You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘RPOJ’ tag.

Well here we be in 2022 and for some reason the news media seems to have forgotten some very basic facts about the human species.  Humans are exclusively a sexually dimorphic species – that is males produce small motile gametes and have their physiology arranged around that aspect of reproduction while females produce large immobile games and also have their physiology arranged around that same biological aspect.

Jessica Robb, the author of this propaganda piece on the CTV website either does not know the differences between the sexes or is unwilling to state them.  We certainly cannot have factual information intruding on a news article – heavens, that might just incur critical thought, and we all know that’s not encouraged these days.

So instead of presenting the situation with arguments from both sides of the issue we have to suffer through a woe soaked piece that entails how hard it is coerce the rest of society conform to the dictates of mental illness and what hardship this ‘struggle’ happens to be.  The amount of bullshit per square centimeter in this article has sent the Red Pen of Justice a-quivering in anticipation of a thorough Fisking of gender identity and the vortex of bullshite that surrounds it.

And here… we… go.

“Advocates are calling an email sent by United Conservative Party leadership candidate Brian Jean as transphobic and dangerous for members of the LGBTQ2S+ community.”

  Ah, jebus lord on a cracker! Bringing out the big bullshite right out of the gate.  Apparently sending an email containing truthful statements about the reality we all share is both “transphobic” and “dangerous“.  One of the fun games to play when you see the word “transphobic” being sprinkled into a conversation is to get the individual to define exactly what transphobia is and how it applies in the context of the situation.  Because more often than not something being “transphobic” simply means that argument /situation/context “X” is something the person in question doesn’t agree with, but has no cogent argument to tell you persuasively why statement “X” is wrong.

“Jean’s campaign sent an email Friday morning to supporters that challenged letting transgender and non-binary athletes compete in sports using their preferred identity.

“There should be two categories in sport,” the email read. “One for biological men, and one for biological women. Going through puberty as a male makes changes to your body that are permanent and cannot be denied.

“This should not be a controversial thing for a common sense person to say,” it added.”

Men should compete with men and women should compete with women.  This is the commonest of senses dictated by the reality we all share.  Nothing controversial to see here unless you under the auspices that human beings can somehow change their sex category because they “feel” like it.

  […]

  “Anna Murphy, a community advocate for 2SLGBTQ+ and women’s issues, said his transphobic comments were not only “unacceptable” themselves, but disappointing to be used as a way to fundraise.”

Parse this sentence.  The statement that men should compete against men and women versus women has been deemed “transphobic”.  Here we see how the gender-religious work their word games – denouncing anything their religion doesn’t like automatically is transphobic.

“We are not just going to talk about it, but we are going to fundraise off of rolling back your protection,” Murphy said. “What Mr. Jean is doing is dehumanizing and completely coming at this from the base of complete intolerance and ignorance. It is hurtful.”

Rolling back protections?  What?  How can stating basic biological facts be ‘rolling back’ protections?  Furthermore correctly stating that categorization in sports is necessary in the interests of fairness and safety for its participants is neither dehumanizing nor intolerant – rather it is an *entirely sensical and ethical* notion.

And of course it is ‘hurtful’.  Because when you behave like a vulnerable narcissist everything is an attack.  It also a ploy to play on your empathy which allows them to maintain their bullshit point of view while you have to change yours in a attempt to ‘be kind’ and ‘show compassion’.  It just one ploy among many deployed by the gender religious to avoid critique and discussion.

  “You have to imagine that you are getting an email that your identity, that your existence is invalid,” Murphy added.

Welcome to the next ploy.  Validation and Existence.  This ploy is on page one of the gender religious handbook.  It is (yet) another rhetorical subterfuge to avoid honest discussion and debate. 

  Here is how to avoid being invalidated by a nasty fact based email from Brian Jean.

   1.  Scroll down to email in your email client.

   2.  Use your mouse to find the trashcan icon.

   3.  Press the trashcan icon.

   4.  Celebrate the fact you’ve dealt with a statement you disagree with like a normal well adjusted adult. 

These people… 

   No one is obligated to validate you or any of your bullshit queer identities.  Making others responsible for your feelings is recipe for a mental health disaster.  The rest of society seems mostly quite able to handle life without being held by the hand and given validation cookies whenever they have a sad.  If you are this mentally broke – seek qualified professional help – because the problem is most likely *you* and not the people around you (see vulnerable narcissism).

“April Friesen, Trans Equality Society of Alberta president, told CTV News Edmonton that the email showed he doesn’t care about vulnerable trans youth and adults who already face barriers to acceptance.”

Imagine actually believing that human beings can change their sex.  It is up there with the Flat-Earthers.  The belief in gender-magic SHOULD be a barrier to acceptance in greater society.  We need public policy grounded in factual, objective reality, not the subjective gender-whims of small minority whose voice is currently being unreasonably amplified in society.  Please, in your private life, do what you will, identify how you would like.  No one cares.  The expectations of others to take on the tenets of your gender religion are unrealistic and unacceptable.  So no, Mr.Man your gender feelings do not make you female, not ever.  Stating that opinion is neither hateful nor is it bigoted – it comports with the material reality we all share. 

“He’s not having real empathy here for the people who are affected by it, and he’s showing that he doesn’t understand the science because the science is not with him on what he is saying,” Friesen said.”

Disagreement (or stating facts for that matter) does not preclude empathy.  See what is going on here – ‘If you disagree with my feelings on this matter the problem is *you* and you being *mean*; regardless of the objective truth status of the claim being made.  Facts really do not matter to the gender-religious, especially ones that contradict their gender edicts.

This emotional ploy is followed up with a straight lie.  The science is indeed in and it demonstrates the need for distinct categories in sports to keep it fair and safe for all participants. So, we know objectively, that April Friesen is lying or horribly misinformed.

“He’s engaged in all this disinformation and arming all these people with all this stuff that isn’t true, and they’re now going out into the world and acting on it.”

  James Lindsey created a Law for this –  The Iron Law of Woke Projection.  And indeed, it never misses.  Gender acolytes are notorious for their poor grasp of what the actual science is on relevant matters and for muddling the waters in the name of their ideology.  There is no reputable scientific paper stating that humans can change sex – yet the transactivists (aka the gender religious) just keep doing what they do (confabulating on a grand-scale and cry-bullying their way into positions of institutional power).

Kristopher Wells, Canada Research Chair for the public understanding of sexual and gender minority youth, said that Jean of all people should know that gender identity and expression have been protected by the province’s human rights legislation for nearly a decade.

  Kristopher Wells should know that gender identity runs headlong into problems when faced with the realities of the biological implications of sex.  Gender is mostly a social construct and its dictates change with the context and society it happens to exist in.  Sex is firmly rooted in objective reality and *must* be deferred to when making important decisions in society.

“(He is) making an issue where there is no issue,” Wells added. “Trans young people have been able to participate in sports in this province and in this country for many years without the kinds of incidents or hysteria that Brian Jean’s email claims will happen.”

“Brain Jean is just really opening an issue that has long been settled in Canada through policy and the governing bodies of sport.”

Calling Bullshit on this Kristopher.  Children have always been welcome to fairly compete in the correct sex category.  There has been no public discussion on whether children can participate in the sex category they feel they are as opposed to what they are in reality.  That sort of debate would bring with it public inquiry and force discussion about the bullshit that is gender identity and the fatuous claims it makes.   There has been no discussion and you know that Kristopher because if exposed to the light of day and actual critical analysis your ‘case’ would fall apart like the rotten house of cards it is.

“Wells, also an associate professor at MacEwan University, says Jean’s remarks can help legitimize harmful rhetoric and reintroduce stereotypes.”

Woke Projection never misses.  At the very core of the gender ideology religion is the notion that there exists the notion of “Feeling Like a Woman” or “Feeling Like A Man”.  How they characterize these “feelings” is to reiterate the gender stereotypes (you know the ones actual Feminists have been fighting against) and say because I emulate these gender stereotypes that – in reality – makes (insert magical gender-wizardering sounds here) me that gender.

   Transgender ideologythe woke religion – is hair on fire super-crazy-regressive nonsense.  You are not a woman because you like cooking, wearing dresses, and nurturing.  Just like you are not a man because you like sports, wearing suits, and being emotionally distant.  These are just arbitrary features we’ve assigned to people who happen to be female or male.  All it takes to be a woman is to be an adult human female the same with being a man, all it takes is being an adult human male.  No gender-anything required.  Let’s represent what I just said in picture format.

 

“This is about trying to score cheap political points at the expense of vulnerable people,” Wells said. “It has real consequences because it legitimizes discrimination and, in some cases, violence.”

No, this is about stating objective facts about the reality we all share.  If certain people do not like or want to share that reality, then indeed it is their problem and thus, the rest of society should not have to reorder itself around a fatuous set of ideas that do not comport with material reality.

   Acknowledging objective categories for the sake of fair play and safety isn’t “discrimination”.  Again, witness the ‘if you don’t agree with me you are causing violence’ ploy.  It is exhausting having to deal with hyperbolic emotional coercion.

“It’s blatantly false. It’s disingenuous,” the professor added. “These kinds of comments are harmful and have no place in Alberta politics.”

The good professor here demonstrates that even with a degree it is entirely possible to have your head up your ass and make erroneous straight faced statements like this one – stating that categorizing sports via biological sex is a false and disingenuous notion. 

     That degree you have shows that you once maybe had use of intellectual rigour and standards – try and find those things again try again soon.

“For Murphy, who identifies as a transgender woman, the real consequences are on kids who are growing up and learning about or questioning their gender identity.

“I remember what it is like to be them,” Murphy said. “I’ve got the scars to prove it.”

Childhood and growing up isn’t easy for everyone in society.  We all are shaped by our experiences.  What makes childhood more difficult is having adults trying to take advantage of your insecurities and groom you into a regressive way of thinking and dealing with the world.

“It’s important that we challenge that ignorance,” she added. “So ultimately, we can become better neighbours with one another in the community that we all have to inhabit.”

Bullshit.  If coexistence and integration were the actual goals of the trandgender/queer movement we would not be having this discussion.  When the mottos of your movement include “No Debate” and “Acceptance without Exception” it becomes very clear that you do NOT want to be part of existing society, but rather you to burn down the present society and then cobble together a ‘better’ one it with your values centred in it.

  Not. Going. To. Happen.

  The transgender religion and its denial of reality (of sex and of categories), the policing of others thoughts, and the erasure of women as a class in society will not be tolerated.

When you are ready to actually integrate into our liberal society that values freedom of thought and free speech and the exchange (and critique) of ideas I’ll be the first to warmly welcome you into the fold.

  Until then, not so much.

Sincerely,

 

The Arbourist – brought to you by the RPOJ.

 

 

 

 

 

It’s been awhile since I’ve done a Red Pen of Justice post.  The lack of the world revolving around this individual required the treatment.  Enjoy.

 

This from a ‘article’ on the Huffpost.

 

Lately, I’ve been embroiled in what feels like constant conversations about pronouns. The wrong ones. The right ones. The preferred ones. Hint: That third category is defunct.

Oh I agree.  Pronouns being a neutral part of speech are descriptors that relate to either males, females, or a group of people. 

As a nonbinary trans person who uses they/them/theirs pronouns as my terms of address, I suppose I should be celebrating this influx of discourse on the proper usage of pronouns. Truthfully, I’m exhausted.

I’m exhausted just by you listing how you intend to gather wounds and whinge about the world not thinking that you are the most special snowflake on the block.

In the six years since I have “come out,” I’ve witnessed the concept of pronoun inclusivity shift from fundamentally Martian to hotly contested.

On the macro level, pronouns have become a cultural battlefield, an email-signature garnish, a token signifier of righteousness for organizations who want to rebrand themselves as politically savvy and inclusive. Personally, within several of my closest relationships, the fact that I require ungendered pronouns when referring to me in the third person has become the source of deep strain and disappointment.

Yes because rational members of adult society are not really big on compelled speech.  Especially speech that requires us to lie about reality.

I have lived a relatively transient life, undertaking several cross-country moves, and my friends and family hail from and are currently situated within a diverse range of locales ― large cities, suburban landscapes and small rural towns ― with varying political orientations. I have always felt fortunate to have found love and support in so many different places.

But I feel duped by some of the positive reactions from my friends and loved ones when I initially came out as transmasc/nonbinary. In retrospect, that was the easy part. I was the only one changing.

For the gender magic unintiated transmasc is defined as follows: is a term used to describe transgender people who generally were assigned female at birth and identify with a masculine gender identity to a greater extent than with a feminine gender identity.  Basically a substitute for anything resembling an interesting personality.

In the years since, I have come to find that I am in constant competition with my past. For a while, I flinched when I was misgendered but said nothing. Then, I began giving gentle reminders, followed by long-winded overtures of understanding. I felt guilty and embarrassed, and made sure to emphasize that effort was all that mattered to me.

Recently, though, I’ve begun pushing back: “You’ll have to do better” is my new refrain.

”It’s not that easy,” folks say. “I’ve known you for so long. I can’t just shift overnight.”

   Funny that, people having to lie about what their eyes are seeing and what their brain is telling them, take awhile to become normalizied (if ever).  Imagine that someone demanded that every time you were around them you would have to call the colour red “blue” because they had decided that is how they wished to perceive the world.

I am bitterly resentful of my resilient former self. Like a ghost, the memory of prior me looms overhead, my family and friends gazing upward longingly, seemingly desperate for a reprieve from my militant current iteration — the me who demands to be termed accurately.

“‘They’ is plural,” some argue. “It’s ‘incorrect’ English.” Or “What about the facts of human biology?” Or “Shouldn’t you also be concerned with my comfort?”

“The world doesn’t revolve around you,” they assert. And yet, they insist: “I mean no disrespect. I love you. I accept you. I’m trying. I need more time.“

Yeah, the people that care for you see the gender bullshite you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker and hope that maybe you can untangle yourself from the gender identity cult madness that you’re neck deep into now.

I struggle to articulate what it feels like to be misgendered. There are dozens of relevant metaphors. A million tiny paper cuts, I decide upon. Individually, they sting. En masse, they can overwhelm the nervous system. Become infected.

People accurately noting your sex and using the correct pronouns.  Quelle horreur!  

However, it isn’t for lack of care, I’m reassured.

I recently shared a story with a close family member of having been misgendered by a friend’s partner. My friend had defended me, and a falling-out between the couple had ensued. I was genuinely crestfallen when my relative responded with, “You realize that you ruined their relationship, right?” I bit my lip and looked away, opting to change the subject.

While the interaction was hurtful, it also underscored to me that these interactions do not simply constitute slips of the mind or squabbles regarding semantics. What is central to these moments is an interrogation of personhood, not pronouns.

Seek professional help if your personal well being and identity resolve around the application of pronouns in your presence. 

Sure, my friends and family might espouse progressive political ideologies; they might even intellectually support the idea of my authenticity. But in practice, they fail to see that these are the critical moments in which my identities are ultimately affirmed or nullified.

As I think more critically about these conversations, I feel regret about the moments wherein I have avoided asking the hard questions that cut clear through the façade of language: Do you believe I have the right to demand respect regarding my trans identity? Is defending me, my personhood, worth losing a relationship? Do you care about me, beyond the ways in which my presence enhances your life?

The obligation of others to affirm your subjective gender identity is precisely zero.  Basing your self esteem entirely on external validation is a recipe for social and mental disaster. 

“I struggle to articulate what it feels like to be misgendered. There are dozens of relevant metaphors. A million tiny paper cuts, I decide upon. Individually, they sting. En masse, they can overwhelm the nervous system.”

The resulting friction from these interactions has had negative consequences in my relationships. I feel myself withdrawing from people I love — avoiding interactions that might lead to misgendering and shrinking in conversations that once felt safe and enjoyable.

This very much seems like a *you* problem.

Inversely, I’ve been told that spending time with me feels more cumbersome now. I sense the unease that some of my most cherished counterparts feel regarding the necessary intentionality that goes into rewiring their perceptions of me.

In addition to longstanding relationships, new connections are often marked with a similar tension regarding my pronouns. Recently, a friend recounted a conversation she had with a friend of hers in anticipation of our upcoming first meeting.

Though I don’t recall ever explicitly articulating a maximum quota on misgenderings per new acquaintance, she forewarned her friend with surprising accuracy, “You have about 2 or 3 hangouts with Kels where they will be fairly understanding of that mistake. Beyond that, they’re pretty unlikely to pursue a friendship with you.”

   Yeah, dealing with people’s gender-magic is awkward.  Just like being forced to take part in another culture’s religious ceremonies, it usually doesn’t end well.

Aghast, the friend responded, “Wait, you mean to tell me that if we’ve spent time together on five separate occasions, gotten along otherwise, and I misgender them, they won’t want to see me again?”

“Correct,” my friend replied.

“That’s ridiculous,” her friend countered. “If that’s true, Kels is going to live one lonely life.”

I took a moment to contemplate her prediction.

Without a doubt, the idea of dwindled community triggers the fear of loneliness within me. So much so that year after year, I’ve accepted half-hearted apologies and nebulous reassurance from folks who claim to have a deep investment in my happiness but have been unwilling to work toward improvement in understanding my identities and experience.

It wasn’t until recently that I even allowed the idea of severance to pervade my mind. I am a person who needs people. This current emotional arrangement, however — the perpetual promise of future change — no longer feels tenable.

So to you, the newly emergent grammar evangelists, nascent physiologists, and free speech activists in my life, I say this: I will no longer fight you on your truth. You do, in fact, have the right to reject my pleas for change. Your requests for unmonitored, unfettered time and space to prepare for ambiguous future growth will be honored. I, however, will be increasingly absent.

Thank god.  No one has this much time to deal with pernicious narcissism of this caliber.

The idea of having to lose some of the people closest to me, the folks who have helped to shape me into the person I am, is devastating. However, I consider having access to me, my time and my company to be a gift, not a given, for anyone in my sphere. I’m clear on my inherent worth as a person, despite all of the ways in which society at large devalues me.

See above statement in red.

To be frank, this process of change requires concerted effort. To be franker, I think that trans and nonbinary people are worth the effort.

To also be frank – playing word-games in your bullshit gender religion makes pissing up a rope look like a worthwhile endeavor.

The RPOJ comes for thee RPF.

Wow.  Do any of you remember the first Indiana Jones film?  Raiders of the Lost Ark?  Remember the beginning the tense action sequence when Indy switches the statue for a holy satchel of sand and then all hell breaks loose, Indy has to run for his life, avoiding darts, boulders, and irate local inhabitants. It was a tense and glorious romp.

What we are about to partake in, isn’t like that at all.

Imagine if you will, that very Indy-esque moment happening here in the blogosphere, but instead of a golden statue, a freshly polished intellectual turd, a veritable extruded husk of bullshit argumentation.  And the satchel, instead, a thread bare mouldy hassock filled with a funky-spunky hash of whingy-cringy manspination.  The switch is made, the anticipation rises… then falls limp in its sublimely uninteresting putrescence.  There is no heroic dash to safety, no hairsbreadth escape,  only the grim realization that there is no where to go, but down.

This article is from a genuine RED PILL FATHER (see also Reactionary Pile of Fuckery).  He has taken the path of seeing feminism, as only a man can see it, and since it is how a man sees it, it MUST BE true.  What is fascinating is the asymptotic nature (he comes close to having a clue on at least one occasion) of his knowledge of feminism being put on display – this RPF, has read things… things on the internet no less, that describe what feminism is, but evidently information written by people who know sweet fuck all about what feminism is.

Let us begin.

“As a Red Pill Father, one of my main goals in life, beyond making my life, and as a consequence of that, my marriage better, is ensuring that I prevent, to the best of my ability, the tainting of my young daughter’s minds with modern day Feminism.”

Because a base level of narcissism is required to be a douche, thus I will make it a requirement, perhaps even to the level of necessary ‘background douche-radiation’ (see male socialization),  for ‘being successful at life’.  And apparently allowing your daughter access to the philosophy/praxis that seeks to ground her humanity into the fabric of society is a compete and utter non-starter.  Sorry hunny, no human being status for you.

“This is part one of a three part series of posts I’ll do depicting how Feminism is lying to both men and women”

It’s kinda creepy, yet edifying to see RPF mistakenly categorize feminism as monolithic singular totality.  One might surmise that RPF is a fan of morally simplistic binary thinking and all of the sound and fury that emanates from such etymologically denuded intellectual black holes.  Because fuck nuance and attention to detail; it makes wrapping the tinfoil around one’s head so much more difficult.

” and how fathers today can combat it so their sons and daughters don’t end up buying into the modern Feminist lie at their own expense.”

Ah, RPF is a tinfoil wrapped holy crusader of man-justice, ready to dispense wisdom and shield his property children from the great evil feminist satan.

“Classical vs Modern Feminism

Not everyone will agree with me on this but Feminism, in it’s earliest iterations (I’m talking late 1800s suffragists), started out as a movement with honorable intentions, back when actual inequality of opportunity between the sexes existed.”
   Oh thanks RPF dude.  I’m glad you approve of women striving to be recognized as human in society.  You’re not going to qualify your approval of women’s struggle are you?  That would be a dick move…
*
*
“However, […]”
*
*
**facepalm**
*
*
“However, even with that goal, the feminist narrative of equal rights and suffrage was tainted as it didn’t come with “equal responsibility” for women.  For example, women were not subject to the military draft, even to this day, but were granted the right to vote. It wasn’t until the promise was made that women wouldn’t be drafted that more women got on board with the suffrage movement.”
   Ah, the vernerable draft chestnut.  If you can’t serve the military-machine then its completely obvious and follows that you should have no say in how the county is run.  All aboard the shit-boat of stupidity.  RPF is also no longer subject to the draft circa 2019 thus he also qualifies as lacking in ‘responsibility’ and therefore by his criteria, have no voting rights.
*
*
   “So from the start, even though the intentions were good, the stated intention of true “equality” is a lie.”
   I suspect that RPF would not know equality if bit him firmly on the ass, but we should let his assertions demonstrate, rather than me, your humble host tell you particular fact.
*
*
“They wanted all of the authority given to men with none of the responsibilities, and they got it.”
   Ah yes, I can recall that golden age, where women could work where they pleased, in any profession, open a bank account, hell… even marry and divorce whomever they saw fit back during the days of first wave feminism.
   Actually, no.  Women could do none of the above and the fact the RPF glosses over these inconvenient truths is proof positive he is filled to the brim with his own bullshit.  Feminism is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy, and in the case of First Wave, struggle for base acknowledgement as human beings.  This talk of ‘authority’ and ‘responsibilities’ is but mere projection of your twisted view of society through your (a)historic lens.
*
*
“And it’s this quite unequal dynamic that persists into today and is causing the feminists to want more and more authority for less responsibility. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
   One of the key features of the MRA/Redpill dynamic is the reversal of the dominant/subordinate roles.  You see, we still live in a patriarchy, where men’s hands hold the levers of power and circumscribe how society functions.  There has been no historical reversal of the power roles.  No, what makes the MRA cabal’s fevered minds twist and spin is the mere notion that they cannot be the sole arbiters of power in society anymore.  The gall of women to assert that they should have *any* say in society is a evil for them that does not sleep.
*
*
“I believe that women’s suffrage can coexist with women who vote in the best interests of our culture and society, but those interests have to be informed and framed by the masculine and with the requisite amount of actual authority given to those who carry the lion’s share of responsibility.”
   You can vote Sweety, but only how I see fit.  RPF is stupid as he is condescending.  Nothing *needs* to be framed by the masculine.  Most of the bat shit crazy that exists in the world today is precisely because we continue to frame issues in terms of the masculine.  So no, you don’t get to dispense with the basic female rights to human being status, because of your misguided notion of responsibility (which so far is the right to be drafted into male initiated slaughter – I’m still trying to square how ‘responsible behaviour’ jives with participating in mass slaughter).
*
*
“Just as you will be the best father for your children by fulfilling your role as a masculine role model and wielding your authority for the good of your family.”
   Have you missed out on the last 30 years so of sociological research that points to negative outcomes for children of parents that adapt stereotypical gender roles?  Apparently so.  Families thrive when there is trust, compassion, and empathy.  Your notions of masculine authority are shit.
*
*
“It wasn’t the female vote that got us here today, it was the continued onslaught of overzealous Feminism in its false crusade for the elusive, and already achieved, “equality” sans the commensurate responsibility for women that got us here.”
   Its good to know that men are responsible for the violent culture we live in, responsible for the desecration of the earth and responsible for the wars and senseless bloodletting that continue on, even as this article is penned.
*
*
“Classical vs Modern Feminism:
*
  • Equal pay for the “same” work.
    • Right to vote,
  • Pursuit of happiness and liberty.

VS Modern

    • [1] Women are to be celebrated and advantaged above all else, at the expense of men.
  • [2] These expectations reign even over the right of an unborn child to live.
  • [3] Believe all women all the time without verifying.  What happened to Trust but Verify?”

Wow.  So much bullshit condensed down into handy bullet points.

  1.  Examples?  Because women now dominate every facet of society.  Women in key political office, captains of industry, they are everywhere.  In fact they are the defacto status quo – all of literature is about women and their achievements.  Pop culture is chock full of positive female role models that demonstrate talent and ability and determined effort are all societal sanctioned keys to female success (nay dominance, to believe RPF’s hokum).
  2.   What?  You mean women have a right to say what goes on in their own bodies and determine their productive futures as they see fit – like real human beings with rights and everything?  You have no idea what pregnancy does to the female body, if you did, you’d stop saying fatuous bullshit like this.
  3. The fuck?  What does this even mean?  Women’s inferior status in society comes with a bevy of problems when accessing the political and legal systems within our society.  Women are still fighting to be heard and working toward reducing the bias against them for reporting the sexual violence against them, because shockingly in a patriarchy, women are not encouraged to hold men accountable for their shitty behaviour.

 

“Feminism originally started out to correct actual injustices in society but has gone so far that it is now making both men and women miserable.”

Feminism has always been antagonistic toward male power and privilege, this fact makes you sad.

Feminism today is not about equality, it’s about disempowering and emasculating men.”

As stated earlier, (effective) Feminism is about the liberation of women from the structures of society that oppress them.  So, if by correcting male excess in society is ’emasculating’; so be it.

“Children are very sensitive to what is “fair.”  Whether it’s the size of the piece of cake they get compared to their friends, how much time they or their siblings get to play with Daddy. They know and they keep score.  One day this past year my young daughter became aware of “International Girls Day.”  She asked what it’s about and her very next question was, “Is there a Boy’s Day?”  Young minds, untainted by the Feminist supremacy agenda, can detect inequality.”

Probably the same reason there isn’t a white history month you slack-jawed oxygen thief.

“Take advantage of that now. Reinforce this. Feminists of today would say, “Who cares about Boys Day… they’ve had their turn.””

Well that and every other day happens to be ‘boys day’.  Funny how that works when you happen to be in the class that is accorded personhood by default.

“Which is the other side is the “It’s HER turn” coin. It’s just reverse sexism or “Also Sexism.” Not a child. A child knows better and so do Red Pill aware men.”

Reverse sexism.  Wow, those slaves sure could oppress their masters couldn’t they.  Just like the people of colour regularly practice reverse racism against white people.  *sigh*.  Trying to make the playing field even when it intrinsically isn’t is the second play in the (‘oppressed’) white dude play book.   Minorities can most certainly discriminate, but their prejudices are not reinforced and normalized by the rest of society.  Apples and oranges my dear whingy faux-oppressed RPF.

“I’ll take Tolpin’s point a step farther and assert that Feminism, in it’s modern form, not only tells women they don’t need men but continues to assure that men are made into ATM-Betas through the family court system.”

The court system remains in favour of men.  I know the notion that being responsible for children is tough (kinda funny that you state earlier your anti-abortion ‘ethic’, and yet here are decidedly anti-family-responsibility) and quite unpalatable for RPF like yourself.

“Our femcentric culture ensures that women still have full access to the resources and money that men possess, even if men choose not to play by their rules. So of course women don’t need men nowadays, the State has ensured, through the establishment of Feminist legislation, they get that support either way.”

I’d like to know when it because femcentric culture, because I think that it doesn’t exist outside RPF’s fevered dreams.  Do note his keen yearings for the golden age where women had no rights and their survival depended upon the largess of men.

The notion that women share the same status as men must be truly horrifying to RPF.  You mean women are not merely objects to be possessed and collected – the hatred of women must be intense to conjure up this opposite world fantasy the RPF spouts.  I don’t see any other reason for it.

“I truly believe, and the social evidence supports this*, that Feminism is not only detrimental to men, it’s disparaging to family, marriage and is even doing women a disservice.”

*Citation needed

  Also, how would full human being status for females damage society?  The only artifact that looks threatened with female liberation is patriarchy.

“The lie has hurt many women who prioritized “moving up the corporate ladder,” while putting off having a family until they’re 40 only to find that at that age, attracting a quality man is difficult and their prospects for conceiving a baby naturally are severely diminished. “

Because baby making is the ultimate expression of female achievement.  Fuck off with your misogynistic, antediluvian   attitudes dude.

“This is not the future I want for my daughters.”

The mindfuck you are subjecting them to is darkening their future as you speak.

 


 

Thanks folks, and thanks(?) to the manosphere for providing such a bountiful harvest of stupidity.

The ‘inclusivity’ stupid train just keeps on chugging along over at ShoutoutJMU.  Not an argument or even a shade of nuance is to be found there.  Just dull eyed listless opprobrium meant to keep people in line and critical analysis at bay.

It is an insipid shit show, and we all know by now that the RPOJ is a vehicle build specifically for shit-shows.  But let us not tarry further – let’s see what this “feminist” resource has to offer on the subject of the intersection between radical feminism and queer politics.

—–

“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are one of the worst kinds of people out there. You’re not a feminist, so you’ve been canceled.”

Wow.  Such insight, much praxis, good enlightening…  Starting your thoughts off with insults and slander always sets the stage for a charitable, honest, and productive discussion. 

   The only aspect missing is a strawman caricature of your opponents position to savagely beat and make your fellow besotted acolytes feel powerful….

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. These are “feminists” who consistently choose to leave trans folks OUT of the conversation.”

Radical feminism, or effective feminism, is the project to liberate women (Adult human females) from the patriarchal constructs of society.  Generally speaking radical feminist theory and praxis revolves around identifying social structures in society that are oppressing women, raising the consciousness of women being affected by said structures, then analyzing and deconstructing said oppressive edifices with the goal of the emancipation of women from patriarchy. 

   A helpful insight provided free of charge – One of the primary axis of oppression women experience is based on their sex.  The means of this oppression is the construct of gender which dictates and imposes the inferior role for women in society.

   The radical feminist solution is working toward the abolition of gender in society, because the of the harmful nature of the construct for both women and men. 

   Radical Feminists are therefore about the liberation of women in society, and centring women in that struggle.  The activist world is big, if you’re not feeling like you’re the primary concern in Feminism (the struggle for female liberation) then start your own damn movement and stop co-opting feminism proper for goals that do not focus on the female struggle against patriarchy.

  Also since trans identified females (Tif’s) are in fact, female, they are subject to the same sex based oppression all females face and indeed are included under the aegis of effective female-centric feminism. 

“Why? Because, well they suck.”

Queer theorists and the SJW ilk are just full of profoundly deep explanations for their assertions.  To be fair though, they are gangbusters at circular arguments, but that’s still coming; so hold on to your hats folks, the circus ride of abjectly plaintive idiocy has yet to crest.

“The idea is that “transwomen” aren’t really women because they “grew up men” and still “receive all the benefits of the patriarchy”.

Trans women, or trans identified males (Tim’s) are not women.  Male socialization is unavoidable for natal males born into our society.  You’ll have about as much success as renouncing your white privilege if you happen to be born white.  In other words – your personal subjective solution to the dominant ethos of society is fucking irrelevant.

“In turn, they use the same rhetoric with transmen “who grew up women” and are now “trying to receive the benefits of the patriarchy”

They actually don’t.  It is risible enough to deny the potency and ubiquitous nature of male socialization, but to gloss over the fact that much of radical feminism is built on material, factual, reality, is really quite egregious.  Furthermore since TiF’s are female they are indeed most welcome in effective feminism. 

“Either way, someway, all transpeople contribute to the patriarchy and therefore, do not deserve feminism.”

Said no radical feminist ever.  But its damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead when beating the the crap out of the straw feminist bogywoman you’ve created. 

That was honestly hard to write.”

It must have been hard to write considering the sheer magnitude of bullshit per square centimetre demonstrated.

Transwomen are women.

Transmen are men.”

It wouldn’t be a ‘woke’ SJW article without at least one thought terminating cliche, combined of course, with a circular definition of what a woman is. (i.e. What is a woman, a woman is anyone who says they are woman [but what is a woman…??]. – You can’t define a term by itself.)

     Sorry, not sorry, but the above statements are not arguments, they are strictures meant to discriminate between the ideologically sound and the unwashed.  They are endpoints meant to discourage questioning and silence dissent.  You many fuck off now with your thinly veiled ‘woke’ misogyny at your earliest convenience.

“They aren’t “men who grew up to be women and women who grew up to be men”. They’re people who sometimes grew up in the wrong bodies.”

Wrong bodies or not, biological sex is immutable. 

“Don’t even get me started with NB people. OOMPH. The DISRESPECT.”

  So we’ll combat the evil of the gender binary by creating another false binary?  Seems to be layering another layer of oppression into a already terribly oppressive system.  Woo, the progress…

“Rhetoric from TERFs has been used for years to silence people. But right now, me and everyone else in the gendery and queer community are amused…”

  Wow, winning the oppression Olympics must feel soooo fucking good.  

You and the ‘gendery-queery’ community continue to avoid speaking and acting on the elephant in the room: the epidemic of patriarchally endorsed male violence.  Violent males continue to kill women and trans people at alarming rate, pretty much without repercussion and you’re banging on about experiencing repression at the hands of the Radical Feminists? 

   Get back to me when you start tackling the root of the problem instead of whinging on about a small collection of females who are rightly calling bullshit your inconsistent, misogynistic, and female erasing ideology. 

“Some folks are discussing… […]”

  Skipping tangential meanderings/virtue signalling.

TERFs are exclusive, and demand their turf space. But, people like me aren’t going to let them have it.”

The struggle against male power is age old, and the misogyny exhibited here is nothing new.  Women will rise, women will struggle, and women will prevail against patriarchy in whatever form it happens to take.  Thankyouverymuch. 

“Even when TERFs include race or ability, their sole goal to deconstruct the patriarchy and battle gender stereotypes and fight for equality of gender….is counter intuitive. They’re not fighting for all women.

Radical feminists are struggling for female liberation.  Gender is a toxic hierarchy by definition, and thus, no semblance of “equality” can be struck within the system. 

    The only counterintuitive aspect of your statement is attempting to lump males into a movement that strives for female liberation.  It makes about as much sense as asking for management’s opinions on how to run a union strike.  

“Why should I contribute to feminist conversations… […]”

I’m solidly with you on that one, because other than creating a writable RPOJ-moment, the value of your contributions (at least to the feminist movement) approaches zero.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The piece is jam-packed with stupid, so we’ll just hit the highlights here and dissect the inanity RPOJ style.  :)  Check out the original post here.

“Let’s get the most obvious out of the way first: TERFs are about as feminist as Jim Davidson. They’re also very comfortable with forming political alliances with conservative men, and indeed prefer to date conservative men as they have more in common with them politically.”

Can you see the fallacy here? I know I sure can.  Rhymes with Fad Pomulem.  Oh those dastardly radical feminists how could they even consider dating conservative men?!?!?  Sounds like some serious shaming going on by ‘liberal feminist’ (NB: Shaming is what lib-fems do to shut people up when their faux-empowerment is shown to be a lie within the context of society: prostitution for example has been shown irrefutably to harm women, naming this problem for women as class angers the choosy-choice feminists to no end, as it illustrates that choices offered within a patriarchal context are quite the opposite of empowering)    The irony along with the crappy argumentation is quite thick already.

   “So it’s hardly a shock that they’ve been parroting patriarchal talking points.”

  Which talking points exactly are you referring to?  You don’t bother to mention it, so I guess we’ll have to take your word about radical feminists parroting patriarchal talking points.  *rollseyes*  Those radfems talk about how men should own up and take responsibility for their shitty behaviour – nothing but patriarchal talking points after all…  

“Then we have the media transmisogynists like to pretend that trans women pose a problem for reproductive rights activism, which is a deliberately disingenuous misrepresentation of the fairly uncontroversial demand that when we talk about reproductive organs and human bodies, we’re gender-neutral about it, because that’s more precise. “

Read this fucking paragraph twice.  First, the claim that ‘the media’ is transmisogynistic?  Really?  Transactivism is the new misogyny and finds near universal support in the mainstream media as it is not a threat to male power, or male preeminence in society.  Transactivism is patriarchally  approved, through and through and is treated a such.

    Let’s look at the next nugget of  wisdom.  Trans identified Males (TiM’s) do not pose a problem to reproductive rights activism.  Quite frankly, TiM’s don’t give a shit about reproductive rights activism because it doesn’t involve them because men (*trigger alert for those who don’t ‘do’ biological facts*) can’t get pregnant. 

    What I have seen the trans-activists push for is the removal of the mention of females regarding their biological processes – “Chestfeeding” “Birth Parent” and other female erasing poppy-cock.  

   So if your activism is includes erasing females and their biological processes from the public sphere it goddamn well is ‘a problem’ for reproductive rights activism.

    Uncontroversial demands?  That we separate the idea that reproductive organs (which generally determine biological sex) from the sex that they are associated from?  How can disassociating male – has penis, and female – has vagina be fucking uncontroversial.  The last time I checked I didn’t see any free floating vagina’s hanging around with a without a person of the matching biological sex attached to it.  

    You can fuck right off with your free form facts and redefintions of material reality.  Your ideology is bunk, and you do not get to take me with you on your baseless twisted flights of fancy. 

“It simply isn’t true that trans women are a block to reproductive rights. In fact, they’re doing more than any media transphobe ever has.”

Men are a barrier to reproductive rights.  Whether or not they happen to believe they are women is irrelevant

  “How do we know this? One of the places to look is Ireland, where there is a huge struggle for access to abortion. I follow this activism keenly, and do what I can to support and boost their work,”

Handmaiden status achieved!  You are so much closer to being regarded as fully human, just keep on supporting men and putting down females fighting for liberation from patriarchy – you will be granted human status soon…really soon, just around the corner… 

” so I’m aware that there are a lot of trans women deeply involved in this crucial action. I’ve met many Irish trans feminists who participate in reproductive freedom work. And likewise, Irish feminists don’t want these UK TERFs anywhere near their work, having recently produced a widely-signed open letter telling TERFs exactly where to fuck off to.”

Yep, because chastising females for daring to speak against legislation that has negative effects on them is a completely feminist thing to do.  Telling women to ‘fuck off’ and shut-up about their problems just resonates with empowerful female affirming action.  Yeah, no. 

   “If you actually care about reproductive rights, you’d know this, and that’s how it becomes abundantly clear that your transmisogynistic bigots are simply using abortion access as a dogwhistle for “women are defined by reproductive organs and only that.”

Wow.  It’s so nice to see the trans-rhetoric so powerfully restated with all relevant distortions intact.  Radical feminists are not arguing that women are just vaginas, they are saying that the female class of people that happen to have vaginas are oppressed by patriarchal society *because* they possess these organs.   One of the main axis of oppression for females in society is their biological sex.  Funny how intersectionality when properly used never comes up when dealing with transactivist crowd. 

“To me, feminism is always and has always involved liberating women from our biology. A refusal to define us by whether or not we can bear children. I’ve written before about how this biological essentialism promulgated by transmisogynistic bigot feminists is identical to that promulgated by misogynists. I’ve also defined my stance as pro-trans and pro-choice.”

Nice.  Liberating does not mean erasing female biology from the public sphere.  Acknowledging that biological sex is real and is a foundational source of oppression for women might be a start.

“But I want to say it once more, loudly, for the people at the back: trans rights and reproductive rights are intimately linked. You cannot have one without the other. It all boils down to bodily autonomy.”

Reproductive rights and right to self identify are not linked in any way.  Females should have the right to determine what is best for themselves in terms of their reproductive choices.  How the male ‘right’ to call themselves something they are not – even if they really really really really …really… feel it – isn’t even in the same fucking ballpark.  It’s quite insulting to equate one of the most important  struggles for female liberation with the insipidly desultory gender ‘self-identifications’ of men.

“Our struggles are the same, and scratch a transmisogynist, and it’ll bleed womb-botherer in the end. Don’t let them win, and let’s continue to stand shoulder to shoulder against these attacks.”

Just shaking my head. This is what happens when you let men centre themselves in feminism.  This is why Feminism needs to centre females in their struggles to gain liberation in society, because once men get in, it becomes all about men and their problems. 

  Standing shoulder to shoulder with your oppressors!  FML.  This shambolic, inclusivity laced, Orwellian bafflegab that is masquerading as feminism needs to stop.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The RPOJ comes for thee.

Greetings fellow blog travellers, today we have a special treat as we get to look through the looking glass of the misogyny that masquerades as queer theory. Hypocritical, obtuse, with a generous side of bloviation make for a prime field day for the RPOJ. Let’s watch how attempting to justify violence against women, the rewriting of gay history, and making the case for having men in feminism come together in one extruded steaming mass of horseshit.

Let’s begin, shall we?

—–

“There is not a writer from The Queerness who would disagree on how wrong it is to make threats of violence, to use violent words and violent actions. We do not condone those on the Twittersphere who participate in violent words or actions aimed at anyone, and particularly women, who are often the target.”

The higher the goal, the further to fall.  I would just like my careful readers to keep this point in mind as we go through this particular RPOJ, because the hypocrisy quickly ramps up to 11 and then manages to increase from there. 

“We don’t however believe that the acronym ‘T.E.R.F’ in itself is a violent term. “

Well dayum!  See!  I told you! It didn’t take long for the hypocritical bullshit to start oozing.  Fun fact: ‘terf’ like the term harridan, witch, slut, cunt, whore (et cetera) are all terms used to describe females who have the audacity to stand up against males and defy the patriarchal stereotypes society has mandated for them.

  1. Just a small window into how the term ‘Terf’ is used – https://terfisaslur.com
  2. Elizabeth Hungerford remarks on TERF – “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way.”
  3.  TERF is used as a label for ‘uppity women’ who do not accept the patriarchal male narrative and normative attitudes. 

   So, the usage of the term ‘TERF’ is almost always accompanied by insults and threats of violence (see #1).  Yet we have this statement:

“‘TigTog’, a blogger coined the term during discussions on a blog post, which if you think about it, really isn’t outside the realm of possibility, “

I could care less about who coined the term.  It is being used to target and harass females on the internet and in the real world.  Said targeted group – feminists – would prefer not to have to deal with the term. You know, common decency mutual respect that sort of thing.  But rather than acknowledge female linguistic preferences – Annette, the author of this hackneyed literary drive-by, would rather attempt to justify the usage of the term. 

    (skipping prolix and shitty ‘justifications’)

“She’s right, any group identifying word can and will be used against that group as a slur. For example: ‘queers’, ‘gays’, ‘lesbos’, ‘dykes’, we’ve all heard them, we all know what they sound like. “

Precisely.  So should we make the case for normalizing a derogatory term?  Or perhaps, maybe, just maybe, use the terminology the particular group would like employed.  But nah, let’s continue to use slurs for these despicable TERF’s, the faster we can ‘other’ them, the easier it is to hate them. 

“Imagine if Katlyn had said “I continue to hate these fucking lesbians what else is new”, or Antonio saying “kill every fucking queer”. It’s not new is it, we hear this all the time. I’ve been subject to a few death threats, and we can see, absolutely, how it can be upsetting.”

Yes.  Violence and death threats are bad.  Maybe not attempting to justify their usage would be a good thing.

“Without getting into an academic discussion about how violent words are used to silence women and how this is misogyny, lets remember that men aren’t the only perpetrators of this.”

Because the male epidemic of violence against women is sooooo fuuuucking booooring.  I mean really, do we have to go over the fact again that the class of males overwhelmingly commit the majority of acts of violence toward the other class of people females the world over, pretty much since forever?

     Like fuck, this little tidbit seems to be at the root of most radical feminist analysis of the problems our society faces – maybe one shouldn’t gloss it over and skip directly to personal anecdotes about how mean those evil terfs…err females are.  

“In my time as a trans ally I’ve been subject to horrific abuse from cis-het women on twitter, even some cis-lesbians laid into me for standing up for my trans friend’s appearance in Diva Magazine.  I’m a cis-lesbian and I’ve been called a ‘misogynist’ and a ‘homophobe’.”

Make no mistake, transactivism is misogynistic and homophobic by nature.  Sorry about your luck. 

“We at the Queerness firmly distance ourselves from this type of violent language, and we have no time for trolls like this on the internet.”

See, I’m not too sure what you’re referring to, the accurate description of what transactivism is or the use of violent language, of course which terf is a part of.  I’m guessing though, it seems like it is only violence when applied to *you*. 

    “Yet it’s those like this that make it harder for those who are trans positive to defend their trans friends and colleagues, and end up getting lumped in with this group of trolls, because they use one acronym in a more appropriate way than these trolls,”

Discourse with transactivists is almost always fraught with threats and violence.  Male resort to violent behaviour when their arguments and ideas are shown to fall short.  Nothing new under the sun here. 

“So let’s discuss trans exclusionary radical feminists without using the term itself. “

So after 500 hundred feckless words of abysmal pseudo-justification now let’s not use the word that I’m trying so hard to prove is OKAY and JUST FINE for radical feminists. 

    The term ‘terf’ is either problematic, or it isn’t.  

    Clearly, for a large segment of the radical feminist population, the usage of terf -whether it is intended to or not (oooooooh, intent isn’t magic is it?)- isn’t cool.  Respectful people, interested in furthering rational argument would acknowledge this and move on. 

   The Our Queerness author quotes Rebecca Reily-Cooper it is one of the few breaths of fresh air in this piece so for interests of my sanity I choose to quote it. 

“From writers such as Rebecca Reily-Cooper who states the definition of radical feminism as:

“an approach to analysing the oppression and exploitation of the class of female people by the class of male people. It seeks to uncover and challenge the root causes and origins of that system of oppression, which it labels patriarchy.” RRC’s blog

That’s fine, I can get on board with that.

She states that the term ‘T.E.R.F’ is ‘not a meaningful description of feminist politics’. But different people clearly have a different view of feminist politics.”

Ahhh…thank you RRC.  So at least we have a viable definition of what radical feminism is, and what its goals are. 

“There were several cis-het radical feminists who sent a flurry of abuse at one of my trans members this year. “

One statement contains the kernel of radical feminist theory, and thus the basis of radical feminist praxis, the other statement contains no refutation or counter-argument – rather mere anecadata – essentially saying those bad feminists were mean to one of my friends – how dare they?!? 

This suggests a lack of a reasonable counter argument and no, your feelings are not an argument. 

“And there were plenty of LGBTQ+ and cis-het allies who, having read the screen shots from that discourse, would NOT have described those comments and views as ‘feminism‘. They’d have described them as ‘hate speech’.”

Me and my good buddies were offended!  Still not an argument.  This is the meat of transactivism, right here folks:  Accept my personal subjective reality or else! 

Sorry (not sorry)!  Material reality takes precedence over subjective personal feelings and respecting material reality (biological sex) is not a crime and is certainly not ‘phobic’ in any reasonable way.  

“So are both sides as bad as each other ?”

Well no actually, as transactivists online and in person threaten and physically attack women who speak against their particular delusion (see terfisalur link above).  Transactivists support deplatforming radical feminists from speaking at public engagements.   Transactivists illegally occupy and deface female only spaces.

   Yeah, and the radical feminist side…. *crickets*.    So no, both sides are not as bad as the other, stop with false equivalencies (side note: attempting to equivocate this male violence with radical feminist’s *CRITICISM* of transactivism is really quite beyond the pale).

” Or can we simply not ever agree ?”

Fuck no.  Feminism is the struggle to liberate females from patriarchal structures and normative attitudes in society.  Gender – a hierarchical patriarchal concept – exists to oppress members of the female class and must be dismantled, not celebrated.  

Why are gender and gender roles a good thing, and how do women benefit from the preservation of traditional gender roles?  What exactly does trasnactivism have to say about that? 

*Crickets* because transactivsm isn’t a feminist project, it seeks only to promulgate the status quo and continue with the oppressive gender hiearchy that benefits the class of males in society.  

“When you appear on a website that lists your twitter handle and allows a single user to block all 800+ of those names simultaneously to avoid abuse, it suggests you belong to a ‘hate group’. “

Because Transactivists (FETA’s – Female Exclusionary Trans Activists, if we like the snappy four letter acronyms)  don’t allow criticism of their ideology and have a block list to stop interactions with those who would question it is much more a reflection of the insular, cultish nature of the trans community.  You can’t argue with radial feminists because your arguments are shit, so plugging your ears and labelling people ‘terfs’ or ‘transphobic’ are the only plays you have. 

No ideology or movement can be free from criticism.

“If you purposefully and deliberately target trans activists and question the validity of trans people’s existence, it suggests you have some prejudice.”

Textbook play here.  Questioning transactivism is not debating over their existence.  Trans people have the capacity to hold shitty ideas their ideas and those ideas should, rightly, be subject to criticism and rebuttal – especially if they impact other classes of people in society (see members of the female class).

“If you imply that somehow trans women are predators; that there is some hypothetical risk to cis-women from trans women, or simply that you can’t accept them as they are because you: ‘just can’t agree’, and when you dress it up as ‘gender critical’, rather than transphobia, then you probably are trans exclusionary.”

Transwomen – MEN – behave like men.  It is not a particularly shocking fact when one adheres to analysis based on objective, material fact.  

“If you simply ask polite questions this is different. But lets be clear, the questions: “why do I have to accept them in my bathrooms ?”, and “Are they are taking something away from my definition of womenhood?”, are not very polite, and are entirely dehumanising.”

Men, do not belong in female spaces.  Female spaces provide some small margin of protection from the male violence that permeates our society.  Natal sex should be the determinant of which bathroom you use.

Why don’t transwomen use the male washroom?  Most of them still have the plumbing for it.  Let me answer that for you – the very real threat of male violence.   Now why should females be forced to put up with that very same threat? Why is the issue of female safety from violence even a debatable issue? 

What an opportunity for the trans and feminist communities to come together and name the root of the problem – violent male behaviour (enforcement of patriarchal gender norms)- and make that an issue. 

    But that choice was not made. 

   Rather, the choice via dubious legislative attempts, was to make female only spaces accessible to men based on often nothing more than their deeply subjective personal feelings.  And that, is a crock of shit, and is rightly being fought against by radical feminists.

    The definition of woman is adult human female, the gender-feels of entitled males does not change the original definition one iota.  

“Trans women have been at the centre of the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement from the beginning, “

Demonstrably wrong, if you happen to be talking about StoneWall.  Trans historical revisionism (the “T” was added in the 1990’s) is poor form and a dubious practice at best.  

“[…]even the LGBTQ+ community needs to recognise that, and feminism is a good thing as long as it doesn’t trample on human beings on its’ way.”

Feminism, by effective definition, is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy.  The misogyny rife in the transactivst movement qualifies it as a force to be struggled against in the fight for female liberation. 

“but trans women are right there with you in that fight. Don’t shut them out because of a word, or an acronym.”

Yes, I look to the tranwomen for their bold positions on female infanticide, female genital mutilation, female sex trafficking, prostitution, and abortion.  I see page after page of poignant prose and argumentation for the advancement of female rights by transwomen….

  Oh wait.  I don’t.  

   I see females threatened with verbal and physical violence for not complying with the gendered delusions of men in dresses.   I see feminist speakers deplatformed for having a contrary opinion to the trans-cult.   I see women only events and spaces subverted because people who have problems with material reality some how think that because they belong there – they should belong there (white male privilege and entitlement at its best).  

    If your feminism is not working toward female liberation, then it ain’t feminism.  Full stop. 

    Please (*please*), feel free to form your own movements and organizations – but stop co-opting feminist movements and female only spaces.  

“When people feel marginalised they fight back, they get angry, if you knew trans people personally, you’d get it. “

Fighting back in tranactivism means harassing, threatening, and hurting females.  In other words, standard male behaviour.  Feminists know quite well about the capacities of angry men, this has happened before and it will happen again.  The tide eventually will be turned in this arena as the struggle for female liberation continues. 

“You’d realise that tilting at windmills in this debate is allowing those cis-gender men who are the real culprits, off the hook.”

Something we can agree on, of course my version is without the gender-newspeak because male violence is male violence in whatever guise they happen to present to society.

“Why not educate them to be better men, because predatory cis-gender men don’t need a change in the law to enter a woman only space.”

So we should make it easier (self declaration), not harder for males to enter female spaces gotcha.   This simple phrase  highlights the vast differences between queer (male-centric) and feminist (female-centric) theory.  

   Have your queer theory, but know that it mostly represents yet another attempt to keep the female class oppressed in society and that effective feminism is in opposition to it. 

 

And so endeth the RPOJ.  :)

 

   Greetings nature lovers, today we get to observe in the wild an all to common animal – the delusional oppressed male.  Deep in the basement man-cave, writing furious man-words about how terrible men have it, and why women bitches have it so darn good.  I think dissertations like the one about to follow are reason enough to be wary of the hermetic bubbles that can form in internet land, where critical thought is extinguished and replaced by the toxic group-think that masquerades as reasonable thought.

Our featured whinger extraordinaire is Red Shambhala and his very… umm… nuanced view of feminism and the female role in society. 

““I’m a feminist who loves rough sex“, “I’m a queer little“, “How I reconciled feminism with my first step into the dark side of BDSM”, “Why I’m Both Sexually Submissive AND A Feminist” – put feminism and BDSM into a search engine and you will quickly be greeted by numerous articles about stronk feminist womyn who have stopped worrying and loved to learn the whip.”

Fascinating premise.  BDSM, or the replication of male violence and female submission for fun?!? isn’t a particularly feminist act, nor like much of the rest of liberal feminism, worth examining past the idea that any ideological stance that centres men and their feelings can not rightly be called feminist.  So Red Shitolya is already off to a bad start.

“Meanwhile, Return of Kings et al. are more than eager to similarly praise BDSM as something women “secretly” want (but just do not want to admit) and men should therefore do towith for them.”

Unsurprising, as BDSM reinforces patriarchal ideals, why wouldn’t misogynists be all over such propositions? 

“What these seemingly disparate groups have in common is that they are primarily concerned about what women want.”

Doubtful.  RoK and liberal feminists may both support the current status quo, but exhibit markedly different levels of clueless foolishness that detract from the work of feminism proper (e.g. the emancipation of females from the strictures of patriarchy).

   “Obviously, liberals and conservatives, left-wingers and right-wingers cannot exactly agree on what precisely it is the fair sex allegedly wants, but they do share the same gynocentric framework, namely in posing the question, “What do women want?”, and then attempting to answer said question.”

To be treated as fully human in society is a great place to start.  And what exactly the fuck is a gynocentric framework.  Referring to a topic isn’t “centric” anything.  Biologists talking about their work are not being bio-centric.  Of the many tells Male Rights Activists give, this is one of the most obvious – the inversion of the power structure in society.  Somehow females, the class that holds less power, is taken less seriously, and is abused more in society has all the power and is always up to “no good” and wants to enslave all men to their dastardly agenda.  By “no good” I mean opposing the current patriarchal status quo of course.  But the very notion that dudes exist in a society that they made and directly benefits them in a myriad of ways is quite past the event horizon of most MRA’s; as appreciating tangible facts is quite outside their wheelhouse. 

   “Antifeminism, however, should not be about giving a different answer to the frustrated query “What do women want?” but, rather, about asking alternative questions: “What do men actually want? And why the hell do we only care about what women want?”

What we have today in society is what men want, you feckless douche nozzle.  Losing your place privileged place in society and actually have to treat everyone with respect is not the shit-your-pants apocalyptic nightmare you envision.  Not even close. 

“The current omnipresence of gynocentric thought, however, should not leave one with the impression that focusing exclusively on the desires of females has always been unchallenged.”

The level of unhinged quickly goes past 11.  Back here in reality, the world is still dominated by male thought, male writers, captains of industry, academia, art, and literature.  We are drowning in the dudeish perspective and it fucking sucks.   The half of the world that isn’t represented by said male view needs to see itself portrayed in literature, culture, and business.  The few inroads into male dominated fields represent a clear and present danger to MRA’s like the Red Shitola, and as always their fears are based on the dark nightmare fuel that is regurgitated through the manosphere.  

“There are both secular as well as religious alternatives to subordinating everything to the vapid whims and wills of women. Christianity, for instance, teaches that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7). “

This book that says its a sin to wear clothing of mixed fibres is now an authority on how a modern society should work.   *shaking head*  

   “Likewise, the book of Genesis tells us that Satan, the great deceiver who attempts to leads humanity astray, tempted Eve by talking her into believing that she could be like God. Meanwhile, Adam was similarly tempted and convinced that he should follow the proud female’s advice.”

And the burning bush is full of wisdom of the ages.  Citing the bible to back your claims is a risible practice at best, and to be honest boring as heck. 

“Even from a non-Christian perspective one has to admit that both men and women are indeed often tempted to put women in the place that is traditionally reserved for the only God in Abrahamic religions.”

Our heroic dude-bro, cites two examples the exact opposite of what he states in the following paragraph.  Consistency, what the fuck is it? 

“Consider, for instance, how many pagan religions worship motherhood goddesses and how the evil US Empire is able to justify its imperialist wars by claiming that they only murder in order to “liberate” women.”

What are you talking about, you’re not making any sense.  Does anyone else here think that our beloved Red Shitola is a avid follower of Alex Jones?  He’s making about that level of sense … 

 

“Be that as it may, according to the holy texts of Christianity, the punishment for sin was not only death but also that the women’s desire is now “contrary to her husband.” Before the fall, the female gladly fulfilled her roles as the submissive helper she was created for by the Christian’s God – after the fall, she is now boisterous and unsubmissive, her desire is now “contrary” to her husband. Hence, a female refusing to submit is both sin and the result of sin.”

When people ask about how religion reinforces patriarchal notions and the patriarchal status quo I should just reference this Joker and his man-boner for the good ole days where you could just straight up kill disobedient women.  The notion that we need to combat this fierce imbalance the world over rather than propagate it, must seem like some fanciful feminist dream conspiracy.  Of course, the nearer one comes to reality, the more out of touch it seems to delusional dudes such as Red Shitola. 

    “This is not to say that I support Christianity or believe the teachings of Jesus to have the power to repair Western society, but there might be an occasional diamond to pluck from the dunghill of Abrahamic religions. “

Oh hey, all that stuff I said about religion and stuff, I don’t actually believe it anything.  But if a credulous source happens to fit my world-veiw, I’ll endorse it with aplomb.  Because fuck critical thinking and analysis, they too must be part of gynocentric thought frameworks…

   “If memory serves, it was Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942), the great Russian Indologist largely responsible for laying the foundations in the Western world for the scholarly study of Buddhism, who once replied that he did not approve of his contemporaries’ literal attack on the Christian churches, but, rather, considered Torah, Bible, Talmud and Qur’an to be “cultural treasure chambers.” So, maybe the saints and sages of the past do have a thing or two to teach us about women.”

You know how I just said that religion was crap?  Just after saying it wasn’t crap to begin with?  Yes, well religion once again isn’t crap.  I think the feminist overlords broke into this guys computer and changed the dictionary meanings of ‘convoluted’ and ‘nuanced’ because you can feel the all the (erroneous) mental work that has gone into this tepid series of contradictory paragraphs.  It’s like he’s occasionally seen good writing but then somehow mistook his rubegoldberg-esque pap for that good writing and declared it a masterpiece.   Another solid victory for Dunning-Kruger. 

“To return to the main point, BDSM is essentially a faux-surrogate for actual dominance and actual submission. Instead of a sweet, warm and submissive helper whose cheeks blush upon receiving a playful slap on her bum, men now have to deal with ugly, boisterous feminists who want their boyfriends to spit in their faces, whip and abuse them, and simulate rape like conditions.

Wait, what?  You are blaming women for the pornified violent BDSM culture?  Of course you are, as women are always to blame for the shitty things men do and say. 

“For whatever reason, internet virgins sometimes seem to believe that women being into BDSM is a sign of femininity, but the opposite is true.”

How do you even get here from what you’ve said?  This is masterclass in pulling random shit of ones ass and calmly stating it as ‘fact’. 

“The more feminist a female is, the more pain and humiliation she needs in order to still feel like a woman in the bedroom. Likewise, the more feminine a woman is, the less she wants you to hurt and to humiliate her.”

What?  Feminism takes a dim view of the abusive nature of BDSM and realizes the replication of the patriarchal status quo.  This is the notion on display that there is ‘one true nature’ for the women-folk and that those haughty outliers (who dare speak against patriarchy) somehow need to be broken down to enjoy the true awesomeness of being part of the oppressed, submissive, servile class.  Fucking disgusting this pornified dudes fantasies on display for the world to read.  

“To sum up, the faux “dominance” of consensual sadomasochism is outright pathetic. “

  Because we need the real life version because that somehow is ‘better’ for all involved. 

So. Much. Misogyny. 

This is not to say that BDSM and fetishes are generally sick, “degenerate”, sinful, wrong and yada yada yada. Men should be aware, though, that women want to reduce men to the status of dogs; dogs that look dark and dangerous and threatening when they bark, and are yet on the leash of the female, who only has to snap her fingers once to make him roleplay as a “master” in the bedroom, and then snap her fingers twice in order to transform him back into her little beta boi. Men deserve better than that.

Taking a position must be a hard thing to do in the manosphere, because the level of contradiction is off the scale. 

    You tepid underwear stain of a human being; men are not oppressed in society.  Understand that men design, maintain, and propagate this system we live in for their benefit, why would they want to maintain the status-quo if it wasn’t good for them. 

   Your connection with reality is tenuous at best.  Please stop writing and wasting precious electrons your self-abrogating tortured prose.  The delusional MRA funhouse framework you exist in is an affront to rationality and clear thinking.  In short, you are making the world a worse place to be in and you don’t even realize it. 

   And that friends is the truly scary part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,610 other followers

Progressive Bloggers

Categories

October 2022
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Myrela

Art, health, civilizations, photography, nature, books, recipes, etc.

Women Are Human

Independent source for the top stories in worldwide gender identity news

Widdershins Worlds

LESBIAN SF & FANTASY WRITER, & ADVENTURER

aunt polly's rants

A fine WordPress.com site

silverapplequeen

herstory. poetry. recipes. rants.

Paul S. Graham

Communications, politics, peace and justice

Debbie Hayton

Transgender Teacher and Journalist

shakemyheadhollow

Conceptual spaces: politics, philosophy, art, literature, religion, cultural history

Our Better Natures

Loving, Growing, Being

Lyra

A topnotch WordPress.com site

I Won't Take It

Life After an Emotionally Abusive Relationship

VictimFocus Blog

Exploring best practice and research in sexual violence. A loud voice in the fight against victim blaming. Written and Managed by Psychologist and Best Selling Author Dr Jessica Taylor

Unpolished XX

No product, no face paint. I am enough.

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle

femlab

the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

REAL for women

Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Teach The Change

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby

SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL

A blog in support of Helen Steel

thenationalsentinel.wordpress.com/

Where media credibility has been reborn.

BigBooButch

Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian

RadFemSpiraling

Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy

Emma

Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Easilyriled's Blog

cranky. joyful. radical. funny. feminist.

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress

HANDS ACROSS THE AISLE

Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution

fmnst

Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.

%d bloggers like this: