You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘‘Self-ID’’ tag.

Bill C-16 has to be repealed and then we can start repairing the damage done to female trust in our government and institutions.

Not to many things are as completely patriarchal as a man being given social permission to put his gender feelings ahead of the safeguarding of women and children and be *lauded* for it.

In no sane world is this acceptable.

The New York Post reports:

“A Canadian medical researcher who rose to become the nation’s top voice on indigenous health has been ousted from her government job and her university professorship — after suspicious colleagues investigated her increasingly fanciful claims of Native American heritage and learned she was a fraud.”

“Far from being a member of the Métis nation, as she had long claimed, a laborious trace of Bourassa’s family tree revealed that her supposedly indigenous ancestors were in fact immigrant farmers who hailed from Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

Wheeler, a documented member of Manitoba’s Fisher River Cree Nation, started digging into Bourassa’s genealogical records — and took her findings to the media.

But when pressed to provide evidence of Native American heritage, Bourassa suddenly changed her story — saying that she had been adopted into the Métis community by an unnamed Métis friend of her deceased grandfather, Clifford Laroque.

“Even though Clifford passed, those bonds are even deeper than death because the family has taken me as if I was their blood family,” she insisted in a statement. “In turn, I serve the Métis community to the best of my ability.”

Wow. Can you see the appalling bigotry going on here?  The racialphobia present is literally off the charts.  Even the CBC is publishing horribly hateful bigoted articles just look:

Wheeler said the fact that the letter advocates sidelining genealogical proof is alarming at a time when Indigenous people are fighting for their rights and their land.

That’s opening the doors to every Tom, Dick and Harry to claim Indigeneity,” she said. “Then suddenly out of the woodwork, everybody’s Indigenous because they feel like it.”


University of Saskatchewan associate professor of Indigenous studies Winona Wheeler says Bourassa’s story is built on a fundamental falsehood. (Chanss Lagaden/CBC)


According to an email from the University of Saskatchewan, if Indigenous identity or experience is required for a role, the university “accepts self-declaration in matters of employment.”

Wheeler said that’s not enough.

“When I apply for an academic job, I have to give them a copy of my certificate for my PhD,” she said. “But if I’m applying for a position that’s targeted only for Indigenous people, I’m not required to provide anything except self-identification. Now that’s lowering standards.”

Smylie said she decided to speak up, despite the risks to her career, because the consequences of continued silence are grave.

“If I was to stay quiet and let somebody who’s an impostor regularly inform the nation and lead the nation like in Indigenous health, then I guess then I wouldn’t [have] earned the right to call myself Métis anymore,” she said. “And that will be the end of our people.”

The discrimination and hatred that transracial individuals receive in Canada is real, and their very existence is being questioned.  When will this rampant transracialphobia and marginalization stop?

Is there a better example of how utterly inconsistent and deranged transgender ideology is?  Why in the case as ‘someone who identifies as Indigenous’ is lambasted in the press and yet, somehow a man can identify as a woman and all is well in the world (it really isn’t).

Like, come on CBC, either self identification all the time or none of the time – it can’t just be for men who think they are women.  You should be championing Bourassa’s case not denigrating her and questioning her ‘validity’.  So what if the established facts of the matter point to the exact opposite of her identity claims?  How can we not endorse Bourassa while tirelessly advocating for men to freely claim womanhood because they self-identify as such?

What is the metric you are using to promote one aspect of self-id,  but not the other?

Asking for the female population of Canada that is being erased in Canadian society through the wildly inappropriate application of gender identity laws.


Male violence (and the threat of male violence) still shapes women’s lives here in 21st century.  We have not advanced past the stage of needing female only spaces and strong rules regarding the safeguarding of women and children from predatory men.  The transgender idea of self – identification inserts a gigantic loophole into conventional safeguarding techniques thus rending safeguarding untenable and unsafe for women. Human beings cannot change sex and we should not as a society entertain legislation and legal fictions that promote this dangerous idea.



“I learned that predators don’t have ‘PREDATOR’ tattooed on their foreheads. They tend, at least to begin with, to resemble your next door neighbour or friendly uncle. They don’t announce themselves as perverted.They seem friendly, helpful and ever so keen to please, the kind of people who go out of their way to befriend, perhaps proffer little gifts, some pocket money, tell a few jokes, until there’s an uneasy reliance upon them, by which time it’s too late to back out because the hooks are in so far that they can’t be released without more damage, destruction, public shame and deep personal regret. Those men supplant themselves into the empty spaces previously occupied by ex partners or fathers or brothers, bringing salvation, which soon turns to coercion and pain, gaslighting and deflection. Some such men are upright citizens, not just famous disc jockeys and musicians, but teachers, foster carers, priests, Scout leaders, lawyers, judges, doctors, each and every walk of life in fact has predators with disordered minds. They encourage the keeping of secrets, for that secrecy, darkness and shade are essential to achieving their ends. They are not to be questioned in their motives, required to justify or explain what they do.

Some men frighten women; some men bully women; some men kill women; some men belittle and humiliate women and some men harm little girls. Some men get to little girls via their vulnerable mothers; some men get kicks prowling where they can and ambush women or their daughters. That is why women and girls have single-sex spaces, for safety, respect and dignity.

Men who batter or molest or terrorise their stepdaughters into silence don’t grass themselves off – they refer to the falls, the accidents, the self-inflicted injuries occurring strangely in odd circumstances as they babysat. And, offended, do the ‘who, me?’routine, indignant.

Women who are vulnerable and see their children abused by new partners don’t always manage to recognise or speak of what is right under their noses, they’re weakened, isolated, and scared – for some in such circumstances, escape, refuge or justice are for the birds – and were they to pluck up the courage to seek such aid, what they need are soothing understanding female voices who know the terror which comes from having the lighter, weaker, more vulnerable body, unable to fend off attack. Women fleeing violence, abuse, domestic terror inflicted upon them by men don’t deserve to be greeted at the door of a refuge by an intact male telling them to leave their ‘trans bigotry’ outside on the doorstep.

And women who have been brutalised might try to find a quiet cool breathing space in a public toilet in a supermarket where they can take a deep breath and stare into space for a few precious moments whilst fearing what lies ahead, moments to check a noticeboard for a helpline or just to sit in peace away from a boorish leering unwelcome advance.

Mothers in emergency treatment rooms getting shards of glass tweezered from the backs of their heads, or their cheeks, or having their lips or eyebrows decorated with butterfly strips don’t want those administrations provided by fat male fingers – those resemble the hard hands which punched and slapped hell into them.

Grannies in their twilight, scared and alone in hospital wards with varicose veins, hip replacements or hysterectomies don’t desire to wobble onto a bedpan in a nightgown in full view of a male bodied patient.

Teenage girls shouldn’t hide at home for embarrassment of having to use school toilets as boys listen to them rustling next door – we’re sending money to charities building toilets in Africa, for girls, so that girls can get educated, yet here in Scotland we are tearing those girls’ toilets down. Feminist to our fingertips we Scots are. Indeed, but perhaps only upon the international stage, not at the domestic hearth.

We know that the majority of female prisoners in Scotland are not locked up because of their violence, most having suffered trauma in childhood, usually at the hands of abusive men – yet these days women are required to share with transwomen – intact male bodies – with scant if any risk assessment and no regard to the views of the women – retraumatisation comprising cruel and degrading treatment – condoned by a female First Minister in a country whose justice system was once allegedly the envy of the civilised world.

So today in 2021 I am no longer a safeguarder – I left that job a few years ago. In the meantime though, there has been a new training regime instigated when safeguarders learn how to interview children and have to compete the ‘Enhanced Disclosure’ check – you fill in a form which I learned last week no longer asks for the applicant’s sex, but for the applicant’s gender – I don’t know why that is but I do know this – one day in Scotland we will see, as self-identification erodes the safe spaces and safe places women and girls need, that predators will access those places and lives of women and girls will be harmed and their safety jeopardised. Dignity, respect, choice, sex, not gender -‘these will all be tossed into the abyss by the SNP/Green government as they take ‘a leap of faith’ , in the name of progress. Back to the future and the loss of the gains our great grannies won 100 years ago. It is to Scotland’s shame, and my conscience won’t allow it. Will yours?”


Precisely. The nebulous concoction of self id and ‘gender-identity’ are virtually orthogonal to the real world situations women face. No one can ‘identify into’ or ‘out of’ the structural sex based oppression that exists within our societies.


The conceptual distinction between male and female based on reproductive organization provides the only coherent way to classify the two sexes. Apart from that, all we have are stereotypes.

This shouldn’t be controversial. Sex is understood this way across sexually reproducing species. No one finds it particularly difficult—let alone controversial—to identify male and female members of the bovine species or the canine species. Farmers and breeders rely on this easy distinction for their livelihoods. It’s only recently, and only with respect to the human species, that the very concept of sex has become controversial.”

The only reason it is ‘controversial’ is the face that reality is colliding with male gender feelings, and thus said males are trying to change reality – distorting it through their own gendered lens.

“Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level. In other words, our physical organization for one of two functions in reproduction shapes us organically, from the beginning of life, at every level of our being.

Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex. They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other.

“Scientifically speaking, transgender men are not biological men and transgender women are not biological women. The claims to the contrary are not supported by a scintilla of scientific evidence,” explains Dr. Mayer.

Or, as Princeton philosopher Robert P. George put it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”

It is remarkable the gender madness has gotten this far.

  Found on Fair Play for Women, and wow if you ever needed a helpful guide to navigate the arguments that crop up with transactivists and their regressive buddies, this is it.



So, in light of this, I have a few very obvious and easy-to-explain questions that left-wing progressives need to ask themselves, on both a personal and political level. After all, one is not a socialist without class analysis and women are historically and currently the largest and most comprehensively oppressed class on the planet. Underneath each one, I’ll examine the potential answers.


1) Currently, you are holding these two beliefs in your mind at the same time: a) Anyone who self-defines as a woman IS a woman, and b) women are oppressed. Can you explain how women are oppressed?

Possible Answer a) “Women are oppressed because of their biology”.

But you just said that anyone who defines themselves as a woman is a woman. That removes biology from the equation. The women who you are calling transphobic bigots also believe that women are oppressed because of their biology, and that’s why they believe that self-definition is offensive and dangerous. The Equality Act also believes this and thinks it is so important that it is enshrined in law. This has got nothing to do with hating trans people or wanting to hold them back, it is purely about not wanting subjective feelings and beliefs taking precedence over scientific facts, ie not denying that woman is a biological fact.

Possible Answer b) women are oppressed because they are women.

Um, that’s not an actual answer. A 4-year-old child couldn’t get away with answering “a square is a square” if a teacher asked them what a square is. The only possible meaning that the statement “women are oppressed because they are women” can have is that the natural state of a woman is to be oppressed. To say this is to naturalise the notion that women exist to be oppressed, that it is our innate reason to be, and that to be a woman – to identify as a woman – is to accept this. Which leads us to…


2) If women are oppressed and woman is something you self-define as, doesn’t that mean that to self-define means to accept oppression?

Possible Answer: Um, no, because…

Exactly. There is no way around this glaringly obvious point. If women are oppressed and being a woman is a matter of self-identification, then this can only mean that women CHOOSE to be oppressed. Just like the misogynist term ‘cis’, meaning you agree with what gender says about you, self-identifying as a woman can only be a declaration that women accept oppression, accept being supposedly inferior, accept their lesser lot in life. And if we are led to believe that this is true, that this can only mean some very seriously offensive and dangerous things for women: a) if women don’t want to suffer oppression, do they have to self-identify as men? Even if this happened, it would still lead to a huge underclass of women who society and possibly even law deemed it right and natural to oppress – how it that progressive, and for whom is it progressive? and b) if women choose oppression, then there is no need to do anything about oppression. Oppressing women is the right thing to do – in fact, do they not actually need more oppression to support their self-identification?!


3) If one self-defines as a woman because you ‘feel’ like a woman, what does that actually mean if biology doesn’t  make you female?

Possible Answer: You feel like a female because you feel female.

Again, that’s circular thinking which isn’t any sort of answer. Women don’t feel female, they are female. If you don’t have female biology, then there is nothing for a person to base their ‘feelings’ of womanhood on except for gender stereotypes. Gender is a social construct designed to enforce and naturalise the idea that there is an innate human hierarchy with superior males at the top and inferior females at the bottom. To be a feminist is to reject gender stereotypes. To want even basic rights and equality is to reject them. To express any opinion is to reject them. To be involved in politics is to reject them.

To say that feeling female because of stereotypes is a legitimate truth, meanwhile, is to utterly uphold and legitimise them. There are no ifs or buts about this. Gender can’t be offensive, untrue and damaging when it comes to the gender pay gap, expecting all women to have children and denying them abortions, to #metoo and so much more, but empowering, true and progressive when it comes to biological males saying they are female because they feel more closely aligned to feminine stereotypes than masculine ones. It is disingenuous, not to mention pointless, of feminists and socialists to fight and condemn gender stereotypes UNLESS transwomen say they give them their gender identity and then they mystifyingly become not just accepting of those stereotypes but applaud them. Is this massive cognitive dissonance in not seeing the glaringly obvious dichotomy here? A deliberate, cynical political choice to jump on a trendy bandwagon? Or is that people aren’t genuine feminists and socialists and don’t really care about women?


4) What does self-definition actually mean?

Possible answer: self-definition means defining who you are, obviously.

Well, no, it’s not that obvious, actually. When you ARE something, you don’t need to define yourself as it. No-one self-defines as a human. No-one self-defines as alive. People with adequate vision don’t self-define as sighted. The very act of self-definition means to present yourself as something you are not. It is, bluntly put, to tell a lie and ask others to agree to pretend it is true. Believing that self-defining as a woman makes one a woman is magical thinking, it involves the suspension of logic, fact and critical reasoning, it is prioritising the subjectivity of the individual over objectivity – what happened to “religion is the opiate of the masses”, Comrades?! Or the masses themselves mattering more than the beliefs and feelings of the individual, for that matter? That is simply not Socialism in any recognisable form.

And if a biological male can self-identify as a woman, that leads to the next two obvious questions…


If you can self-identify as a woman, can you self-identify as anything? Black? Disabled? A different class? A different age? A different species, even?

Possible Answer: Of course not! Don’t be facetious and offensive!

Why is that facetious and offensive? Why is it perfectly acceptable to self-identify as a woman but not anything else? Why is that somehow more truthful – and more importantly, why is that not offensive when the others are? In Canada, where self-identification is a legal right, there are white men identifying as women of colour, and middle-aged men identifying as sexualised little girls (google ‘Stephonknee’ if you have a strong stomach). These men have positions of power and even inform the Canadian government on gender issues. Gender Dysphoria is not the only mental illness where people believe they are trapped in a wrong sort of body. It is in the same category of illness as Anorexia Nervosa and Body Dysmorphic Disorder – as well as transracialism, transablism, transspeciesism, etc. All of these are very real things that people suffer from, and there is zero real medical evidence to prove there is any factual, scientific truth to any of them. In fact, the more scientists understand about the human genome and neuroscience, the more we know that everyone is immutably sexed down to the cellular level, and that there is no such thing as brain sex in terms of anything other than being comprised of XX or XY cells, all disproving the idea that people ‘can’ somehow have a body that is ‘wrong’, or a different sexed brain to their body. Why must we agree that a male can self-ID as female but must not agree to tell a 5 stone anorexic that she is fat?

The answer is, of course, patriarchy. In our society, what men say *must* be true; truer still, that angry men must be appeased. Misogyny is so normalised, institutionalised and prevalent in every aspect of life that it is invisible so much of the time. We are all brainwashed from birth by the social construct of gender – the very thing that self-definition seeks to enshrine as truth over science – to see men as the default, the real human beings. Everything designated masculine is superior and right. Everything designated feminine is inferior and stupid. Women are seen, and treated, as existing to serve men, in every way possible, to be defined by men; their desires, their domestic needs, their necessary shitwork. Shitwork such as the myriad unpaid, thankless tasks undertaken by women that keep the Labour Party running, for example. Reducing women to a mere definition buys 100% into this highly offensive, wrong, misogynist, patriarchal thinking and acting: men are real, women aren’t. Women are whatever men say they are. The only way to believe that one can be a woman if you self-define as one is to think that a) women aren’t real in the way men are and b) that to be a woman is so demeaning, horrible and inferior that no-one would say they were one unless it was true. Both wholly misogynist beliefs.

The bottom line is that it is as offensive and unacceptable for a male to self-identify as a woman as it is for a white person to self-identify as black and an able-bodied person to self-identify as disabled. To make self-definition the actual definition of a woman is the active choice to deny the history and reasons for the oppression of women and the physical reality of being a woman.


6) What about self-identifying as men? Where is this in the debate? Why is the focus – yet again – only on transwomen?

Possible Answer: Because this is about women.

That’s not what I was asking. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Why is all the political (and socio-cultural) focus on transwomen? Why the push to get more transwomen into politics but not transmen? When the media talks about transwomen, it is nearly always about a transwoman achieving something in politics, business and sport – and usually in positions supposedly designated women-only under the Equalities Act – whereas if transmen are even remembered at all, it is for being pregnant/having a baby. How curious that people talk about those born biologically male for their agency and achievements just like other biological males, and those born biologically female for their reproductive capacities just like other biological females…

The fact is, the focus on transwomen in a patriarchal society actually proves that people don’t genuinely see them as female, however much they say they do. The lack of interest in promoting transmen in a patriarchal society proves that no-one sees them as male or is particularly interested in appearing to do so – because if people truly believed transwomen were women and transmen were men, all the focus would be on transmen.

I would love to know if all the left-wing men supporting self-identification as women would also support self-identification as men. Would they give up places and spaces and right for them and agree that vaginas are as male as penises are? Somehow, I don’t think so. The fact that women are conversely expected to do all that and more for transwomen proves just how far we have to go in terms of any real equality.


7) If biology cannot be used to define women (and remember that trans activists insist that it mustn’t be, they refuse to accept even the idea that ‘woman’ can be both a self-definition AND biological, which they say is transphobic), then what is left to describe what a woman is?

Possible Answer: Whatever a woman says makes her a woman.

Really? I mean, apart from that being absolutely nonsensical, the implications of that are as horrific as they are irresponsible. There is nothing left to define women but gender stereotypes – the very things that exist to oppress us and which we have been fighting for so long. Every right we have fought for and won can be reversed if we change the meaning of woman from biological to gender stereotypes – and, indeed, if we must now accept that gender stereotypes hold any truth about what makes one a woman, then we should reverse all women’s rights in both personal and public life. As I said earlier, gender stereotyping cannot be simultaneously untrue and true when it suits you. If gender stereotypes are a truth that makes a biological male female, then they are truths that make biological females female too, obviously. If gender stereotypes are a truth that defines us even more than biology, then women must stop having jobs, money, the right to vote, the right to be out in public unaccompanied, the right to have any decision about their own reproduction or children, the rights to say no to any sexual activity and so much more. This is not hyperbole, this is what gender says is right and proper. This is the purpose gender was created for and this is how and why gender has allowed men to oppress women because of their biology for millennia. Gender is upheld not to empower males who prefer to wear dresses to trousers, but to keep women as the subhuman chattels of men. This is what feminists and all true progressives have been fighting for a long time: gender is a lie. It is the enemy. Not the women who correctly call it out for what it is, acting as modern-day Cassandras trying to get people to see that any collusion with the idea that gender contains truth is active participation in misogyny and patriarchy.


8) Why are so many women (and men) so worried about the implications of self-identification?

Possible Answer: Because they’re all conservative, narrow-minded, regressive right-wingers who are probably Christian fundamentalists to boot?

Thing is though, they’re not. I mean, even if you just look at comments on Twitter, you can see that nearly all the women expressing concern are Labour Party party members or at at least voters. Many others vote Liberal or Green, or are Marxists, Communists or Anarchists. Most are atheists or have no religious affiliation. These are the women who have fought for all the rights women currently have, or adhere to the type of feminism (Second Wave/Radical Feminism) that the women who fought for them did so because of that feminism. Equal Pay, domestic violence shelters, rape support, making rape illegal within marriage… the list goes on and on. These are the women who were at Greenham Common and the daughters of those women. These are the lesbians who were supporting gay men dying of AIDS in the 80s when everyone else shunned them, even medical staff. These are the women whose campaigning brought about the protections women so desperately need under the Equality Act. These are the women who made all-women shortlists a thing. These are the women who have been involved in just about every left-wing, progressive cause, march, campaign, etc., you can think of and more besides. These are women who have not just fought for their own rights, but the rights of everyone else. So you have to ask yourself why these huge numbers of women from every possible background, left-wing women who support all the causes you do, who’ve done more campaigning than most people reading this, so many of them lesbians with decades of LGBT campaigning under their belt, women who all understand oppression inside out because it is the ticktock reality of their daily lives, are suddenly horribly bigoted on this one issue. Are suddenly the supposed oppressors with privilege and entitlement over people born and raised male. It just doesn’t make sense, does it?

This is because they AREN’T horribly bigoted. There should be no clash between women’s rights and trans rights, but it is trans activism making this so, not feminism. This is not about inclusion, it is about colonisation, and we are merely exercising our rights to boundaries. The women concerned by the issue of self-identification don’t want trans people to not have any political representation, voice or rights, or want them to face oppression. You need to ask yourself why you are so quick to call women wanting to stand up for the meaning of women bigots and why you presume that women wanting to retain rights and the meaning of their own being means they want to or could somehow harm any other group. No other marginalised group has ever demanded that the meaning of a far greater marginalised group be utterly changed and made a nonsense of to protect their rights, except recent Trans ideology. That needs examining.

As for regressive, the only regressive belief in this whole scenario is the belief that gender represents any kind of truth, especially about women, or that people can be ‘born in the wrong body’ or have a sexed brain that doesn’t correspond with their body. That is all anti-science, anti-logic, irrational and prioritising the individual, all of which goes against the class analysis central to socialist belief. These are women offended and worried by the growing pressure to make gender the overriding definition of what is a woman rather than the truth of biological fact. To not be worried about that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas! Denying science is regressive. Believing stereotypes are true is regressive. Believing ‘woman’ is merely a label or a choice while men are real is regressive. And all of those things are what socialists call out right-wingers for every single day… except for this one issue.

A final note: It has to be understood that denying, removing and attempting to make illegal/forbidden the ability or right to describe one’s own oppression is not only oppression in itself but totalitarianism. And telling women that being female is anything other than our biological truth is that very denial and removal. Leaving us with only stereotypes that posit us as subhumans to describe ourselves is barbaric.

Now tell me again how progressive you are.

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 2,996 other subscribers

Progressive Bloggers


June 2023


Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Connect ALL the Dots

Solve ALL the Problems


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

Women Are Human

Independent source for the top stories in worldwide gender identity news

Widdershins Worlds


aunt polly's rants

A fine site


herstory. poetry. recipes. rants.

Paul S. Graham

Communications, politics, peace and justice

Debbie Hayton

Transgender Teacher and Journalist


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

Our Better Natures

Loving, Growing, Being


A topnotch site

I Won't Take It

Life After an Emotionally Abusive Relationship

Unpolished XX

No product, no face paint. I am enough.

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle


the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

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


A blog in support of Helen Steel

Where media credibility has been reborn.


Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian


Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy


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


Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution


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.


short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

%d bloggers like this: