You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Radical Feminism’ category.
A Countess staff volunteer attended the meeting and peacefully held up a sign with the message “Woman= Adult Human Female” on one side, and “Biology is not Bigotry” on the reverse.
This lone woman was then surrounded by males chanting, “transwomen are women”. Some demanded she take down her “transphobic” sign.
One of the stewards then approached her, not to come to her assistance as might be expected, but to accuse her of “causing a disturbance”. She was then asked to leave by the steward, but refused and stood her ground.
Members of the NWCI stood idly by as this woman was “left behind” and was eventually forced, through intimidation, to leave the rally.
Official feminist organisations in receipt of state funding, have failed in their duty to protect women’s rights and to inform women of the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act, which was enacted through stealth in 2015.
The NWCI has welcomed a trans identified male onto its board, replacing a woman, and did nothing when the HSE removed the word woman from cervical screening information and replaced it with “people with a cervix”, or when trans identified males were placed in Limerick women’s prison.
Two months after our launch, in November 2020 the NWCI signed a letter from the Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI), calling for “the removal of legitimate political representation” from Irish gender critical groups, whom the letter branded as “right wing hate groups”. We responded with an online campaign called #WeWillBeHeard which went viral on social media and trended globally. Undeterred, we have continued to advocate for women and girls.
On a day when the NWCI were celebrating “no woman left behind,” a woman attempting to have her voice heard, was silenced and ostracised.
Here is her tense and beautifully written account of events at the rally as they unfolded on that day.
Saturday. I had my sign ready in an IKEA bag. It was sitting by the front door since the night before. I tripped over it and thought ‘that’s a sign’ no pun intended. I had it printed the day before. I told the printer if he felt uncomfortable printing it, I wouldn’t hold it against him for refusing the job. He said he’d do it for €50 cash. The sign was a black and white, double sided, A2 corriboard poster that read Woman = Adult Human Female on one side and Biology is Not Bigotry on the other. Today I was going to town to attend the NWCI rally to Leave No Woman Behind.
I travelled to town on the train alone. I walked towards the march assembly point and put on my face mask, sunglasses and pulled down my peaked cap. This is what women who state that sex is real do now. They disguise themselves so they can’t be identified, not because we are acting in bad faith but because we don’t want to lose our jobs.
I got to the march. There weren’t as many people there as I expected, and I thought I had gotten the time wrong and maybe it was due to start later. I walked through the crowd and looked at the signs people had. I was looking for a safe place to stand. I walked to Dawson Street and turned around. I was going to go home. I couldn’t do this on my own. I walked into a café to get a coffee and then heard the first speaker. I wasn’t early. It was starting. I left the café and walked back towards the rally. I saw a journalist I recognised standing on the steps of a building near the stage. I decided that if I stood near her, I would be safe. I still believe in the power of the press to protect freedom of expression.
I looked into my bag. I felt like I did once before I jumped off a jetty into the Irish sea on Christmas Day, terrified but determined. I took the sign out and held it above my head. Then nothing happened. I just stood. One minute, two minutes, nothing. I thought ‘I’m going to be ok’. I don’t know if this is imagined or real, but I thought I saw Orla O’Connor and Mary Lou McDonald do a double take when they saw the sign. I had turned the Woman = Adult Human Female side of it towards the stage.
I noticed a woman walking towards me. She glanced up at the poster and I saw some expression cross her face. I couldn’t read it. As she passed, she said ‘nice sign’ or something to that effect. Her friend who was close behind her passed me a flyer. I glanced at it quickly and saw the hashtag #AllWomenLeftBehind. I shoved it into my pocket.
Within a few minutes these women were back. We talked very briefly. They said they wanted to stand with me and did I need them to do anything. I said I needed to get into the middle of the crowd so as many people could see the sign as possible. If they stood with me, I would go. I put the sign back in my bag and walked along the footpath looking for a place to stand and then I saw it, a hand painted portrait of Countess Markievicz. I am not religious. I don’t read horoscopes or believe in angels. But I do believe in bravery. I would stand next to the Countess. I turned to the stage and took out the sign. I planted my feet and raised it over my head. Woman = Adult Human Female/Biology is Not Bigotry. The women, my new companions, true their word, quite literally, had my back. We waited one minute, two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, then it happened. The violent hiss in my ear.
‘You should be ashamed of yourself, that sign has no place here. Take it down’. The person saying these words was a beautiful, young girl. Probably 20 years old. I felt very sad in that moment. One of my bodyguards said ‘What’s wrong with the sign? It’s the dictionary definition of the word woman’. What followed probably lasted no more than five minutes. It felt like a long time and no time at all. We were berated, shouted at, called terfs, transphobes, bigots. The usual litany of insults that has taken the place of reasoned debate. I was surrounded by mostly young men who stood in front of and behind me blocking my sign with their own. When I moved left or right, they moved too. It was a grotesque waltz. Then something remarkable happened. The NWCI chief steward arrived and said I was causing a disturbance. She wanted to talk to me at the edge of the crowd. I politely told her no. I was going nowhere. I was not the cause of the disturbance I was just holding a sign above my head that declared the dictionary definition of a woman. I felt a little sorry for her. She seemed genuinely unsure what to do with a woman who said no. She left and a Traveller woman standing next to me asked me why I had to take down my sign. I told her they objected to the message. She looked it and said, ‘but that’s right’. We didn’t last much longer. The group around us started to chant ‘Transwomen are Women’, ‘Trans Rights Are Human Rights’. They drowned out the sound of the woman who was speaking on stage.
I didn’t want to go. I felt an infinitesimal prick of humiliation. They were running me off, a woman, at a women’s rally, holding up a sign bearing the dictionary definition of the word woman. But I had done what I came to do.
The women who protected me said they would wait for me around the corner on Kildare Street. As I walked out of the crowd a young man stuck his long lens camera in my face and took many photos. I gave him a starlet wiggle of my fingers and kept walking. I was followed to the exit by a different NWCI steward. I turned to her and waved. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was smiling under the mask.
I turned the corner and saw my brave accomplices. They had multiplied to four. We were there independently. We had never met prior to that day. They were very concerned for my welfare. But I was fine. Strangely calm. We talked briefly and I was anxious to leave to get home. I will be forever grateful to those four women. You know who you are. Thank you.
The face of the beautiful young woman who started the abuse keeps coming back to me. Her image is contorted with a near religious zeal. I wonder if she understands that Irish women were told for decades that they had to be ashamed. Ashamed of having babies that were the product of sexual desire or the product of rape. Ashamed of their bodies and any inclination to put themselves and their needs before the needs of others. Shame. Shame. What is shameful is that Irish women were never consulted when the legal definition of woman was expanded to allow men to declare themselves to be women. Irish women should not be ashamed or afraid to say what we are – Adult Human Females.
For the sake of reference.
Thank you justdad7 for writing such urgently necessary thoughts.
This is the context we need to make any progress with the gender religious, as most seem to be under the notion that the rights they claim happen to be ‘apex rights’ – in other words gender identity should be given first priority when judging a situation.
They, in fact, are not. And we need to start framing issues of gender identity in the proper context of all the human rights we have in Canada and acknowledge that friction and conflicts do exist and must be discussed.
Sex an Sexual orientation are no less important in society, but the current blitz by the gender religious would have us overlook this key contextual aspect of the debate.
No longer. Like the rest of the adults in society Gender Identity proponents are going to have to learn to compromise and accept that not all their assertions are holy writ and must be accepted in their base form.
No topic in a liberal democratic society should be off the table for reasonable debate. Yet here we are in 2022 with a seasoned educator being silenced and suspended for raising safeguarding concerns over ideological transgender literature being made available to children. Don’t take my word for it. See for yourself.
The studies regarding medical transition are not conclusive, yet here in select transgender children’s literature everything is a-fucking-okay. This is an issue worth discussing in public and in great detail at the *very* least.
Canada’s National Post has run a story called No Dissent is Allowed:
“An Ontario school board is facing charges of censorship this week after shutting down a teacher’s presentation to the group, saying her comments about books on transgender issues violated the province’s human rights code
Carolyn Burjoski was discussing publications she said are available in the libraries of Kindergarten to grade six schools. She had begun to argue the books made it seem too simple and “cool” to medically transition to another gender when her presentation was cut short by the Waterloo Region District School Board’s chair.”
Ms. Burjoski’s presentation was about safeguarding children from potentially dangerous medical treatments. Seems reasonable right? (Wrong)
“Scott Piatkowski ruled she could not continue and the board eventually voted 5-4 to back up his decision. The fallout has continued since.
Though controversial and opposed by most transgender advocates, concerns have been voiced before — including by leading figures in the movement itself — that gender-dysphoric young people are sometimes pushed too aggressively into medical transition.
Piatkowski latertold a local CTV station , however, that Burjoski’s comments were actually transphobic and “questioned the right to exist” of trans people. Meanwhile, the organization took down its recording of the meeting — a regular, public session of elected officials — and had YouTube remove another copy of the video for alleged copyright infringement.”
Piatkowski and the Board have taken down the meeting off of youtube, fortunately the meeting recording has appeared elsewhere.
Go here and judge for yourself if *ANYTHING* Ms. Burjoksi says or presents is in the least bit ‘transphobic’ or in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Code (nothing is).
Time Stamp Highlghts:
2:01 – Book called ‘Rick’ – That is about why Rick doesn’t think about naked girls. He goes to a ‘rainbow club’ and identifies as ‘asexual’. Counterpoint – Maybe Rick doesn’t have sexual feelings yet because Rick is a child. Also a book that sexualizes and objectifies girls might not be appropriate reading for young girls (ed. or really *any* educational setting)
2:59 – The first warning from Piatkowski directed at Ms. Burjoski on the unfounded basis of her presentation somehow being against the Ontario Human Rights Code.
3:55 – Book called ‘Shane’ – The main character dismisses the very real consequences of being sterilized. The book also makes medical transition seem like an easy cure to emotional and social distress. (ed. it most certainly is not).
4:16 – Ms. Burjoski shut down by Chair Piatkowski for alleged breach of Ontario Human Rights Code.
Watch the whole thing, but like any zoom meeting its disjointed and frustrating to watch especially when those who value critical analysis and freedom of speech are shut down.
A bit of a side bar for you, gentle reader to make the judgement for yourself of what the Ontario Human Right Code actually says and how it happens to be interpreted by Chair Piatkowski. Here is a portion of the informal legal analysis by a Canadian lawyer justdad7 :
“The Board refers to the Ontario Human Rights Code its own policies on human rights and equity and inclusion. There is also a policy on harassment.
There is nothing wrong with the board’s policies. They accurately reflect the requirements of the Human Rights Code and the case law interpreting it. The problem is the Board’s interpretation.
The Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in the employment, housing and the provision of services on prohibited grounds of discrimination which include “race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.”
It also prohibits harassment in employment or housing. Harassment “means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” The board’s human rights policy elaborates on this definition and explains that harassment consists of conduct directed at an individual such as insults, epithets, persistent teasing and offensive jokes based on a protected characteristic. Nothing in Ms. Burjoski’s presentation could possibly fit this definition.
The Ontario Code does not attempt to regulate speech in general. Section 13 prohibits publication of a “notice, sign, symbol or emblem” that indicates an expression to discriminate but it is subject to a proviso that it shall not interfere with freedom of expression.”
Yeah… So it would seem that these ‘human rights violations’ are really just important and valid concerns with gender ideology that desperately need to be discussed in context of their application in Public Schools.
Also Ms. Burjoski was then summarily excommunicated from her staff and students for her heretical statements.
“And then the teacher was given what she calls a “stay-at-home order” and told not to communicate with colleagues or students, though she’s still being paid and is slated to retire soon. On Thursday, she says her union rep informed her the board had appointed an outside investigator to examine her actions.”
Yep. Did you think that freedom of speech is a valued tenet of our society? Try speaking out against the gender-religion and see how far you get. Suspended in Burjoski’s case for wanting to discuss the appropriateness of sexualizing children and child safeguarding against still largely experimental medical gender therapies.
“In her first interview on the affair, Burjoski said she was “flabbergasted” by what happened at the meeting and Piatkowski’s remarks afterward
“I am not a transphobic person. It’s crazy that just because you ask a question, the first thing people do is call you that,” she said. “We do need to have a conversation about the intersection of biology and gender. We’re not having those conversations in our culture because, look what happened to me.”
She said the order to stay away from school was likely meant to make an example of her: “The message is clear: no dissent is allowed.”
No ideology is above reproach and measured critique by members of a free and open society, yet here we are watching a teacher be excommunicated for questioning the transgender doctrine in the context of prioritizing the safety of children.
If you are not asking questions about what transgender ideology is and how it affects children (and society) it is time to start. How many more people are we going to let be silenced in the name of transgender orthodoxy? Thankfully Ms. Burjoski is not going quietly. Support her legal fund as she fights not to be silenced for making valid criticisms of a potentially pernicious ideology.
The struggle against the misogyny that is transgender ideology can be all consuming. Sometimes it is asked, “We know what you’re fighting against, but what are you for?”. This is what we are fighting for. Thank you WDI Scotland for the clear enunciation of the goals and values being fought for.
The demands of people for you as a third party to partake in their gender-fantasy is not a reasonable one.
What other adults think and believe in society is not my responsibility. I believe that society should be based on verifiable facts, evinced arguments, and the willingness to be compromise on contentious issues. We’re all not going to get exactly what we want from society, but through negotiation and Reason, a middling solution must be found. The best way to interrogate the issues that we all face in the broader societal context is to have the ability to discuss social issues without fear in a nuanced and usually complex way. No topic should be off limits in a reasonable discussion – yet an entire class of unreasonable arguments seems to be off that table. Those arguments deal with the ideas of personal identity and how the individual and society is supposed to interact.
The problematic identities that are causing friction in society usually involve the nebulous concept of ‘gender’. Gender is the set of socially constructed beliefs and values that are associated with the two sexes of human beings in society. For instance, males are aggressive and good leaders, while females are compassionate and good care-givers are both examples of sex stereotypes (aka gender) that individuals in each sex class are saddled with. Society is constructed around the preservation of these stereotypes and in breaking them there is usually a negative social cost involved.
Feminists, during the second wave, sought to break down these gender stereotypes and move toward an understanding of gender as an often toxic construction of norms and ideas that shouldn’t necessarily be followed. Gender non-conforming behaviour was lauded as the way forward as individuals of both sexes should be able to access and embody the traits and values that were traditionally ‘not allowed’ for them. Women could be aggressive, powerful leaders while men could be caring nurturing and family orientated – and neither would face social censure for acting outside what was considered “normal” for their sex classes.
I consider the refutation of gender norms and gender non-conforming behaviour to be the way forward in society as individuals should be able to embody whatever sex stereotypical sets of behaviours that seem right for them.
All of this is based on the notion that gender is a set of sex stereotypical behaviours that have been arbitrarily (and some times coercively) assigned to the two human sexes.
The Transgender Identity movement we know today takes precisely the opposite view of sex stereotypes and how they should play out in society. Transgender ideology states that the act of performing and identifying with one set of sex stereotypes *makes* you that stereotype AND the physical sex associated with it. So for instance, a man who likes wearing high heels and dresses (both sex stereotypical clothing types) should be regarded as a ‘woman’ (adult human female). Because, in transgender ideology, adopting femininity and feminine affect is what makes women ‘women’.
To reality based feminists and most of the general population this is a preposterous notion. Human beings inhabit a sexual binary. We are either male or female for the most part. What makes a woman or a man is simply being male or female with all the associated physical characteristics. We are defined by the sex class we are born into – the set of stereotypes prescribed for us is based on natal sex. Second Wave feminism correctly identified gender as (usually harmful) sex-stereotypes and specifically rallied against the notion that to be a proper man or a woman one must follow the normative prescriptions of gender identity.
Transgender ideology flips this around and says that people who don’t associate with set of sex stereotypes that are assigned to them must then adopt the stereotypes of the opposite sex and through gender magic the individual ‘transitions’ to actually being the opposite sex. Thus, acting a male acting in a stereotypical female fashion ACTUALLY becomes female.
This is Grade A bonafide horseshit, but it is the tenet that lies at the very heart of transgenderism – by adopting they stereotypes of the opposite sex, you become that sex… Fundamentally, the notion is nonsensical and at odds with the physical reality we all share. But it is also here where the compelled speech becomes and issue for me and the rest of society. You see, correctly observing reality is looked at as harmful and abusive because it does not align with the transgender individuals internalized notion of gender and of which sex they are. The transgender movement argues that subjective feelings of individuals should override the rights of others in correctly identifying the physical reality that is before their very eyes. A male is woman because he has feminine feelings and because he says so, and to contradict his gender delusion is to be bigoted and transphobic.
In polite society, being a bigot or phobic carries serious social consequences which is precisely why the transgender movement subverted these social norms to comport with their inner feelings of gender and the protection thereof. Individuals in society must then carefully consider the social costs to disagreeing with transgender ideology which makes it harder to discuss and grapple with. Sometimes it’s just easier and safer to go along with the gender deluded individual despite the damage being done to free speech and allegiance to material reality in society. It is this chilling paradigm that I rally against.
If we value the liberal foundation that we have based our society on, transgender ideology and those who espouse it should not get a free pass. Transgender ideology must be debated, argued, and its merits and faults examined closely in society. Compelled speech to preserve gender-feelings that do not comport with reality is an unacceptable state of affairs. The current imposition of transgender ideology is a clear and present safeguarding issue to women and children in our society because men who identify as women are gaining access to single sex spaces based on their say-so and that, if we value the safety of children and women, is a problem.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…