Delusional fucking insanity.
II. On Gender, Sex, and Material Facts.
“TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.” I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be. If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination. Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”
The amount of wrong packed into these paragraphs requires them to be picked apart and responded to piecemeal, but its good(?) to see the entire thought first.
“”TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.”
Radical feminists do oppose gender stereotypes, they are norms and expectations that are corrosive to the females and males that have to live with them in society. Furthermore, gender is a system that works to disadvantage females in the social sphere and lessen their contributions to society solely because they are female.
Oh another bullshit genderist term you are going to run into quite frequently is AFAB or AMAB which stand for “A Female Assigned At Birth” and “A Male Assigned At Birth”. This is linguistic fuckery because the sex of a newborn child is observed at birth, nothing more. Genderists/Transactivists like to play these word games in attempt to cast doubt on material reality and to bolster their unsupportable arguments.
The line that radical feminists draw is one based on biological material fact, you are born in the vast majority of cases either unambiguously male or female. Humans cannot change their sex, and this is the line -based on fact- that is drawn.
“I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be.”
But you are a woman. Your female sex was observed at birth. Renounce all you’d like, but that doesn’t change your sex. It can’t happen. This is the crux of the matter right here, Andreas prefers male pronouns, and considers themselves a guy. And you know what? That’s fine. However, expecting others to play along with your delusion is not fine, especially to the level of reordering the laws of society (as what has happened in Canada) around your personal subjective gender feelings. To this, you can fuck right off, deviating away from running society based on the world of fact and into personal gender subjectivity is not good for society as a whole.
So Holms is not insulting and abusing you, he is just not going to participate in the fantasy you have woven for yourself.
The last sentence is particularly telling as it is an admonishment to let people indulge in the toxic gender stereotypes to whatever degree they wish. You do you, be the best stereotypical male you can be. What you do not get to do is silence radical feminist critique of gender and the harmful patriarchally approved stereotypes it proscribes for men and women, especially the criticism that transgender ideology reinforces patriarchal stereotypes.
“If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination”
No. Most radical feminist would suggest that being gender non conforming would be the state of affairs that would be most preferable. Gender and its prescriptions are all bad, just being you is much better, regardless of your sex. This is another part of the tangled web of transideology, it so very individualistic, to such an extent that most of its adherents are blind to how group dynamics work in society and, more specifically the ineffectuality of individual solutions to fix societal problem. So yeah, radical feminists would categorize you as a female and therefore to be included in the feminist movement.
Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”
Feminists do oppose gender discrimination. How does playing along with your personal gender-feels = discrimination. The rest of the world is under no obligation to join you in your Topsy-turvey view of how gender works.
III. On Narcissism
Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.” Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. TERFs consider trans men to be women. They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.
“If you meet someone, a cursory glance is almost always accurate — a surmise on incomplete data is not a bad start. In those instances where the person says otherwise, I’m not particularly wedded to the idea of calling someone what I believe them to be over their protest, even if I privately think of them as man/woman.”
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way. Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity. Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”
“Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.”
Facts still don’t care about your feelings.
“Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. “
So, naming biological reality is ‘abuse and discrimination’. Also, ironic as in the very next sentence a prescriptive sentiment on how one is supposed to be a feminist. This is self serving narcissism at its very core. My identity and beliefs are sacrosanct and you all out there had better comply.
Fuck. That. Noise.
“They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.”
1. We will continue to call ‘trans-men’ women, because it is reality.
2. We shall continue to fight for female liberation from the patriarchal strictures of society, so sorry you’ve gone full handmaiden for the gender-gods, but so be it.
3. Which rights specifically are you talking about? The ‘right’ to control how others perceive you? The ‘right’ to demand others fall in line with your subjective gender-identity? No, thank you, not today my gender totalitarian friend, women shall not take the knee to gender-feels, not today.
“Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way.”
Totalitarian thought control is never a good look.
“Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity.”
We’d have to take a look at the qualities that make up an asshole and see if Holms fit in. You know, checking out the facts and evidence to draw a conclusion… kinda like biological sex informs the role we are forced into in society. How Holms identifies is irrelevant to what Holms actually is, because Holms’s subjective feelings on the matter may be unreliable.
To summarize, in gender-feelz land if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then obviously its a (identifies as an) ostrich.
…
“Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”
Yep. Pretty much. Because society is about interactions between people and outside of repressive forces, these interactions are a two way affair. Get used to it.
Lol.
I have watched men who gender as women repeatedly gain political power and establish themselves as a Patriarchy, which should be called a Transarchy. Transgender activism is really lead by men who gender as women. The other Transgender activists who are non-binary or who are women that gender as men are minor political players. Women’s […]
via Transgender Politics and its dismissive racism to Female Genital Mutilation —
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.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 