You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Feminism’ tag.
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.
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
Go to unherd for the full article. It is brilliant.
“This also might explain some of the utter gender gobbledegook we run about how HRT has taught someone to cry and all categories are porous. Whatever.
As a feminist, I have limited interest in all this, in the holes in which other people do or do not wish to put their bits. Sorry it’s rather dull. I am with Foucault in that I don’t believe sexuality is the essential soul or truth of an individual. My concern with this issue is only to do with the rights of women and the welfare of children.
So much of the discussion is about trans women, but the unhappiness of teenage girls must concern us. We have known since 2017 — earlier in fact — that there has been a huge uptick in female teenagers wanting to transition. Presenting to the Tavistock with self harm, eating disorders or suicidal ideation, these girls may end up on puberty-blocking hormones and then go on to have surgery. And for some of them that indeed may be the right thing to do. For others though, it clearly isn’t and to question that is not anything phobic, it is to care.
Why, as feminists, can we not talk about this epidemic of young women who cannot bear their bodies and the thought of what is happening to them: breasts, periods, unwanted sexual attention, the works? Why can you not be a young butch lesbian these days?
In an ideal world, feelings of masculinity or femininity could be achieved without surgery or hormones that may cause infertility. We are far from such a world and I respect the decisions of adults who go through this long, difficult process in often impossible circumstances. Brave, brave people.
My argument to my newspaper, though, has always been if we don’t have this discussion then the Right will, and indeed that has been the case. The Spectator and the Times have covered stories we haven’t, and I have had to write what I wanted to in the Telegraph. Investigative journalism means going into no-go areas. Why can’t we? The liberal Left looks not virtuous but naïve.
Less sexy subjects such as the appalling low rate for rape convictions, the Covid pandemic causing women to lose jobs and be forced back into the home, the complete lack of childcare… all of these things fall by the wayside when the main discussions of feminism appear to be by men telling us men can just say they’re women and if we say otherwise we deserve all the rape threats we get.
There is no actual interrogation of gender and I say this as someone who has written about and studied this subject for decades. There is a simply a belief system.”
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
Your opinions…