You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Women are Adult Human Females’ tag.
Having established norms and boundaries in society is a good thing. Is the balance between personal freedom and what is good for society perfect?
Of course not.
But the current system which is always under small scale revision, is a reasonable way forward. The basis of this incremental move toward a more just society is the ability of society’s inhabitants to participate freely in the decision making processes. Individual freedom and the individual freedom of expression are two of the main cogs in the machinery of successful society.
The freedom we experience in Western societies such as Canada is not absolute. We have reasonable limits and laws curtailing what citizens can and cannot do within Canadian society. These laws and limits change with society over time and if we proceed carefully we can usually arrive at compromise that ensures our rights and responsibilities remain in a reasonable place for most people.
So, what happens when we forgo discussion and debate about how rights and responsibilities work in society? In the case of Canada we get legislation like Bill C-16 which creates opacity and confusion for many Canadians.
Bill C-16 adds the nebulous idea of ‘gender identity’ to the protected list of rights and freedoms in our Canadian Charter of Rights. Unfortunately, gender identity is quite similar to astrology in terms of having little to no basis in material reality or being able to be empirically measured. Gender identity is completely – utterly – subjective and because of its subjective nature presents many quandaries with regards to the other protected characteristics within the Charter.
Sex is another characteristic that people may not be discriminated against in our Charter – and herein lies the problem – to protect both ‘gender identity’ (astrology) and ‘sex’ (empirical, material reality) is fundamentally untenable. Either women are adult human females, a discrete sex class or they are not. There is not a viable middle position to take.
Our current government seems to have forgotten about Canadian females and the protections granted to them under our Charter of Rights. This is perhaps best illustrated by the inclusion of males who claim to be women (via ‘gender identity’) being housed in female prisons. If we are to stick to reality based discussion – no man can ever become a woman -our distinct physiology is encoded into every cell in our bodies. Yet, because the government is currently prioritizing the gender feelings of males over the physical safety of women in female prisons we have quite a serious rights violation with regards to females in Canada.
This situation will not be easily resolved, but a first step would be the repeal of C-16 as the addition of gender identity into the charter is making society a much less safe place for Canadian females.
A Countess staff volunteer attended the meeting and peacefully held up a sign with the message “Woman= Adult Human Female” on one side, and “Biology is not Bigotry” on the reverse.
This lone woman was then surrounded by males chanting, “transwomen are women”. Some demanded she take down her “transphobic” sign.
One of the stewards then approached her, not to come to her assistance as might be expected, but to accuse her of “causing a disturbance”. She was then asked to leave by the steward, but refused and stood her ground.
Members of the NWCI stood idly by as this woman was “left behind” and was eventually forced, through intimidation, to leave the rally.
Official feminist organisations in receipt of state funding, have failed in their duty to protect women’s rights and to inform women of the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act, which was enacted through stealth in 2015.
The NWCI has welcomed a trans identified male onto its board, replacing a woman, and did nothing when the HSE removed the word woman from cervical screening information and replaced it with “people with a cervix”, or when trans identified males were placed in Limerick women’s prison.
Two months after our launch, in November 2020 the NWCI signed a letter from the Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI), calling for “the removal of legitimate political representation” from Irish gender critical groups, whom the letter branded as “right wing hate groups”. We responded with an online campaign called #WeWillBeHeard which went viral on social media and trended globally. Undeterred, we have continued to advocate for women and girls.
On a day when the NWCI were celebrating “no woman left behind,” a woman attempting to have her voice heard, was silenced and ostracised.
Here is her tense and beautifully written account of events at the rally as they unfolded on that day.
Saturday. I had my sign ready in an IKEA bag. It was sitting by the front door since the night before. I tripped over it and thought ‘that’s a sign’ no pun intended. I had it printed the day before. I told the printer if he felt uncomfortable printing it, I wouldn’t hold it against him for refusing the job. He said he’d do it for €50 cash. The sign was a black and white, double sided, A2 corriboard poster that read Woman = Adult Human Female on one side and Biology is Not Bigotry on the other. Today I was going to town to attend the NWCI rally to Leave No Woman Behind.
I travelled to town on the train alone. I walked towards the march assembly point and put on my face mask, sunglasses and pulled down my peaked cap. This is what women who state that sex is real do now. They disguise themselves so they can’t be identified, not because we are acting in bad faith but because we don’t want to lose our jobs.
I got to the march. There weren’t as many people there as I expected, and I thought I had gotten the time wrong and maybe it was due to start later. I walked through the crowd and looked at the signs people had. I was looking for a safe place to stand. I walked to Dawson Street and turned around. I was going to go home. I couldn’t do this on my own. I walked into a café to get a coffee and then heard the first speaker. I wasn’t early. It was starting. I left the café and walked back towards the rally. I saw a journalist I recognised standing on the steps of a building near the stage. I decided that if I stood near her, I would be safe. I still believe in the power of the press to protect freedom of expression.
I looked into my bag. I felt like I did once before I jumped off a jetty into the Irish sea on Christmas Day, terrified but determined. I took the sign out and held it above my head. Then nothing happened. I just stood. One minute, two minutes, nothing. I thought ‘I’m going to be ok’. I don’t know if this is imagined or real, but I thought I saw Orla O’Connor and Mary Lou McDonald do a double take when they saw the sign. I had turned the Woman = Adult Human Female side of it towards the stage.
I noticed a woman walking towards me. She glanced up at the poster and I saw some expression cross her face. I couldn’t read it. As she passed, she said ‘nice sign’ or something to that effect. Her friend who was close behind her passed me a flyer. I glanced at it quickly and saw the hashtag #AllWomenLeftBehind. I shoved it into my pocket.
Within a few minutes these women were back. We talked very briefly. They said they wanted to stand with me and did I need them to do anything. I said I needed to get into the middle of the crowd so as many people could see the sign as possible. If they stood with me, I would go. I put the sign back in my bag and walked along the footpath looking for a place to stand and then I saw it, a hand painted portrait of Countess Markievicz. I am not religious. I don’t read horoscopes or believe in angels. But I do believe in bravery. I would stand next to the Countess. I turned to the stage and took out the sign. I planted my feet and raised it over my head. Woman = Adult Human Female/Biology is Not Bigotry. The women, my new companions, true their word, quite literally, had my back. We waited one minute, two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, then it happened. The violent hiss in my ear.
‘You should be ashamed of yourself, that sign has no place here. Take it down’. The person saying these words was a beautiful, young girl. Probably 20 years old. I felt very sad in that moment. One of my bodyguards said ‘What’s wrong with the sign? It’s the dictionary definition of the word woman’. What followed probably lasted no more than five minutes. It felt like a long time and no time at all. We were berated, shouted at, called terfs, transphobes, bigots. The usual litany of insults that has taken the place of reasoned debate. I was surrounded by mostly young men who stood in front of and behind me blocking my sign with their own. When I moved left or right, they moved too. It was a grotesque waltz. Then something remarkable happened. The NWCI chief steward arrived and said I was causing a disturbance. She wanted to talk to me at the edge of the crowd. I politely told her no. I was going nowhere. I was not the cause of the disturbance I was just holding a sign above my head that declared the dictionary definition of a woman. I felt a little sorry for her. She seemed genuinely unsure what to do with a woman who said no. She left and a Traveller woman standing next to me asked me why I had to take down my sign. I told her they objected to the message. She looked it and said, ‘but that’s right’. We didn’t last much longer. The group around us started to chant ‘Transwomen are Women’, ‘Trans Rights Are Human Rights’. They drowned out the sound of the woman who was speaking on stage.
I didn’t want to go. I felt an infinitesimal prick of humiliation. They were running me off, a woman, at a women’s rally, holding up a sign bearing the dictionary definition of the word woman. But I had done what I came to do.
The women who protected me said they would wait for me around the corner on Kildare Street. As I walked out of the crowd a young man stuck his long lens camera in my face and took many photos. I gave him a starlet wiggle of my fingers and kept walking. I was followed to the exit by a different NWCI steward. I turned to her and waved. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was smiling under the mask.
I turned the corner and saw my brave accomplices. They had multiplied to four. We were there independently. We had never met prior to that day. They were very concerned for my welfare. But I was fine. Strangely calm. We talked briefly and I was anxious to leave to get home. I will be forever grateful to those four women. You know who you are. Thank you.
The face of the beautiful young woman who started the abuse keeps coming back to me. Her image is contorted with a near religious zeal. I wonder if she understands that Irish women were told for decades that they had to be ashamed. Ashamed of having babies that were the product of sexual desire or the product of rape. Ashamed of their bodies and any inclination to put themselves and their needs before the needs of others. Shame. Shame. What is shameful is that Irish women were never consulted when the legal definition of woman was expanded to allow men to declare themselves to be women. Irish women should not be ashamed or afraid to say what we are – Adult Human Females.
Harbour no illusions – trans ideology is violent male ideology.
It is profoundly misogynistic, profoundly anti-democratic, and has no place in a society that values free speech, multiculturalism, and diversity of opinion.
Watch as so called ‘trans-rights defenders’ verbally and physically attack men, women and children. What is their crime?
They believe that men should not be exposing themselves to in a female change room. Female rights, boundaries, and safety must be defended against transactivism and the queer gender ideology behind it, which is essentially patriarchy 2.0.
I need to really hear from the ‘progressives’ that support this sort of thing and their justification for the violence against women and men who dare hold opposing views.
What precipitated this attack on innocent individuals? Why of course one of the most dastardly forces in the world. A woman said “NO” to man. A man who was naked in a female space, but inside his head, his special gender feelings ‘made’ him a woman (see misogynistic gender magic et al).
No folks, woman are adult human females and most definitively not feelings inside a man’s head.
So, the SoCal antifa branch is essentially a Men’s Rights Violent Action squad. As this ‘peaceful’ counter demonstration was planned well before the actual violent event.
These totalitarian assholes somehow believe their cause is just and their methods are noble. See their nobility in action at 6:34 as they swarm and batter a lone woman for the crime of not believing in their fucking gender magic.
More people need to see the violent face of trans activism. This movement is in no way ‘progressive’ nor is it anywhere near the ‘right side of history’. Women are waking up to this blatant attack on their rights and boundaries in society, the progress although encouraging, is incremental.
The time was last week (year) to start speaking out against gender ideology and trans activism as this is where this ‘progressive’ movement is taking us – a path filled with violence against women and those who, in a free society, have the temerity to hold a different opinion.
Did you need a starting point in Canada? Look up We the Females, Cawsbar, The Feminist Current and The Canadian Gender Report.
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.
The profession can change, the venue can change, but the gender-woo methodology remains the same. Personally attack the person who dares to speak about biological reality, libel and defame their character while poisoning the well as to prevent discussion of an import issue facing women.
The bullshit doesn’t change. It is especially disheartening to see professionals whose business is to be thoughtful and charitable completely abandon those principles in order to defend normative patriarchal values.
“A debate has arisen among philosophers concerning a couple of papers published recently in the prestigious journal Philosophical Studies. The first paper, “Are women adult human females?” by Alex Byrne (January, 2020) attempts to refute what Byrne identifies as “the orthodox view among philosophers,” that “the category woman is a social category, like the categories, wife, firefighter, and shoplifter,” rather than “a biological category, like the categories vertebrate, mammal, or adult human female.” Byrne argues woman is a biological category, that to be a woman is to be an adult adult human female. The second paper, “Escaping the Natural Attitude About Gender,” by Robin Dembroff (forthcoming, but available already online), attempts to discredit Byrne’s argument.
The controversy surrounding the two articles does not concern the arguments themselves but the fact that Dembroff’s article includes an ad hominem against Byrne in which Dembroff effectively accuses Byrne of bigotry against transsexuals despite the fact that there is nothing in Byrne’s paper to support such a charge. The editor of the journal, Stewart Cohen, resigned in protest because he wanted to publish an apology for printing an article that included defamatory rhetoric, rhetoric which should never have made it past the journal’s referees, but the publisher of the journal, Springer, refused to allow him to do that.
Philosophers are not generally known for being warm and fuzzy. But Dembroff’s paper represents a new low in levels of civility. Usually, philosophers aim their barbs at an opponent’s cognitive abilities. Even then they aspire to some subtlety. They’ll intimate that an opponent is feebleminded, but they rarely say so directly. It’s not simply that it’s rude. It’s unprofessional. It’s rare, for the same reason, for a philosopher to directly accuse another of being a “shoddy scholar.” It’s rarer still, again, for the same reason, for a philosopher to accuse another of being immoral. Yet Robin Dembroff has advanced both charges against Byrne.
The debate amongst philosophers surrounding what Byrne has dubbed GenderGate, focuses on a brief passage at the end of Dembroff’s article. The line is:
Byrne’s paper fundamentally is an unscholarly attempt to vindicate a political slogan [“women are adult human females”] that is currently being used to undermine civic rights and respect for trans persons. And it is here that I return to Byrne’s advice to question the motivations behind this debate.”If someone is personally heavily invested in the truth of [some proposition] p,” Byrne writes, “it is prudent to treat [their] claim that p is true with some initial caution.” I agree. So we may ask: What are the motivations of someone who would so confidently insert themself into this high-stakes discourse while so ill-informed?
That is, Dembroff is insinuating here that Byrne has an anti-trans agenda that he is trying to advance in an scholarly paper published in an academic journal even though, again, there is nothing in Byrne’s paper to support such a charge.”
The Gender-woo really needs to stop. :/
Catch the rest of the essay on Counterpunch.
Hey folks, the woke internet is doing it’s best to deplatform and silence critical analysis and criticism of gender ideology. Here’s the thing, if your ideology wasn’t shit to start with, it could withstand critique and still be coherent. It isn’t, thus the censorship.
The following article was removed from publication on Medium. We present it unedited for readers to make up their own minds.
There’s a lot of chat around about pronouns right now. Specifically, ‘preferred’ pronouns. By which is usually meant, the pronouns a person would prefer other people to use when they are the subject being discussed by those people.
‘This is how I want you to talk about me’.
Almost without exception, the people who request, or demand, others talk about them using specific pronouns, are asking for pronouns associated with the opposite sex to their own.
A simple politeness. A courtesy.
I’ve heard many people tell me they don’t mind doing this, as a courtesy, although it takes some effort to keep up the mental gymnastics of perceiving one sex, but consistently using pronouns for the other. That’s a personal choice, and I respect the reasons why some people make it.
I’ve also heard many people declaring that anyone who won’t comply (usually directed at a woman) is obnoxious, mean, hostile, and unpleasant. ‘Misgendering’ is hate speech. They say.
But I refuse to use female pronouns for anyone male.
Because pronouns are like Rohypnol.
One of the biggest obstacles to halting the stampede over women’s rights is pronoun and preferred name ‘courtesy’. People severely underestimate the psychological impact to themselves, and to others, of compliance.
Pronouns are like Rohypnol to your brain’s defences.
You doubt this absurd claim I just made, obviously. You have the fortitude of mind to be uninfluenced by such trivia, and I have got this wrong. I understand. Bear with.
And try this quick experiment.
The cost of USING preferred pronouns yourself:
Have you heard of the STROOP TEST?
It’s a well known “name that colour” psychological phenomenon. A quick and simple experiment where you have to say the colour of the words written in front of you. Simple as that. Except the speed and accuracy of your answers is heavily impacted by any incongruence between the colour you see, and the actual word itself.
Try it HERE, if you like fun interactive tests. It takes less than a minute to complete. Compare the difference in your times between part one and part two of the experiment.
You’ll find you have to consciously fight the conflict of input to your brain each and every time. And it leaves you confused, distracted, slower, frustrated and fatigued.
Forcing our brains to ignore the evidence of our eyes, to ignore a conflict between what we see and know to be true, and what we are expected to say, affects us.
USING preferred pronouns does the same. It alters your attention, your speed of processing, your automaticity. You may find it makes you anxious. You pay less heed to what you want to say, and more to what is expected of you. It slows you down, confuses you, makes you less reactive.
That’s not a good thing.
The cost of HEARING or READING preferred pronouns from others:
Experiment 2.
For a week, re-translate all the transgender articles and comments you find, back to sex-based pronouns, nouns and original names. Rewrite them back to the blunt truth and then read them again. Doing this exercise solely in your mind will do just fine, but editing on a screen is better.
Convert female pronouns back to male; use surnames instead of first names, and convert terms like transwoman back to just ‘man’.
Better yet, if you know the original name of the subject, use it, be it David, or Rhys, or Ashton, or Jonathan.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, yes? It shouldn’t matter. No-one else will be hurt or affected by this private experiment. It’s entirely between you, and your own resilient mind.
(Try not to get banned from anywhere during this experiment)
Read your translated version again.
If those small acts of preferred pronoun compliance are truly meaningless concessions, (although, see above banning potential for contradictory evidence of import) given as a courtesy to others at no cost to you or to other women, then this private exercise will change nothing, cost nothing, affect no-one. You’ll walk away thinking, yep, as I thought, fuss about nothing.
After all, nothing *should* change, should it, simply with the alteration of pronouns and names? You already know the actual sex of the subject you’re reading about. Pronouns, male or female, add no incremental information. How can they in any way alter your perception, or influence you when you already know all the facts? They’re an irrelevance, the easiest concession to make. Not worth consideration, inconsequential. Right?
Cognitively, you should be immune to the effects of such linguistic cross-dressing. Pronouns are irrelevant, so you concede them easily, because they have no power to influence you, since you already see clearly. Yes?
[And you can confess here, it’s OK. You may already think that the minority of women who refuse to comply with pronouns are just awkward buggers, who can’t think strategically, don’t know when to let it go, probably are extremists. Do themselves no favours, damage their own ‘cause’, even. Unreasonable.]
But try the experiment. Translate pronouns and references back to male. Insert ‘dead-names’ or use surnames. (No-one will know but you) Read it a second time. And be honest with yourself.
Do you feel differently, on reading it this way?
Do you react differently?
How’s your anxiety?
Are you angrier?
Do you feel more scared?
Is your sense of injustice alerted?
What level have your natural defences armed to?
You may discover that, despite yourself, you have a viscerally different reaction to what is before your eyes.
Same story, same players, same core knowledge.
Different pronouns, different reaction.
Pronouns are like Rohypnol.
They dull your defences. They change your inhibitions. They’re meant to. You’ve had a lifetime’s experience learning to be alert to ‘him’ and relax to ‘her’. For good reason. This instinctive response keeps you safe. It’s not even a conscious thing. It’s like your hairs standing on end. Your subconscious brain is helping you not get eaten by the sabre tooth tiger that your eyes haven’t noticed yet.
Incongruent pronouns also make your brain work much harder; not just when you are using them, but when you are receiving them as information. You are working constantly to keep that story straight in your head. Male or female? Which one, again? Concentrate harder. Ignore your instincts, ignore your reaction.
And that’s just you. You’re already aware of all the pertinent information, already alert, you know the score, no flies on you.
And you’re still affected emotionally and instinctively by incongruent pronouns, nouns, and names. Despite your efforts to be immune. You’re not immune to this effect. You can know perfectly the actual sex of a male person, and yet you will still react differently if someone calls them she instead of he.
So what then, is the impact on everyone who isn’t even aware yet, hasn’t fully comprehended yet what’s going on?
Pronouns are Rohypnol. They change our perception, lower our defences, make us react differently, alter the reality in front of us.
They’re meant to.
They numb us.
They confuse us.
They remove our instinctive safety responses.
They work.
If you do this experiment you may still decide to accept or use female pronouns for male people, perhaps a little wiser, but cognisant of their influence on you and others. That’s a choice you may make. At least now you understand that you may be voluntarily suppressing your own natural response. Your eyes are more open.
Maybe you’ll continue to mentally translate ‘preferred’ pronouns and names in your head back to reality, every time, as I do. We give ourselves the best chance to understand the reality of the situation before us. It becomes easier with practice. I want my instincts as intact as possible.
Maybe you shrug. You can live with this little phenomenon. Or it didn’t work for you, you don’t see it.
But please. Don’t judge so harshly those of us who refuse to submit, refuse to comply with preferred pronouns. There are good reasons why we might be doing that, for our own sakes, and for the sakes of others.
Pronouns are Rohypnol.
I want to be alert. I want others to be alert. I want people to see the real picture, and I want those instinctive reactions that we feel when something is wrong, to be un-blunted, un-dulled by this cheap but effective psychological trick. I feel like I owe this to myself, and I absolutely owe it to other women.
And more than anything, I owe this to girls. I don’t want to play even the tiniest part in grooming them to disregard their natural protective instincts. Those instincts are there for a reason. To keep them safe. They need those instincts intact, and sharp.
And that’s why I won’t use preferred pronouns.
Using Rohypnol on others isn’t a courtesy.
The article here.
We do not yet know what the root causes of gender dysphoria are. But, if having an evidently male or female body causes you extreme discomfort and distress in social situations, then that is good grounds in itself for society to deal with you compassionately and to make accommodation where it can. We must seek to create a compassionate society that welcomes and supports those suffering from the crippling dysphoria that leads them to seek surgery and manipulate their hormones. It is essential that transgender people are able to survive, thrive and function freely in society without fear of discrimination. It is on that footing that we must approach transgender issues.
But tolerance and understanding of the trans experience will fail if they are based on bad and disingenuous interpretations of science. Trans people are perfectly capable of recognising the reality of biological sex, while having difficulty accepting it on a personal basis. Sound arguments for acceptance can be made without twisting and distorting our understanding of the whole of humanity and indeed the natural world – and there are signs of a trans backlash against the excesses and illogic of the genderists.2
While acknowledging the material reality that there are only two sexes, we must reject the traditional sexist view that self-expression, mannerisms, talents, ambitions and roles in life – other than reproduction itself – must be limited by, or linked to, our biological sex. The fact that much of the left unquestioningly accepts and regurgitates an ideology in which the subjective feelings of the individual trump objectively observable conditions is a sign that we have abandoned the physical, material reality on which our politics is based, and replaced it with a subjective individualism that is alien to any class-based analysis.
Sex is still one of the major axes of oppression globally: female foetuses are selectively aborted because of it, women are enslaved and trafficked into prostitution because of it, girls’ genitals are mutilated and sewn together because of it, girls in poverty are denied education because of it. The Chibok schoolgirls were not asked how they identified before being abducted and raped. Without acknowledging the reality of sex, it is impossible to even name sexism, never mind understand or defeat it.
The left must stop pretending that sex neither exists nor matters. The biological woman is not a myth – she is real, she is here – and she is angry.
The funny thing is how crazy funhouse mirror-y this ‘debate’ is. Women have observable, material scientific fact on their side and only now are starting to be hear in the gender debate. Speaks volumes as to how deeply ingrained patriarchy is in our societies and how little attention we pay to the evinced needs of women and how much more attention we will pay to the gender-feels of men.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…