You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Radical Feminism’ category.
Only men would have this much success pushing an ideology that is corrosive toward woman’s rights, boundaries, and safety all the while under the guise of being inclusive and progressive. Patriarchy 2.0 sucks.
Give us a break indeed. :/
This ruling changes the environment. This UK ruling states that gender critical beliefs are also protected beliefs under law in the the UK. In other words, you can’t be fired from your job for stating the blindly obvious *FACT* that human beings cannot change their sex. This is a huge victory for women, free speech, and of course Ms. Forstater.
Thank you Ms. Forstater for having enough resilience and courage to stand up for women and their rights.
“Ms Forstater, from St Albans in Hertfordshire, did not have her contract renewed at the think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) in March 2019, after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans – which were later scrapped – to let people declare their own gender.
She claimed she was discriminated against because of her beliefs, which include “that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity”.
In the initial tribunal employment judge James Tayler said that her approach was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
He concluded that Ms Forstater was “absolutist” in her view and said she was not entitled to ignore the rights of a transgender person and the “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering”.
But the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury said her “gender-critical beliefs” did fall under the Equalities Act as they “did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons”.
Ms Forstater said she was “delighted to have been vindicated” but CGD said the decision was a “step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all”.
In a video statement, Ms Forstater said: “I’m proud of the role I’ve played in clarifying the law and encouraging more people to speak up”.
Visit and support women’s rights at sex-matters.org
The rights of females are being trampled in California as women’s boundaries and safety are being ignored in favour of male gender fantasy.
“Crazy California laws occasionally go national. Take SB 132, which took effect in January. It allows transgender-identified male state prison inmates to transfer into women’s prisons based on “individual preference”—no hormones, surgery or time spent living as the opposite sex required. Spokeswoman Terry Thornton of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says 264 male prisoners have declared a nonmale identity and formally requested transfer to women’s facilities.
If Congress passes the Equality Act—the House already has—incarcerated biological men who identify as female would be entitled to transfer into women’s federal prisons and possibly also state prisons nationwide. How’s that working in California?”
This has never been about trans gender rights. This is about endangering and erasing females as a class in our society. It is bullshit and it needs to stop.
“But according to Tyrina Griffin —who served 20 years at Chowchilla for second-degree murder and whose wife, Rachelle Johnson, is currently serving a life sentence there—many of the men who are transferring there aren’t even on hormonal medication. “They’re getting a full erection,” she said. “So you’re locked in this room, 24/7, with a man and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you tell the police you don’t want to live with a man, or you’re afraid or whatever, you’ll get a disciplinary infraction. So you’re basically punished for being scared.”
Because female inmates are typically far less violent than male ones, women’s prisons like Chowchilla don’t separate inmates based on the severity of their crimes. “We’re all mixed together,” Ms. Ichikawa said. “The people who’ve murdered their children are in the same room as the people who’ve stolen boxers from Walmart. ”
Also unlike men’s prison, inmates at Chowchilla are housed eight to a room, with a sink and toilet inside the cell and only a cowboy door for modesty. The California law specifically states that no inmate may be denied a housing request for “any discriminatory reason,” including “genitalia” or “sexual orientation.” According to some surveys, a majority of biological men who identify as trans women are sexually attracted to women. “How are you going to prevent these people from having sex?” Ms. Ichikawa said. “And how do you then decipher what’s sex and what’s rape?” The women told me—and studies confirm—that the vast majority of incarcerated women are sexual-assault survivors.”
If your ‘feminism’ or supports this active harm being inflicted on women, let me assure you it isn’t feminism.
“The California law also directs cavity searches to be conducted “based on the individual’s search preference”—meaning if a biological male who identifies as transgender would prefer to be cavity-searched by a female officer, he is entitled to it. It’s just “another opportunity to violate women, every woman in the facility,” Ms. Ichikawa said. “I don’t know why it was written so callously. I feel like there’s so much hate for women,” she said.
Ms. Thornton, the Corrections Department spokeswoman, stressed that the department evaluates transfer applications on a case-by-case basis. It has approved 26 of them. “We haven’t denied any requests so far,” she said.
She also confirmed that although there are many female prisoners in California’s women’s prisons who identify as men, only seven have requested transfer to the men’s prison. Why so few? I asked Ms. Ichikawa, who answered: “They would get killed.”
Funny how that works. The reality of sex remains despite all the gender obfuscation from the gender religious.
What isn’t funny is that females are being put at risk and harmed because somehow it is easier to believe in male gender feels that it is to believe in female safety in society.
This dangerous policy of placing males with females in prison also exists in Canada.
*edit* – Did you want to fight back and stand up for female rights and safety here in Canada – Heather Mason has a campaign and a fundraiser to promote female safety in Canadian Prisons.
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 GRA of 2004 gave trans people the ability to change legal sex via a GRC, but only if they had a psychiatric diagnosis of dysphoria and only after having lived in role for 2 years. The spousal veto gave spouses a chance to annul or obtain a favourable divorce.
While this ultimately created the loophole in women’s rights that we’ve been fighting against in the last few years, it catered for a tiny number of dysphoric transsexuals and so did not have an enormous impact.
Discussions with trans friends and allies make it clear that, although surgery wasn’t a requirement for a GRC, the diagnostic procedures were expected to trap and exclude males who did not want surgery, thereby preventing fetishists and opportunists from exploiting a GRC.
The Equality Act of 2010 defined the various protected characteristics, including both sex and ‘gender reassignment’, and provided for sex-based exemptions, under the auspices of which it is legal to exclude trans people from some single-sex spaces and services.
The campaign to reform the GRA to remove medical gatekeeping and make changing gender a matter of self-id was where women put our foot down. The GRA gave a very limited group of MtF transsexuals access to our spaces. Self-id would have made this any man who said he was a woman.
In addition, transactivists were demanding the removal of sex-based exemptions from the Equality Act. This would have left women with no ability to exclude males from any space on any basis, thereby removing every protection gained in the last century of feminism.
This is the effect of self-identified ‘gender identity’ (the ideological concept on which this rides) combined with the deliberate conflation of gender identity with sex. There is no possible point at which women can draw a line.
Our resistance to this campaign was successful; I think most people recognise that it isn’t reasonable to allow any male to identify into women’s spaces on his say-so. It was, however, self-id which was rejected, leaving women’s rights open to further attacks.
Transactivists claim that the current process for obtaining a GRC is invasive and onerous, and continue to push for a reform they claim is ‘merely administrative’ (this doesn’t gel with the attacks on the Eq2010 sex-based exemptions, though: https://t.co/MpxjXv5IoL)
They use the struggles of dysphoric people as a weapon, and by pushing back against self-id we replicate this. Personally I think the best place to attack the ideology is on the conflation of gender identity with sex: https://t.co/zN0ziAZzyM.
If we want fair play for both women and trans women, then it is time to confront the “trans women are women” mantra head-on, highlight why it is misogynistic and deeply harmful to women, and refuse to tolerate its use.
— Caroline – Real Feminists XX \U0001f1ff\U0001f1e6 (@radicalhag) January 16, 2018
This means that we say yes to all the demands of transactivists *except* the one which conflates TW with W, which effectively forces the declaration of a third (and possibly fourth) gender and the provision of facilities for them.
It means we’re onboard with self-id, access to medical care, non-discrimination, ability to serve in the military etc, which of course we should be in any case. We do NOT want to get gaslit into a kneejerk rejection of anything trans, which makes us sound like rightwingers.
BUT it also means we insist on a positive, sex-based definition of woman, and force TRAs to show their hand. We know perfectly well what we’re dealing with here; we want to force them to demonstrate to the public that their agenda is access to women’s spaces, not trans rights.
This worked like a bomb when the UK govt provided a trans prison wing so they could remove MtFs from the female estate. The squawking and wailing about being ‘othered’ and ‘caged’ was epic, and Joe Public went “Yeah, right.”
Basically it’s a position which says: you’re free to have a gender identity. You’re not free to tell me *I* have a gender identity. And you are definitely not free to tell me that your gender identity is in any way comparable to my sex.
The table of contents and a link to the full .pdf download. :)
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…