You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender’ tag.
Pretty much all there is. It is the fight against male supremacy and patriarchy, as it has always been. This quote from Lang Cleg on Mumsnet:
It is quite satisfying to see the ideological expectations reversed and watching the resulting apoplexy as followers of the current woke transactivist ideology have to jump through their own imaginary hoops.
Identifying as genderfree looks something like this:
So, in identifying and fitting under the ‘trans-umbrella’ one can safely reject gender, respect biological reality and material fact. As shown here:
Correctly identifying gender as a toxic construct in our societies is but the first of many small steps toward gender abolition . The #genderfree tag has it’s place in rendering the silencing and scare tactics of transactivists effectively moot. Their skulduggery can be used against them and thus the necessary conversation about gender and gender self id can continue.
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.”
“Intersectionality shows us that everyone could do better; that every attempt at rolling back discrimination could work harder and be more inclusive. But it should also remind us that people themselves are more than a simple label: “white feminist”; “middle-class man”; “posh boy”; “Twitter bully”. Here are some of the things I know that the kind of feminists regularly decried for their privilege have had to deal with, in private: eating disorder relapses; rape; the stalking of their children; redundancy; clinical depression; the sectioning of a family member; an anxiety disorder that made every train ride and theatre trip an agony. (Yes, one of those descriptions is me.)
None of this is to say that feminism shouldn’t be open to criticism. When Caroline Crampton and I got together our bloggers last year for a New Statesman debate about feminism, the response was . . . well, there were two responses. There was criticism that was constructive: for example, the deviously persuasive Karen Ingala Smith managed to parlay her disappointment that we didn’t talk enough about rape into making me join the board of her VAWG charity. And there was criticism that was destructive, aimed at wounding us for not representing every possible permutation of womanhood. (I laughed when one particularly enthusiastic deconstructor, when asked: “Well, how can you possibly make a six-person panel totally representative of half of humanity?”, came back with, “Oh, that’s why I don’t believe in panel discussions.”)”
The Intransigent One
Mystro
Your opinions…