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

I’d just like to take a small bite of one of the problems that occurs when having discussions with people who believe in the current gender fad.  Let’s start with the biggest fish on the plate – what is the definition of being ‘Transgendred’.  This from Wikipedia:

“Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.[1][2][3] Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.[4][5]Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are non-binary or genderqueer, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender).[2][6][7] Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or else conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.[8][9] The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers.[10]

I stopped because I have no idea what a ‘gender identity’ is.  So let’s define that.

“Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with a person’s assigned sex at birth or can differ from it.[2]Gender expression typically reflects a person’s gender identity, but this is not always the case.[3][4] While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity. “All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of a person’s self-identity in relation to other members of society.[6] In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females,[7] a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.[8] Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender assigned to their biological sex;[9] some of those people are transgender, non-binary, or genderqueer. Some societies have third gender categories.”

The first (of many) problems with these definitions is that they do not correspond to the reality we inhabit:

  Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth”

This most basic premise is wrong.  Sex is not “assigned” at birth.  Sex observed at birth as obstetricians in the vast majority of cases can easily categorize members of the male sex class and members of the female sex class.  It is worthwhile at this juncture to note that human beings cannot change the sex that they were born with, simply stated:

Biological sex is immutable.

So we have to note that right from the start, one of the foundational premises of trans-ideology is fundamentally flawed.  Any argument based on the premise that sex is assigned at birth will necessarily be false.  But, of course, there is just more than one flawed premise in the mix.

  in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are non-binary or genderqueer, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender)

It’s here that swirling morass of haphazard generalizations and faulty reasoning kick in.  Gender identity is the ‘personal sense of one’s own gender’.  What the hell does that actually mean?  What is it like to experience the personal sense of one’s gender?

To be perfectly honest – I have no idea what it is like to experience my own gender.  I know what it is like to be me, and my personality, but I have no intuitive sense of what my supposed gender identity is.  Try it for yourself describe your ‘gender identity’ to yourself.  Try it with this added challenge – describe your gender identity without using sex stereotypes.  Here is a handy list you should avoid.

I’ll wait.

 

It would seem like the personal sense of one’s gender identity rests on the adoption of a particular set of negative sex stereotypes about the class of people you happen to be born into.  That is what gender is; an arbitrary  societally prescribed set of behaviours/expectations that are imposed on females and males in society.  These social norms exist in society and are in no way present in human beings prior to social exposure.  How do we know this?  For instance we know that social gender norms change over time – the girl pink/boy blue situation was reversed or not present prior to the 1950’s.  Thus, gender is something that is outside of us and we are exposed to it once we start interacting with society.

So how does one ‘identify’ with being female or male then, without resorting to the (mostly) negative sex stereotypes (a.k.a gender) that society imposes on people?  Said another way, what does ‘feeling like’ a man or women feel like?

Sounds like nebulous bullshit to me.

While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity. “All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of a person’s self-identity in relation to other members of society.

We need to approach the idea of ‘identity’ with a great deal of caution because ‘identity’ is inherently subjective and thus unreliable as an indicator of correspondence to reality.

In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females,[7] a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.[8] Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender assigned to their biological sex;

This sentence conflates the personalities we all have with gender identity and gender stereotypes.  You as an individual in society are not a gatekeeper for the gendered expectations that are rightly or wrongly, imposed on you.  Most certainly you can defy them, a man wearing pink for instance or a woman being aggressive, but your personal identification is irrelevant to societal expectations.  Nor does adopting the stereotypes of the other class of people make you a member of that class of people.  A man wearing a dress is still a man.

Should it be okay if a man wants to wear a dress?  Absolutely.  It should be encouraged as gender non compliant behaviour illustrates the coercive and arbitrary nature of the system we know as ‘gender’.

What wearing a dress for a man does not do is make him a woman.

This is tip of the iceberg level of what is going on in the faux-progressive areas of society.  Feelings and the subjectivity inherent within them are being lauded over the empirical reality we all share.  The implications for females in our society are quite foreboding, but that is another post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mask has been at least partially ripped off in the UK.  The use of puberty blockers on children has been stopped and now requires the court approval to prescribe the experimental drugs (with no evidential link to their benefit) to children.

 

 

“Now, it may be that there is a genuine unmet medical need among adolescent girls of which clinicians had previously been unaware. It may also be that gender dysphoria and autism are co-morbidities that require an integrated approach to treatment. The problem, however, is no-one has done any research, so whether or not either is the case is simply unknown. It is entirely plausible for Tavistock to return in future litigation with a much stronger argument. For that to happen, however, research simply has to be done. You and I may be able to fly by the seat of our pants, but courts cannot and doctors should not.

Relatedly, the administration of puberty blockers progressed with a grim inevitability to the use of cross-sex-hormones; they did not provide “space to think” but rather seemed designed to ensure that future surgical interventions were more effective. Evidence from the Netherlands indicated, of the adolescents who started puberty suppression, only 1.9% did not proceed to cross-sex-hormones. Tavistock offered no alternative treatment paths, an aspect of the modern (and similarly unevidenced) fashion for “affirmative” treatment of gender dysphoria.

It’s worth making an aside here and noting the general problem of poor record-keeping and cavalier attitudes to evidence and data across a number of British institutions. Over and over again the EHRC, in its report on Labour anti-Semitism, observed a failure to complete the most basic administrative tasks. The same issue emerged in the Home Office during the Windrush scandal, and — as I wrote last year — in the Government’s frankly contemptuous behaviour before the Supreme Court in last year’s prorogation case.

A number of commentators noted that charities Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene, and said this looked unfair. They made these observations without realising interveners are there to assist the court, and must provide evidence that is different from that already tendered. If all they do is repeat what Tavistock has already said, they serve no purpose apart from wasting court time, and court time is expensive.

What Mermaids and Stonewall wished to enter into evidence were accounts of positive experiences from young trans people treated with puberty blockers. However, Tavistock had already provided these; they are quoted at length in the judgment. Much of the would-be interveners’ argument was based on the idea that “the voice of the child” must be heard, repeatedly if necessary.

Bell’s lived experience was a tiny part of her case — and, indeed, by choosing judicial review rather than medical negligence, she made her personal circumstances (and those of other people) even less salient. A tort claim would have put her on the witness stand and investigated her treatment pathway because “pain and suffering” (one of the traditional heads of damage) is assessed subjectively when calculating potential damages in such a case.

It has become fashionable, of late, to valorise ‘lived experience’ from people keen to parade both their victimhood and their virtue. Unfortunately, lived experience by itself is not evidence in a court of law. Nor is the argument made by Mermaids that “every young person has the right to make their own decisions about their body” – something more is needed.

It is the role of medicine to heal the sick and leave the well alone, which is only possible via careful recourse to the scientific method and disinterested research. If this does not happen, it then becomes the law’s duty to ensure each and every litigant gets his or her due.”

This gender bullshit has to stop.  The sooner the better.  I only hope that Canada wakes the heck up and looks to the court precedent set in the UK before passing any more disastrous legislation (bill C-6).

Women are a distinct exclusive category of human beings. Simply they are adult human females. This is the sort of shit that results when males think that through magical gender thinking they can be women too.

They are not.

The misogyny always comes through.

A handy reference guide to the inanity is arguing with those who espouse an inherently contradictory ideology. Thank you Womenarehuman.com.

A conversation on the one of the more malignant aspects of the current social zeitgeist.

I’m fairly new on Twitter but have already had the displeasure of witnessing the fury of faux-progressive backlash against feminism and feminists attempting to speak their mind in public places… in Canada.  Canada??  The easy going, live and let live notions we like to believe in the more sensible regions of Canada seem to dissipate in our larger cities.  Queer rights activists and trans activists have mounted a vigorous assault not on the arguments of gender critical feminists, but rather their character, the venues that host said feminists, and a rather hyperbolic set of straw assertions/mantras that serve as conversational dead ends/thought terminating cliches.

This is not the left that I grew up with, nor do I intend to ever associate with.  These individuals seem to believe that their individualistic solutions to systemic social problems will somehow win the day.  Not gonna happen.

The comparison between the regressive left and religious is worthy of examination.  James Bloodworth makes the comparison in his essay on Unherd.

“But politics as religion invariably comes with a cost. There is, naturally, a constant hunt for heretics. Public denunciations followed by ‘cancellations’ are de rigueur. Rigid adherence to doctrine is celebrated, while those who err are pompously told that they are on the “wrong side of history”. Political spats focus on the moral character of a person rather than the content of their arguments. Public arguments in which, as Swift phrases it, “identity leftists spend a great deal of time expending venom… at fellow leftists with whom they have some minor disagreements” are ubiquitous on Twitter and other social media.

All of this takes the Left further into the echo chamber, away from the people it is supposed to represent. Attitudes which are held by the vast majority of Britons — that there should be some upper limit on immigration, that sex differences exist, that gender isn’t entirely a social construct — are enough to get a person ‘cancelled’ by today’s hobbyist Left. Moreover, the slippery equation of words — or even thoughts — with violence creates a censorious climate where activists feel justified in hounding people from public life completely.”

See the transactivists haranguing women and trying to disrupt two public (in Toronto and Vancouver respectively) gatherings that featured Meghan Murphy and other feminist speakers was solid proof for me of the parallel.

 

   Let’s take a peek at what goes on in conversations where transactivists are talking about feminist ideology.  This is a comment that has quoted another, and thus the OP are in italics.

Watch how quickly it goes to into la-la land.

I. On Circularity and Bigotry

Andreas Avester says

“I have actually said that ‘man = adult male human’ and ‘woman = adult female human’ are the current meanings as determined by common use.”

That’s a circular definition. Words “adult” and “human” might have clearer definitions, but how the hell do you define “male” or “female.” For example, I’d say that a trans woman is female.

“But the alternative is to use ‘woman’ to mean ‘person who matches / willingly embraces female cultural expectations’ or perhaps ‘person who considers themselves to be a woman’. The former I reject on the grounds that it necessarily requires and maintains cultural expectations placed on the sexes, the latter on the grounds that it is self referential and thus meaningless.”

When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.” Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman. If instead you chose a list of other criteria, your definition would end up being bigoted and discriminatory. You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”

Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”

When we classify the human species, we do so along the lines of physical sex.  Someone has a the big gametes and someone has the small gametes.  This delineation exists independently of what any human thinks about it.  It also happens to be one of the major axis of oppression in the world, because if you happen to be the XX, or the large gamete bearer, you are given the short end of the stick.  This is because most societies in the human sphere are patriarchies and spend a good deal of social capital in controlling female bodies and female reproduction for the benefit of the male class.  This social discrimination is based on your immutable physical sex.  No amount of attempting to ‘identify” out of your sex class will work.

Let’s look at the first paragraph.  A bad start already.

Man = Adult human male

Woman = Adult human female

These definitions are concise with no circularity at all.  Circularity comes into play with transactivist definitions of the word ‘woman’, as their standard reply goes something like this:

A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.  (But what is a woman? – note the circularity)

I’ll need to quote specifics here:

“When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.”

Really? Is it bigoted to call people with brown hair a member of the class of people who are brunettes? Is the term ‘blonde’ bigoted for describing people with lighter yellowish hair?

It would seem that Andreas is fucking allergic to material facts.  Please also consider the notion that facts do not care about your feelings Andreas, especially ones that give rise to the fatuous reasoning on display here.

“Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman.”

Categories exist. Human sexual dimorphism exist.  You can’t handwave this away because of your personal feelings on the subject, furthermore after you misidentify an actual definition of what a woman is, you make a shitty analogy and end with a circular argument.  Jesus.

“You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”

Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”

Ahhh…yes, yes you can.  Adult human female works great.  Also, newsflash, categories are not fucking inclusive.  Otherwise they would not be categories.   Calling a box of apples and oranges -“apples”- is nonsensical.  But here, here is the power we give to males and the male power of naming in society, because of male gender feels we are at the stage now where we have rules in place to call a box of oranges and apples ‘apples’ because the oranges *REEEEALY FEEL* like they are apples.

Delusional fucking insanity.

 


II. On Gender, Sex, and Material Facts.

“TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.” I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be. If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination. Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”

The amount of wrong packed into these paragraphs requires them to be picked apart and responded to piecemeal, but its good(?) to see the entire thought first.

“”TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.”

Radical feminists do oppose gender stereotypes, they are norms and expectations that are corrosive to the females and males that have to live with them in society.  Furthermore, gender is a system that works to disadvantage females in the social sphere and lessen their contributions to society solely because they are female.

Oh another bullshit genderist term you are going to run into quite frequently is AFAB or AMAB which stand for “A Female Assigned At Birth” and “A Male Assigned At Birth”.  This is linguistic fuckery because the sex of a newborn child is observed at birth, nothing more.  Genderists/Transactivists like to play these word games in attempt to cast doubt on material reality and to bolster their unsupportable arguments.

The line that radical feminists draw is one based on biological material fact, you are born in the vast majority of cases either unambiguously male or female.  Humans cannot change their sex, and this is the line -based on fact- that is drawn.

“I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be.”

But you are a woman. Your female sex was observed at birth.  Renounce all you’d like, but that doesn’t change your sex.  It can’t happen.  This is the crux of the matter right here, Andreas prefers male pronouns, and considers themselves a guy.  And you know what?  That’s fine.  However, expecting others to play along with your delusion is not fine, especially to the level of reordering the laws of society (as what has happened in Canada) around your personal subjective gender feelings.  To this, you can fuck right off, deviating away from running society based on the world of fact and into personal gender subjectivity is not good for society as a whole.

So Holms is not insulting and abusing you, he is just not going to participate in the fantasy you have woven for yourself.

The last sentence is particularly telling as it is an admonishment to let people indulge in the toxic gender stereotypes to whatever degree they wish.  You do you, be the best stereotypical male you can be.  What you do not get to do is silence radical feminist critique of gender and the harmful patriarchally approved stereotypes it proscribes for men and women, especially the criticism that transgender ideology reinforces patriarchal stereotypes.

“If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination”

No.  Most radical feminist would suggest that being gender non conforming would be the state of affairs that would be most preferable.  Gender and its prescriptions are all bad, just being you is much better, regardless of your sex.  This is another part of the tangled web of transideology, it so very individualistic, to such an extent that most of its adherents are blind to how group dynamics work in society and, more specifically the ineffectuality of individual solutions to fix societal problem.  So yeah, radical feminists would categorize you as a female and therefore to be included in the feminist movement.

Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”

Feminists do oppose gender discrimination.  How does playing along with your personal gender-feels = discrimination.  The rest of the world is under no obligation to join you in your Topsy-turvey view of how gender works.


 III. On Narcissism

 

Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.” Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. TERFs consider trans men to be women. They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.

“If you meet someone, a cursory glance is almost always accurate — a surmise on incomplete data is not a bad start. In those instances where the person says otherwise, I’m not particularly wedded to the idea of calling someone what I believe them to be over their protest, even if I privately think of them as man/woman.”

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way. Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity. Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”

“Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.”

Facts still don’t care about your feelings.

“Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. “

So, naming biological reality is ‘abuse and discrimination’.  Also, ironic as in the very next sentence a prescriptive sentiment on how one is supposed to be a feminist.  This is self serving narcissism at its very core.  My identity and beliefs are sacrosanct and you all out there had better comply.

Fuck. That. Noise.

“They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.”

1.  We will continue to call ‘trans-men’ women, because it is reality.

2. We shall continue to fight for female liberation from the patriarchal strictures of society, so sorry you’ve gone full handmaiden for the gender-gods, but so be it.

3.  Which rights specifically are you talking about?  The ‘right’ to control how others perceive you? The ‘right’ to demand others fall in line with your subjective gender-identity?  No, thank you, not today my gender totalitarian friend, women shall not take the knee to gender-feels, not today.

“Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way.”

Totalitarian thought control is never a good look.

“Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity.”

We’d have to take a look at the qualities that make up an asshole and see if Holms fit in.  You know, checking out the facts and evidence to draw a conclusion… kinda like biological sex informs the role we are forced into in society.  How Holms identifies is irrelevant to what Holms actually is, because Holms’s subjective feelings on the matter may be unreliable.

To summarize, in gender-feelz land if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then obviously its a (identifies as an) ostrich.

“Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”

Yep.  Pretty much.  Because society is about interactions between people and outside of repressive forces, these interactions are a two way affair.  Get used to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 2,068 other followers

Progressive Bloggers

Categories

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

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

Whirlwind of Scrap Paper - A Blog

Wittering about books and current affairs. Posting Wednesday and Friday.

shakemyheadhollow

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

Our Better Natures

Loving, Growing, Being

Thesseli

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.

Radfem Resources | Radical Feminist Literature

A virtual library for those interested in radical feminist literature and resources.

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.

violetwisp

short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism

%d bloggers like this: